I've just read the letter from the Metropolitan Police to the Home Secretary requesting an increase to the time allowed for the police to interview terror suspects.
Apart from Andy Hayman's inability to spell Morocco (why would he know?), the overall message is that the evidence collection and analysis process is complex and time-consuming, so can we have more time?
The fundamental change in the circumstances is that usually, a bunch of evidence has been collected and analysed in advance of the arrest. The argument here is that with the new mentality of terror organisations, by necessity the arrest happens earlier in the process, essentially before a traditional arrest would have been justified.
For some reason, the document is penned by the Assistant Commissioner as opposed to Sir Ian Blair. (Not sure if this is a political move, given Blair's track record in this area.) In it, he lays out the various reasons for the extended time needed, before giving a theoretical case study which looks like it might require longer detainment than the 14 days currently allowed.
The problem with the argument is that although the document is requesting an increase from 14 days to three months, at no point does it give any justification as to why three months is an appropriate length of time. While the reasoning may be justifiable, the conclusion certainly isn't, at least within the confines of the communication.
