OK - so, his girlfriend's a bike...
You couldn't make this stuff up.
[News item with reference to simulated sex; do not follow the link if you are easily offended]
UrbanDictionary definition of the slang term "bike". Again, please do not follow link if you find gender-specific sexual references offensive.
Detention or questioning?
As the government prepares for another attempt to increase the 28-day limit on detention without charge for terror suspects, there are two linked measures which need to be carefully looked at.
The first is the 'headline' measure: it seems likely that they will press for the current 28-day limit (already longer than in any other Western democracy) either to be doubled, or raised to 58 days - to consist of the current 28 days plus a 30-day 'emergency powers' extension. The media I've scanned seem unclear about exactly what 'emergency powers' detention is already possible under current legislation, but as far as I can gather, the government wants the ability to add this 30-day extension onto terrorist suspects' detention period without having to declare a state of emergency. Why does that conjure up a mental image of General Musharraf?
The second is Gordon Brown's trademark 'stealth' measure: it is the proposal to allow police to continue to question a suspect after that person has been charged. You could be forgiven for not having spotted that in the Queen's Speech, as it only surfaced, Nessie-like, in the following oblique reference: "My Government will seek a consensus on
changes to the law on terrorism so that the police and other agencies
have the powers they need to protect the public, whilst preserving
essential rights and liberties."
The reason I describe this as a stealth proposal is that few people are even aware that the police currently have to stop questioning a suspect once a charge has been laid: from that point on, the case is considered to be 'sub judice' ('under the control of a judge'), and the police must gather their evidence from sources other than direct questioning of the suspect.
The two proposals are intimately linked, because police are reluctant to charge someone in time to meet the current 28-day limit if that means they have to stop questioning the suspect from that point on. However, this suggests the flaw in the logic - at least as it is being presented so far. We are told that 28 days is not enough to uncover all the details of complex conspiracies, or conduct forensic examinations of potential evidence such as encrypted hard disks. But of course, neither of those steps necessarily depends on questioning of the suspect... so could legitimately continue after that suspect has been charged.
I can't help feeling that, once again, the citizen is being bamboozled with spurious linkages between legislative measures which are being entangled only in the hope that we'll think it's all too complicated and leave it up to those nice politicians. But then, I'm nasty and sceptical like that.
POSIWID
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}