We have another set of leading questions...
Currently suspected terrorists can be held by Britain's police for up to 14 days. After that they must either be charged with an offence, or released. The police want to extend this time to 90 days, because it can take up to three months to analyse material such as computer files in order to obtain the evidence needed to charge suspects. Which of these statements comes closer to your view?Hmm...
The police genuinely believe that the current 14-day rule is not enough to protect Britain from terrorist attacks. - 76%
The police don't really need the extra time; they are simply using the debate about terrorism to extend their powers to hold people without being charged. - 16%
Don't know. - 8%
I studied polling methodology, and gave up on it as a bad choice for career, bores me to death. But he's absolutely right, meaningless poll with questions designed to lead for the correct response.
To get a more accurate answer for the 90 days thing?
Given that under British Law a terrorist is defined in such a way that animal rights activists and 82 year old hecklers can be arrested as such, do you support the idea that anyone accused of terrorist activities can be held for 90 days without charge or chance of a fair hearing?We're not talking about letting terrorists go unchecked, we're talking about charging them with something. My MP is solid on this one, and Paul's MP is a government minister, but if you happen to live in a consituency with a backbench Labour MP, do be so kind as to get in contact as soon as possible?
Blair's already talking about extending these measure to non-terrorist suspects, but given the brad sweeps of TACT, it covers enough people already.
It's not wrong to think 14 days is enough to find enough to charge someone with something so they can be held, is it?