» Friday, November 11, 2005

90 days

Put to him that yesterday they had been assured that the Home Office had not encouraged the police to talk to people about the 90 days when in fact it now appeared that the Home Secretary had suggested that it be a good idea for police officers to put themselves up and whether this was appropriate, the PMOS referred journalists to the comments made by ACPO today which said that firstly, they believed it was themselves that had taken the lead in proposing the 90 days not the government. Secondly, that ACPO believed it was perfectly proper for ACPO and Chief Constables to write to and communicate with MPs about their proposal. As he had said yesterday afternoon people could not have their cake and eat it. They could not on the one hand say that they wanted information from the police about why they were putting forward the case for 90 days and then complain whenever the police wanted to supply that information. People should not drift away from the substance of this, which was that the police were of the universal view that 90 days was the right answer. Put to him that the Home Secretary had suggested that it would be useful for Chief Constables to be available to explain it to MPs, the PMOS said that the Home Office would brief on what the Home Secretary did or did not do, as was right. What he was putting to them was the argument that on the one hand people had said that the police had not supplied enough information but on the other hand they seemed to be criticising the police for then supplying that information. People could not have it both ways.

Put to him again that the Home Secretary had encouraged the police and was this right, the PMOS reminded journalists that it was the police, who had made the case in the first place and they continued to believe that the case was right. People had been asking for more information, therefore as ACPO had said today they did not believe there was anything wrong with providing those arguments to MPs. The fundamental point was had ACPO put forward this proposal. Answer yes. Had ACPO been first to bring this proposal into the public domain. Answer yes. Were people asking the police to provide further information to back up the argument that ACPO had put forward. Answer yes. Was it right therefore for the police to argue their case in public. He believed the answer to that was also yes. Asked if it was right that the Home Secretary encouraged the police to do that, the PMOS said that given it was the police who were putting forward the argument it was clearly right and proper for the police to put forward their argument to as many people as possible. What you could not get away from, despite it being inconvenient for journalists, was that it was ACPO who had put forward the case for 90 days. Subsequently it was right for ACPO to put forward their case to MPs. The PMOS said that it was clearly right that if the police thought something was in the interests of the country’s security that the police had the ability to argue their case. Asked if the Government supplied a list of names for ACPO to call, the PMOS said he was not aware of that.

Briefing took place at 11:00 | Search for related news


  1. But when you read the case that was put for the 90 days more than 50% of the document is hypothetical and the rest shows that prosecutions were possible within 14 days.
    As a document the case was not well founded – which is probably why it failed.

    Comment by Roger Huffadine — 11 Nov 2005 on 10:50 pm | Link
  2. So badly conceived and thought out overall that it makes one wonder how and why they can possibly have grounds to carry on whining about the defeat. Rest assured we haven’t heard the last of this nonsense.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 11 Nov 2005 on 11:42 pm | Link
  3. I don’t care whether the cops dreamt this up or whether the politicos put them up to it. Either way:

    a) the cops should have had more sense than to involve themselves in the politics and

    b) the politicos should not have placed the cops in the invidious position of having to publicly state support for a manifestly political move

    It’s a measure of how crass both parties are that it ever got as far as it did. If I was a senior copper and had received that sort of instruction from a polician – albeit the Home Secretary – I would have told him precisely what he could do to himself. But then I’m not a ‘career’ policeman – thank God.

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 12 Nov 2005 on 5:42 pm | Link
  4. They will, as they say, revisit the matter, give everybody a chance to vote properly. If you get it wrong you get it right next time. I think Abraham Lincoln said that.

    Comment by tasty macfadden — 13 Nov 2005 on 9:09 pm | Link
  5. Well, see the dust hasn’t even settled and "sir" Ian Bliar is demanding a "compassionate" debate. Firstly, he should choke on the word. Secondly, well, don’t think we’ve heard the last of 90 days until they actually GET 90 days. And even then it won’t be enough. Just wait; within minutes of getting 90 days they’ll want 100. Or 180. Some bollox about having to crack encrypted codes, or similar; the fact these can in some cases take years seems to be entirely beside the point.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 16 Nov 2005 on 11:18 am | Link
  6. Hitler burnt down the Reichstag to facilitate the imposition of a police state; I wonder who will pay with their lives for Blair getting his own I-told-you-so way.

    The president, meantime, is apparently back on the booze (or the Bolivian marching powder)and having tantrums; seems like chimpman is so used to getting his own way or having his slimy daddy fix things for him that he doesn’t know how to cope with the fact that even stupid americans have him sussed, albeit that it took five years.

    We should expect, therefore, papa, extra-parliamentary, or "black ops" or worse to come to the aid of these gangster politicians. But, soft, do I hear the hissing of a nuclear missile silo, opening its hatches to the skies?

    Here on BBC Radio Orkney ( a wholly owned sunsidiary of NewLabour)local MP Alastair Carmichael said that in dangerous times like these we have to stand foursquare behind our leaders and the democratic way.Rally round the flag y’all. I think Benjamin Franklin said that.

    Comment by tasty macfadden — 16 Nov 2005 on 11:49 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


November 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Oct   Dec »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh