Detention Roulette
There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need to extend the maximum period of detention without charge to 90, no, 28, no, 56, no, 47 days, 4 hours, 18 minutes and 29.5 seconds.
No, let’s try that again.
There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need to extend the maximum period of detention. I hope MPs don’t rue the day they refuse to acknowledge the vital and compelling evidence of the need extend the maximum period of detention without charge to 90, no, 28…
Drat.
One more try.
There is clearly vital and compelling evidence of the need for Gordon Brown to be seen to be doing something.
And we’re off.
According to the Guardian:
There is evidence that Gordon Brown has not yet formed any strong personal opinion and he is said to remain “genuinely open-minded” on his preferred option.
Much as I’d like to be optimistic, this is probably a reference to Brown being genuinely open-minded on the length of the extension needed, not on whether one is needed at all.*
But it’s no wonder he hasn’t made up his mind yet; there are serious issues to be considered here. Would an extra 14 days be enough to convey the sense of a competent, trusted statesman dealing responsibly with a complicated issue? Would going for an extra 28 days so soon after the last doubling add a suggestion of gravitas and decisiveness or would it look Blairish and hysterical?
It’s not an easy call.
To pass the time while Gordon decides what’s needed, feel free to submit your guesses below. There won’t be any prizes if you get it right, I’m afraid, but on the plus side, participation is unlikely to lead to entrants being imprisoned without charge for up to three, no, one, no, two months.
Every cloud and all that.
* I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong.
sam_m said,
November 12, 2007 @ 8:35 am
The older members of the present Govt. began their political careers protesting the S.African Govt’s repression of its citizens. Now they seem hell bent on reproducing it. I don’t know it they think they are learning from history or repeating it.
But then, I knew Albie Sachs when he was able bodied.
Jherad said,
November 12, 2007 @ 10:30 am
How about ‘until found guilty’.
Rachel said,
November 12, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
If you want me to say anything about this when I am giving evidence on this very subject at the Home Affairs Select Committee then please shout me ( email or comments) and I will do my best to put people’s views across.
Tom Freeman said,
November 13, 2007 @ 11:55 am
On the basis that a week is a long time in politics, I’ll guess that an extra 7 days will be deemed sufficiently tough-yet-liberal-yet-courageous-yet-humane-yet-necessary-yet-sellable.
Garry said,
November 13, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
I’m going to plump for 14.
sam, fascinating guy to have known, I’d imagine.
Jherad, in an ideal world, certainly. There are situations where it can’t be the case.
Thank you Rachel.
I would have emailed you but I couldn’t think of anything constructive I could add to the position you’ve already expressed.
Hope it went well today.
Leighton Cooke said,
November 14, 2007 @ 11:21 am
I’m for a one off 666 myself. It’s a popular number and is easy to remember.
Jherad said,
November 15, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
I hope my sarcasm tags weren’t broken in my above comment
Ever since Tony Blair’s ‘hound them out of the country’ moment a while ago, I’ve had the impression that Nu Labour simply believe that suspects are just terrorists who haven’t been found guilty yet. Longer detention means longer for them to find something, anything, which will put them away (I have a copy of Milestones at home, that’d do). It’d also mean that the release of some innocent suspects would be timed further from any big ‘terrorist plot uncovered!’ headline, and thus more politically convenient / easily buried.
Garry said,
November 15, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Jherad, indeed. It’s almost become one word- terroristsuspects. Whether innocent or not, a person’s life will never be the same once they’ve been branded a terroristsuspect.
(I forgot to say thanks for chipping in on the other thread the other day so I’ll do it now. Thank you.)
Jherad said,
November 16, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Pleasure. Thanks for raising the issue
opit said,
November 18, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
The meme ‘terrorism’ - an emotion ! - is used to ‘justify’ repressive measures in several countries. This cannot be simple coincidence.
“Conspiracy Theorist’ is the instant response.
To which I think : “If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck - this does not persuade me that it’s a fish !”