Before and after
Uncertain, racked by doubts, yet to be convinced? You need half an hour with Gordon. Results guaranteed… or your money back.
Don't believe me? Just listen to the personal testimony of Lord West before and after Gordon.
This is what the Terror GOAT (Government of All the Talents) had to say about the case for extending detention for terror suspects beyond 28 days on the Today programme this morning:
"I still need to be fully convinced that we absolutely need more than 28 days and I also need to be convinced what is the best way of doing that."
And this is what he had to say after a chat with Gordon:
"I am quite clear that the greater complexities of terrorist plots will mean that we will need the power to detain certain individuals for more than 28 days... I am convinced that we need to legislate now so that we have the necessary powers when we need them. The government would be failing in its responsibility to protect national security if we waited until we needed more than 28 days to act."
Miraculous, I think you'll agree.
It worked on John Denham too, who as chairman of the 91ȱ Affairs Select Committee argued that "Any new legislation should not propose longer than 28 days detention unless the evidence is compelling" but as a member of Gordon's Cabinet now argues… (You're way ahead of me).
Update: I'm sorry. It's all perfectly clear now after a briefing by the prime minister's spokesman. "Lord West has made his position quite clear, the words speak for themselves", journalists were told. Yes, but which words?
Ah, they'd thought of that. Asked if Lord West had made the statement of his own volition, the reply came '"he thought it was necessary to make sure that his position was properly understood. I'm not sure that he has changed his mind. I will let Lord West and his most recent statements speak for themselves."
So that's cleared that up.
Update 2: Lord West has taken another opportunity to clarify his position (or should that be positions):
"Well I haven't changed my position, I think being a simple sailor, not a politician, maybe I didn't chose my words well. What I think we do need to do is to prove to the British people with the evidence that this is the case, as I say I'm convinced that that is the case. We need to show that... maybe my choice of words wasn't particularly clever."
This wasn't enough to silence David Cameron, who in the Commons statement on terror asked the prime minister to explain Lord West's apparent change of mind. The Tory leader suggested that people would believe Admiral West was "leant on" and accused the government of being "not so much concerned with the evidence as with the politics".
Gordon Brown pointed out that in the past Lord West has clearly said there would be occasions when we need more than 28 days. Speaking on the 16th July on 91ȱ Radio 4's Today programme, he said:
''Looking at the complexity of this, there will be occasions when we need more than 28 days. How we exactly do that is something that I hope we can come to some sort of consensus on.'' He went on to say, however, that there were "great attractions" in Lord Carlile's proposal for specific time limits to be scrapped altogether in favour of senior judges using their discretion in each case. "I tend towards not wanting to see Parliament setting exactly a longer limit" he said.
Trying to be fair to the "simple sailor" (who was, let's recall, the former First Sealord), I think what he was reflecting this morning is the hope that the government can find a way beyond simply extending the 28 day limit to allow a tiny number of terror suspects to be detained for longer if necessary.
I'm 
Comments
Well, that's the best reason yet for not needing an extension.
Just get the terror suspects to talk to Brown and within mere minutes they'll be telling you exactly what you want to hear.
No need to spend 28 days beating* the story into them.
* Oh wait... sorry... the beating bit won't be imposed until the next phase; right after unelected/no-mandate Brown delays the next election indefinitely as an "emergency measure to help combat terrorism effectively".
It gets more like Private Eye's 'Supreme Leader' strip every day
Good fun with Gordon Brown, but this is TERRIFYING!
Being held for long periods without trial goes against the very grain of our society. We shouldn't stand for it! People in power need to speak out against it.
If Gordon Brown is shutting people up on this subject, he has overstepped the power of the PM by a long long way.
Separation of Powers!
These chaps clearly gave an honest account early on, before being mauled by the Brown Bear. Can the 91ȱ please put more emphasis on their truthful opinions, rather than the new opinions that emerged after they received a "brown beating"!
Am I imagining this, or did Gordon Brown say, when he became PM, that one of his priorities was to restore trust in politicians?
Any news on when he's going to start on that particular project? Or has he just abandoned the idea?
Talk about croneyism and towing the party-line. How much more hypocrisy are we, the voters expected to swallow? Does Gordon really think we are THAT stupid? It's time for Labout to go, the sooner the better....
He didn't just change his mind after his meeting with Gordon. He also claimed that there wasn't any strange spaceship in the dunes and he had these strange marks on the back of his neck....
Nick,
It says a lot about Brown that he bullies admirals, and very little about the quality of our senior military officers that Lord West let him.
a secret handshake maybe??
Well it's clear that this is an unnecessary change. Senior politicians admit this untill they are told by Gordon to tow the party line.
I'm not one for civil liberties, and I think that the campaign groups go too far on the whole, but can we allow innocent people to be locked up for 2 months? I say innocent because the innocent until proven guilty principle is core to our values as a democartic country. The government originally sought a 90 day period, which co-incidentally is the exact same period of detention without trial used by the White goverment in South Africa during the apartheid years against apparent terrorists.
Detention without trial is a disgraceful, unjust and immoral policy, and it should be resisted by all law abiding citizens with a conscience.
Brian - absolutely right.
Next Brown will have Jacqui Smith to publicly admit her failings in a press conference of "self-criticism" and will then blame the immigration crisis on the now-discredited Blairite regime of Mr. Blair and Madame Blair and their cult of personality
Welcome to 1984, double speak, lies as truth, constant war. Britain & the west gets more frightening by the day!
Well it's clear that this is an unnecessary change. Senior politicians admit this untill they are told by Gordon to tow the party line.
I'm not one for civil liberties, and I think that the campaign groups go too far on the whole, but can we allow innocent people to be locked up for 2 months? I say innocent because the innocent until proven guilty principle is core to our values as a democartic country. The government originally sought a 90 day period, which co-incidentally is the exact same period of detention without trial used by the White goverment in South Africa during the apartheid years against apparent terrorists.
Detention without trial is a disgraceful, unjust and immoral policy, and it should be resisted by all law abiding citizens with a conscience.
It reminds me of the process of 'doublethink' as explained in '1984' - or as today shows 'Lord West has always believed there is a need for more than 28 days ..'
Why not call the 91ȱ Office the Ministry of Love and get it over with - now that would be doubleplus good !
HA! HA! You can say what you like about Tony Blair at least he was decisive. This statement's proving more and more accurate each day, not that I particularly care for the ideaology of the person who said it.
Admiral West has made the ultimate in contradictions.
Unless he's suddenly just been told about something major which the public can't know about, this is hugely unprincipled and shows that even the GOATS are towing the party line rather than thinking for themselves.
I've a great respect for Admiral West but even a "simple sailor" must realise that these two statements not only contradict each other but actually weigh in against each other.
Welcome to 1984, double speak, lies as truth, constant war. Britain & the west gets more frightening by the day!
Please can a journalist or an MP please have the nerve to call the PM to account over this. Clearly the man has been lent on, threatened and then told the line to take. I thought being defeated on this first time round was enough to make Nu Lab think again about this policy but clearly not.
When we have a home office that is competent enough to check that people who are in charge of protecting us are legal/competent, then maybe more powers can go to them. This includes the police and the illegals who are now our new police/security layer against terrorism.
And all the while, the potential terrorists will be seeing this as more reason to hate us.
Come on Gordon, now make him do a funny dance!
Is Tony Bliar still P.M.pm??????????????
I think this is such a political hot potato and is so frightening for the public in genereal that even if some innocents do stay locked up for longer than seems fair then well...so be it.
Disgraceful bullying, and sadly just what we have come to expect from labour.
Restore trust in politicians? Not like this Gordon.
I am just so very sorry that Nick Robinson doesn't have the security clearance like John Denham and his committee to be given the appropiate evidence.
MPs who have accepted that the complexity of future cases have never struck me as anti-libertarian, nor does Gordon Brown with his emphasis on Britishness.
It does seem that anything anyone says re one of these Tory barbs may be used against them in an arrogant media kangaroo court.
Changing one's mind in the face of knowledge used to be regarded as the essence of reason.
None of the posters whose efforts I see as I write this can ever have been accused of that.
Hard to separate the GOATs from the sheep.
It is sooooooooo sad to see Lord West reduced to being a puppet for the Labour Party - no backbone at all! What have we been reduced to!
The difference between what Lord West said on Today and what he said later in the day was pretty minimal, and no doubt little different to what he had said before.
It would hardly be surprising if the victor of so many arguements, dating back to his emasculations of oppsote numbers in the House in teh '70s, had no effect.
Those who have axes to grind grind them, funny how just under 96% of those who have made it to this blog so far grind to the right, eh?
So GB will get his own way when he wants it. (Is it really so obvious that Lord West was bullied into changing his mind?!) Too bad he didn't want the election or else we could have got rid of this puppet government who steals all the oppositions policies.
So GB will get his own way when he wants it. (Is it really so obvious that Lord West was bullied into changing his mind?!) Too bad he didn't want the election or else we could have got rid of this puppet government who steals all the oppositions policies.
Quietzapple @ 25: Strangely enough, I've never regarded 'detention without trial' as being a particular left/right wing issue. If left/right politics is your cup of tea, of course, it's always worth asking what labour supporters would think if Thatcher was doing the same thing... Oh, and well researched 'just under 96%' figure, too.
What surprised me most was Lord West's original comments - they didn't seem to tally with what he'd said on the Politics Show on 4th November (?), where my recollection is that he said he was convinced it needed to rise in some circumstances, but wasn't sure by how much. Much more in line with his "clarified" statement than what he said on the Today programme.
Quietzapple @25 wrote: "The difference between what Lord West said on Today and what he said later in the day was pretty minimal, and no doubt little different to what he had said before"
Let's take a look:
At 0820: "I want to have absolute evidence that we actually need longer than 28 days. I want to be totally convinced because I am not going to go and push for something that actually affects the liberty of the individual unless there is a real necessity for it. I still need to be fully convinced that we absolutely need more than 28 days and I also need to be convinced what is the best way of doing that."
At 0920 after meeting the PM:
He is now "personally convinced" there is a need to change the law. "I personally absolutely believe that within the next two, three years, we will require more than that for one of these complex plots. So I am convinced that's the case."
So, Quietzapple, do you really believe the words you say (in which case you are delusional) or is your support of this government unthinking?
Max Sceptic - he didn't say that in either case if you were listening, and are you quite sure the second interview you attempt to quote was at 9.20?
He didn't speak in such good sentences for certain as I listened to both interviews. As I remarked he is unused to public speaking.
He clearly hoped and hopes to bring people to realise that such an extension of the 28 day limit will prove necessary at some point.
You will note that even on your version he did not say on the first occasion that there was not the evidence necessary to convince him either.
No I do not support this Government on everything.
Do you support them on anything at all? And are you a central office/Ashcroft paid poster?
However the good Admiral should be afforded his due as advised above in Nick Robinson's piece, as should the PM: these men are working hard to improve the security of we citizens, while you are trying to play "Now I've got you, you son of a bitch."
Talk about spin.
I agree with Quietzapple, post 25. This is yet another non story.
It's a pity you haven't shown EVERYTHING that Lord West had to say in both of those fateful interviews. You even then had Lord West explaining that his problem was that he was just a 'simple sailor'.
Looks like we are all falling for the Tory line that PM Brown is so ruthless and controlling that even an Admiral can go to one meeting and be forced to change his mind.
Utter nonsense and it's clearly not what happened in the slightest.
Duncan
Look into my eyes, look into my eyes - not around the eyes, not around the eyes......
If this incident has taught us anything it’s surely that we are certainly under regulated in one area namely Political, Business and Professional Public Life.
OAFCOM should be instigated immediately following numerous recent examples of sadly prevalent behaviour from a group of “high- flyers” that have somehow dangerously surfaced in several areas, with worrying consequences. These and the other as yet undiscovered characters need to be rounded up and removed post haste.
The now ex- chairman of Northern Rock casino who thought Compound Interest was one of the discarded options on his Zoology degree.
The premium phone line Regulator who appeared on television before, during and after a scandal, which he didn’t appear to understand let alone predict.
The Cabinet Secretary whose Tenure under the Blair/ Campbell administration led to the (hopefully temporary) end of real Cabinet Government who when heard address an audience was allegedly oblivious to its death, cremation and Times Obituary.
Lord West the previous First Lord of a group of Admirals who it would seem you would struggle to assemble a Lord Nelson from even though there are apparently three or four times more of them than necessary.
Women and working class males have known for years that Public School contains the same cross- section of ability as the masses.
The two exceptions being optional membership of a Secret Society whose secrets are probably irrelevant or obsolete in the 21st Century, except the main one, that there are far more Haig, Chamberlain and Halifax types then they would comfortably prefer.
Secondly, the issuance of, and the ability to tie a knot several ways, which then opens more doors than the Concierge at Claridges.
Surely on the substantive point the unseen evidence may suggest a return to the “pre-emergency powers” is the most attractive course to sail. We now know that in certain designated cases the use of genuine holding charges, combined with a relaxation of the Indictment rules in respect of alteration and addition and the use of intercept evidence could allow a return to normal Jurisprudence.
If he's just a 'simple sailor', where does he get off trying to help run this country? You're one thing or the other!
Quietzapple (#31) your riposte is unconvincing.
You'll probably be sad to learn that I'm not a member of any party, nor paid by anyone to post these (or any other) comments. Can you say the same?
As for "these men are working hard to improve the security of we citizens": Save me the sob speech. Being an MP - or in government - is what these men (and women) desire and crave for above all else - and what they get paid for.
As for me playing "Now I've got you, you son of a bitch.", I could argue that it is the duty of all citizens to scrutinise the government and hold them to account. If the 'Good Admiral' doesn't like it he can get back to playing with whatever toy boats our depleted Royal Navy has left.
Perhaps the Prime Minister threatened to have him shot on his own quarter deck like Admiral Byng, to "encourage the others".
British civil liberties must be protected to the utmost. 28 days is sufficient as proven by the fact that nobody has been detained to that limit to any detriment.
Brown can keep his Stalinist policies in his brief case. Britain has developed along better guidlines since the cold war.
We must not had victory to the terrorist or the communists.
I heard the interview and the subsequent news items; Quietzapple has it right.This - to its ever-lasting shame - was a story spun by the 91ȱ. The Admiral said that "he had yet to be fully convinced" the 91ȱ reported that as "not convinced" which is very different. Downing Street heard the 91ȱ's distortion and over-reacted. As Mathew Paris subsequently remarked, what the Admiral actually said would have been a very useful basis on which to highlight any subsequent conversion to 28+ days provided there was some time allowed to elapse for his persuasion. Instead the 91ȱ issued a false report and then gleefully jumped on the story it had created. It was for precisely this kind of "creative" reporting that Hutton properly gave them a good kicking. Were there any honour in the organisation those responsible would either resign or be fired. After all as reporting is they all they do, false reporting is their equivalent of losing mega-information discs!!
This is true for everyone to some extend but when scrutiny becomes cynicism and rudeness it becomes an abuse of power. Governance is an individual and collective affair. If civilisation is preferred to barabarism people must act accordingly.
"Remember this,--that there is a proper dignity and proportion to be observed in the performance of every act of life."
-- Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
So, there are things that Lord West is convinced of and things that he is unconvinced of.
Then there are things that he is still unconvinced that he is convinced of and, of course, things that he is convinced that he is not yet unconvinced of.
Has anyone ever seen Lord West and Donald Rumsfeld in the same room.