Comments on: The Ultimate Answer

By: The Bagged Bear

The Bagged Bear — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:22:00 +0000

Justin – I understand and appreciate your point. But isn’t that the case with holding a suspect for 7 days or 14 days? If you (not you but the populace), accept the status quo then the internment point was surrendered a long time ago and all you’re arguing over is what time is acceptable, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42…etc?

If the only issue is the length of time, then on what basis do you make the decision. 90 is what the professionals asked for, so it is for the (internal and external) opposition to make the case for the lesser period, which is what they are doing.

It’s not an easy argument on either side, but I think the internment argument was lost a long time ago.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:12:00 +0000

Bagged Bear: The thing is, it is internment by any other name. Some poor innocent bastard is going to get swept up and lose his job, house and maybe his wife, kids and sanity. He’ll certainly lose any semblance of innocence because the police like to fanfare the arrest but don’t quite make the same fuss about releasing people without charge.

You don’t have to be Gerry Conlon to know that having nothing to hide doesn’t necessarily mean you have nothing to fear.

By: Unity

Unity — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:05:00 +0000

Bugger – wrong link!

Try this instead – http://talkpolitics.users20.donhost.co.uk/index.php?title=ten_for_that_you_must_be_mad

By: Unity

Unity — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:03:00 +0000

There rather more to the YouGov poll than meets the eye, as I hope I've shown here. Suffice to say, polls commissioned by Sky News seem no more impartial than that which which the Labour Party started running last Friday.

By: The Bagged Bear

The Bagged Bear — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:37:00 +0000

I’m not so sure it’s an argument about the reintroduction of internment.

After all if it’s OK to hold people for 7/14 days, as is the case at the moment, then any increase in that period is simply about the time and not about the principle.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:30:00 +0000

It’s not two, it’s seven (in most cases), with ’90′ as a nice round number (ie approx. 3 months). Then again, given Blair’s readiness to implement legislation on the say-so of the police, the feds could have picked an even higher, but evocative, number – 101, 365, whatver – and got the same response.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:55:00 +0000

And can anyone explain why the number must be divisible by 2? 90, 28, 42 – why not 41 or 39?

By: Longrider

Longrider — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:05:00 +0000

Unfortunately the Yougov respondents are not considering that it might be them locked up for 90/42/28* days. It is always someone else – who obviously deserved it or they wouldn’t be locked up in the first place, now, would they? Stands to reason… innit?

* choose your preferred lucky number

By: ringverse

ringverse — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:53:00 +0000

A classic example of the Bliar making a mockery of his own argument. Saves the rest of us the trouble I suppose... A bit more on the subject over at BlairWatch

By: Postman

Postman — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:08:00 +0000

Well, let’s try an experiment. We lock up Hazel Blears for telling lies .. we wait 90 days before we charge her.

There is plenty of time therefore to look for more evidence,in her sock drawer, handbag, ask her neighbour etc.,