(no subject)

[mrph]

Extending the 28-day limit for police to hold terror suspects without charge "would have helped in cases such as the recent anti-terror raid in Forest Gate"

Interesting statement. Does that mean they'd have been able to hold them longer without admitting they'd got the wrong people? They didn't actually try to hold them for 28 days anyway, did they?

Because it sounds like a sneaky way to claim that they did have the right people, honest, they just weren't able to find the evidence in time...

Comments

[paul-sticks.livejournal.com]

Would the police not feel the need to shoot innocent people if they could simply hold them for the 90 days I wonder?

[the_axel]

If they'd had a few more days they could have forged the evidence they needed to lay charges?

[mrph.livejournal.com]

It depends. If they're shooting them because they might explode, I can't see it making much difference. :-/

[paul-sticks.livejournal.com]

the current anti-terrosism policy means that they're more likely to stop the suspect by shooting them than just stopping them; it's rare that they have arrested people without it going wrong in some way. Of course, the counter arguement is that the police need to be immune from prosecution in order to maintain a sufficient force able and willing to do the job. It's a sad state of affairs indeed.

[inulro.livejournal.com]

They didn't hold them anywhere near 28 days - I think between 1 and 2 weeks.