Dirty tricks in the detention cell

Monday, 26th November 2007

The campaign against extending the 28-day pre-charge detention limit for terrorism suspects has now entered the territory of black propaganda. The Sunday Times carries a piece about Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, the head of anti-terrorism in the Metropolitan Police. This tells us that:

With Scotland Yard already in turmoil, Andy Hayman, the Metropolitan police anti-terrorism chief, has been questioned over thousands of pounds spent on hotel expenses and drinks for his staff. The inquiry will put renewed pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the Met commissioner, after he survived a no-confidence vote last week over the killing of an innocent Brazilian in a bungled anti-terror operation.

So this obviously carefully planted demolition job on Hayman is a story that will add to the pressure on Sir Ian Blair, is it? I don’t think that's quite the point here. For Hayman is the officer who reportedly wrote the original paper arguing for an extension of the then 14-day pre-charge detention limit for a period of up to three months. The impressive arguments in that paper are very hard to refute. So what a remarkable stroke of luck for opponents of this proposal that the officer whose reputation has now been so badly undermined by accusations of financial impropriety just happens to be the author of that report!

A positively Koestlerian coincidence!

Previous Back to Melanie Phillips Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

field

November 26th, 2007 2:16am

Melanie - Very impressive arguments? Any such arguments are completely utilitarian (aka amoral). Any thing you can argue for 90 days you can argue for 95 days - or do you deny that!!! And so the moral outrage you set on those who don't want to move to 90 days you should set on yourself - because there could be a terrorist outrage involving the deaths of tens of thousands and all because you made the limit 90 days and not 95. But I go further. There are many cases where it will take at least two years to fully break an Al Queda cell. Are you arguing that we should not have two years' detention without charge in a windowless cell - that you would risk the terrorist outrage occurring between 90 days and 730 days? The Al Queda recruiting stall is being set up - hurry, hurry while stocks last!!! Before we move on from 90 days detention without trial to 365 days....

Lee Jakeman

November 26th, 2007 3:01am

I bet the "impropriety" turns out to be peanuts compared to MP's "expense" claims.

Dee Ranged

November 26th, 2007 11:56am

The detention of up to twelve months for a suspected Spanish criminal clearly demonstrates that Spanish democracy and freedom is not undermined. So why quibble about 90 days?

Kevyn Bodman

November 26th, 2007 12:09pm

Really Melanie, you're being a bit naive here, aren't you? Of course it's a planted story but stories are planted in the press and on to TV every day.Our broadsheet Sunday papers would look very different without them. And we are always able to find out what the PM is 'expected' to say in advance of the delivery of any speech. This kind of manipulation of the news agenda is regrettable, but impossible to eliminate. Melanie, you work in journalism so you know that. Turning to the 28 day limit I think you are simply wrong to want to see it extended. The freedom of 'terrorist' suspects is my freedom and your freedom too. I simply do not believe that any law written for 'terrorist' suspects will be limited in its application to only 'terrorist' suspects. Sooner or later it'll spread. And there is no safe limit. Why 90 days? Why not 95? field's comment above is correct. 100% security; we can't have it. But we can maintain the freedom of innocent people not to be detained without charge. Suspects are just that, suspects. They're not necessarily criminals, and we are unwise to blur the distinction.

Thom

November 26th, 2007 1:21pm

Mel, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions on the erosion of the western way of life and its moral backbone believe me, but in your support of the detention policies of this group of statist hacks you are way of the mark. Keeping someone locked up sans' charge will not keep this country safe; terrorists cells are so diverse and reliant on democratic nations indiscretions for their support and legitmacy that any move away from truly freeing principles engendered by our philosophy as a nation (but not by our politicos) serves to bolster theirs. Aside from the obvious answer that yes, there probably is a move to undermine his reputation but if it weren't true any such attempts would be valueless; perhaps costly in the form of libel action. The truth is though that our high spending, politically entrenched public servants are now private servants; there in it for themselves. If you do anything right Mel do this; drop this belief that detaining all peoples, who by BRITISH are innocent until proven guilty, for extended periods is legitimate; it would make us no different from communist china's treatment of Christians.

Phillip Reece

November 26th, 2007 5:45pm

Thom, or no different from dictatorships like France, Spain or Italy

Most read
Most commented on

1 The liberal centre’s continuing confusion on challenging the BNP - David Blackburn (57)

2 Letting his opinions be known - James Forsyth (54)

3 Elected police commissioners are a test of whether the Tories are serious or not about their agenda - James Forsyth (52)

4 There are moral absolutes: aspects of Sharia are barbaric - David Blackburn (50)

5 The day ends on a sour note for Labour - Peter Hoskin (42)

Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.

For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here