Authors have very little say in matters of covers. I love the UK cover myself, and think it will help sell the book as it entices people to pick it up and have a look. Publishers look on covers as marketing tools and they tend to have an inhouse style – if they were to use another publisher’s cover the book would not be “their” product…

I have a copy of all of the previous books and buying them through the Australian edition through the internet worked well (and quickly). Congratulations on getting published in the UK (and more financially important in the US). I would only suggest that you insist on the cover remaining the same if they republish (sneaky UK publishers trick to get you to think it is a new book)

I am looking forward to reading Heart of the Mirage and enjoy the blog.

IRH (UK)

But if, for example, the person you lent the car to actually had no valid driving licence or insurance, or had a history of intoxicant-related crashes, then I think our guys probably would want to invite you in for a little chat about why you gave him/her permission to use your car in the first place – whether it was in innocent good faith, or otherwise – though that would only be a little chat, and I doubt they would slam you in the clink for three weeks during the process.

Sorry, I hope that doesn’t sound grumpy – maybe I just need feeding too. :oD

I despair for the world.

And Hrugaar – we don’t run after the owner of a car involved in, say, a fatal hit and run incident once we find out he lent his car to a relative and was actually in another country at the time of the death.

Yeah. Politicians…

Haneef’s alleged involvement with a terror organisation was over an attack carried out in the UK, not Australia. Why was he charged in Australia, and not extradited to the UK?

A British investigator flew to Australia very early on. There’s nothing on the public record to say whether this investigator even interviewed Haneef. Certainly, the British seemed to lose interest in Haneef very quickly.

It seems that the Australia Federal Police tripped over themselves in their excitement over having a ‘real live’ terror suspect on their hands. The longer he was held without charge, the greater the pressure to charge him with something, anything.

Now I can accept that, given the circumstances, the Australian Federal Police would want to detain and question Haneef. But he never should have been charged in the first place.

This error was compounded by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews’ decision to cancel Haneef’s visa on ‘character grounds’ under the Migration Act. It’s ‘guilt by association’, a logical fallacy.

The use of these sweeping and unchecked power to deprive someone of liberty and circumvent a decision by the courts is a blatantly political and prejudicial act. It’s even more disturbing that the Minister doesn’t have to disclose the information (‘evidence’) he used to make his determination.

The whole thing has been horribly botched and insensitively handled.

Hopefully, however, Dr Haneef will get some sort of compensation and redress for the slurs against his reputation. And hopefully the matter will have the positive effect of raising awareness that the threat to basic rights posed by the anti-terror legislation is as real as the threat of terrorism itself.

Oh dear, I think I’ve been ranting.

I can also see why the connection of the SIM card and the cousin would warrant a simple, routine enquiry. But the over-zealousness of anti-terrorism detaining and investigating is a highly debatable point (how far can one go in the cause of National Security, before protection becomes oppression?).

I dare say that had the doctor chosen to stay in Oz, the Minister would no doubt have commented that that only heightened his suspicions – because he’s thinking about arguing his (department’s) course of action, not thinking about the doctor as human being (which is why he’s a politician, no?).