Brown makes the case for 42 days

Mark

It is a shame that Mr Forsyth is agnostic on this. This is all about posturing and positioning. We are now supposed to admire Mr Brown's determination and decisiveness. Sorry, but I'm not impressed. More generally, the Spectator - and particularly its editor - get the civil liberties/terrorist threat balance wrong. I just hope that enough Labour backbenchers stay true to their principles.

Ray

Given the quixotic nature of this Government and its mania for tackling with every issue by central diktat, who can say that '42-days' won't go the way of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) and end up being used by local authorities to hound people who overfill their wheelie-bins?

David C

Is Brown actually offering the PLP a mechanism to get rid of him?
"I know the British people want the police to have these powers blah blah.."
Is he doing a 'back me or sack me' as per John Major?
The form is slightly different but the end result would be the same.

Ray's point is right (although I prefer the term 'Fascist' rather than the benign 'Quixotic'), we'll see this power spreading to other areas of crime, most likely financial to begin with.

Max

What is the point of 42 days when we appear to be prepared to allow known terrorists to remain in this country for their entire lives rather than deport them because of the Human Rights Act?

I am deeply uncomfortable about 42 days. As with so many other laws which have been passed since 1997 we should stop tinkering and concentrate on making what we already have work properly.

I have added 42 days to Labour's list of failures at The Error Log. Please drop by and suggest others.

Max
http://theerrorlog.blogspot.com

Dennis

James

If you want a cure for your agnosticism on 42 days, check out the criteria the CPS/DPP use for making a decision whether or not to charge in a terrorist case.

There are two criteria:

1. That there's enough evidence already to have at least a 50-50 chance of a conviction.

OR

2. That, though there isn't yet enough evidence for a 50% chance of conviction, there are reasonable grounds for suspicion of guilt AND a likelihood that further evidence iwll be found in a reasonable period of time. (A 'reasonable period of time' here is relative to the complexity of the investigation).

So the 42 days is clearly just political posturing.

The correct thing to do is to charge the suspect under criterion number 2. The suspect can then be remanded in custody for a year or more before trial.

There is no excuse for holding someone without charge.

The Laughing Cavalier

Once a Stalinist always a Stalinist.

Ethan Hurlington

Still one thing I have not heard an answer to, from either Brown, Smith or McNulty - Why 42 days? How did they come up with that figure, did they just pluck it out of thin air, in an effort to look tough? The main issue here is the number of days detention without charge, and to say 42 is needed, 'because it's the right thing to do' is a weak, arrogant and pointless 'argument'. Once more, this government tells us they know best, but have nothing to back up why...