So the Government now believes in holding suspects for 42 days. Not 56, not 90, but 42. It's like a lottery. I cannot imagine a single MP who opposed 56 days agreeing with 42. This has to be a matter of principle, and not something where people can be bought off by a 14 day reduction. Let us remember that no other country in the world has a higher limit than 28 days.
No one has actually made the case for more than 28 days apart from a succession of Labour Home Secretaries. Former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith says he would have resigned over it. The CPS say it's not needed. The Police say it's not needed. The Security Services say it's not needed. I think I'd rather trust their views that that of a Home Secretary whose qualification for the job seems to have been that shw would pose no threat to the Prime Minister. Well at least that's one thing he got right.
Why did he bring it up again after the chaos it caused Blair last time round??
ReplyDeleteThe only justification for it is surely to play games with the Tories ("soft on terror") and to look strong for the Daily Mail.
As John Redwood points out, if Parliament needs to approve extensions beyond 30 days, why not wait until there is actually a need for it rather than pre-emptively legislating.
The answer is simple: each time Parliament approves a new power for the government it becomes harder to hold the government to account.
Labour MPs must stick to their principles and vote against this measure.
Where is the "bonus number" of days in case the Home Office can only match some of the numbers they have selected?
ReplyDeleteLabour MPs must stick to their principles
ReplyDeleteOn the showing of the last ten years principles are the one thing they lack.
Has this changed the news agenda from Labour's criminal activities in raising funds ?
ReplyDeleteYes it has - hence we know why they are suggesting it. The use government as a tool to keep themselves in office.
Labour are beneath contempt.
42? It's the answer to life, the universe and everything, so why not?
ReplyDelete"28, 42, 56, 58, 90"
ReplyDeleteThat's Numberwang!!
Man In A Shed.It's also designed to overshadow the Council settlement which will be announced later today and is expected to be very poor.
ReplyDeleteJust the six fucking weeks in chokey without being told why. Aren't our leaders so, so generous.
ReplyDeleteHow can we hold our heads up in the community of nations and expect high standards of others when we descend ever deeper into an illiberal mire.
Bastards.
I heard the Lib Dem chair if the independent committee on this - Lord Lester? - on Radio Five Live making the case for this!! A few weeks ago. At the time his biggest problem with the government approach was that they couldn't decide between 58, 56 and 60.
ReplyDeleteI'm agin it at 28 days actually. Give us the intercept and the post charge interview and see how we go on. Though I'm also agin non like-for-like comparisons with countries that have other ways and means to lock people up ... and use them. Emergency powers etc.
Off his shed man: My goodness you'd be saying they were frozen in their tracks if they did not continue to govern while party matters go through formal processes and trial by media.
ReplyDeleteThe next breaking story has to be Ashcroft finally coming clean on his status and his plans and how he justifies his participation and his big P under false pretences.
The only justification for it is surely to play games with the Tories ("soft on terror") and to look strong for the Daily Mail.
ReplyDeleteI think there is something far more sinister behind this obsession of theirs. The question is, what can they do with 2-3 months that they can't with 1? Or is just chipping away? The rogue Met chief has already called for indefinite detention without charge. Do you think perhaps that's the aim? I keep wondering what's happening at those disused army camps The Sun was banging on about last year.
There's more to it than just posturing though.
Once we've got our country back, we need to get it back down to 48 hours. English legal system and all that...
I would just like to ask, Iain, do we really have the longest pre-trial period? The suspects in the recent murder case involving British student Meredith Kercher in Italy may be held up to a year without charge. Is there a difference between the situations I am missing?
ReplyDeleteI don't particularly support an extension, I think post charge questioning in cases of conspiracy to commit terror or organised crime would be a much more useful measure.
Is there a market for spread bets on the number of days as of a given date?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the obsession with increasing the maximum days of detention when the current limit has, on their own say so, been perfectly adequate.
ReplyDeleteJust what are they anticipating, rounding up critical bloggers six weeks before the next election ?
Sehr geErhter Iain
ReplyDeleteThis Government (may these Right Honorable Men and Ladies rule for ever) are so intellektuel
We should marvel at their Wisdom over Northern Rock [by the £billion], sensitive Revenue Data [by the million], facilitating Postal-Voting Frauds for a Banana Republik, Jobs in the Cabinet Office for an Errant Lad who must not financially suffer from Chaos in his Department etc. etc
These detention numbers seem (apparently) random & meaningless
However, could there be (albeit cunningly disguised) an Occult Order, discernible to those superior Gentlemen and (in these enLightened times) Ladies
Could these Detention Numbers be calculated by amending Fibonacci's sequence :
2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 ...
Es macht man denken, nee
Das ist es, doch
Yr obedient servant etc
G E
Just how thick is this Smith woman? Where's her justification apart from all this ongoing flannel about 'the police and security forces tell us they need this'? So bleeding what? I'm damn certain that if we gave these bone idle incompetent people half a chance they'd bang us all up on the basis that we 'might' commit crimes at some stage in the future.
ReplyDeleteShe should put up or shut up. In the meantime, as Home Secretary, what's her view about admitted illegal donations? Does she want to bang these criminals up?
"She should put up or shut up. In the meantime, as Home Secretary, what's her view about admitted illegal donations? Does she want to bang these criminals up?"
ReplyDeleteAnd she chickened out of Channel 4 News last night 'cos she didn't want to answer questions about Andy Hayman. Useless bint, fatter than Harperson.