大象传媒

We will have become a police state if this ridiculous proposal is passed. The extremists and "terrorists" will have won. Our freedom is too high a price surely.

Seduce my ancient footwear !

Is Crick mutli jointed ?

Blogging while his ear is to the ground now just tell him "Britain's Got Talent " has been won by a 14 year old- so forget it old bean !

Pantsman

I suspect most voters are probably quite comfortable with 42 days, and as a police officer myself you might think I would be too. But I'm not - because I've not seen any evidence that it is necessary, and I believe there should always be such evidence before such measures are taken.

I'm no expert on history, though it is a topic which interests me. It seems to me very rare that Parliament is asked to grant powers of this nature to the Executive "just in case", bearing in mind that emergency leglislation can be rushed through in a day if need be.

This measure will never get through the House of Lords, but I hope enough Labour MPs stick to their guns on this one for it to fall in the elected chamber. It's not just about the checks and balances, but whether it's right in principle. I just feel that we are almost giving in to terrorism if we allow ourselves to be driven into this 42 day nonsense.

I also worry that what counts as "terrorism" can too easily be extended to cover other things. Look at the number of councils who use the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to snoop on people in relation to more minor offences for which that Act was not really designed.

There are other ways of dealing with this matter (such as using intercept evidence, or charging on a lesser offence and then being allowed to hold people for longer to question them on the greater offence) without bringing in such draconian measures.

I'm against "42 days", and think the government has just got it into its head that it has something to prove (which it probably has). But this is certainly far too important an issue for the PM to be using it to try and show he isn't as weak as people think he is.

I oppose ANY detention without charge. The 28 days currently allowed is the longest period of detention without charge anywhere in the developed world unless I am very much mistaken.

Sure, terrorism is nasty, but is it really so bad that it's worth tossing away our hard-earned human rights? It seems to me that the whole anti-terror crusade by this government is an attempt to divert attention from the issues that really affect this country - the appalling state of public services despite huge taxation, the crumbling economy etc. It's terrible that tens of people died on 7/7, but would any of those who lost their lives have wanted the country to be steered towards police statehood? The abolition of the right to free speech, right to protest, right to a trial by jury and all the other things this Labour government have done under the guise of anti-terror are, in my opinion, massively disproportionate.

I suspect that the reason Gordon Brown 'would rather lose this vote than compromise' is pure politicking - if he loses the vote, he can stand up in Parliament and bray about how the opposition is 'soft on terror'

I am a strong believer in the protection of this countries security and accept intrussions and inconveniences as a result of this security (or at least would do).

This bill is not if 42 is better than 28, it shoudl be about improving the ability of our secutity forces to meet their obligations to protect us.

Far to many times we have heard about complete incompetances or wrong people imprissioned and no evidence eber being found.

to back up their claim

we should see evidence which statistically shows the nuber of cases people have been detained, the number of convections. against those detained.

How many people were released in 28 days who latter went on to prove to be a security risk. and what could have been done in an additional 14 days which would have prevented their early release.

If I am to be protected I want to be protected by people with competance

I'm not convinced of the need for 42 days detention, but I think suggesting that this will be "the last throw of the dice" for Brown is a bit melodramatic. Realistically, he could lose the vote and still continue as PM.

The fact that MPs could be allowed to vote on the home secretary's decision to grant the police the right to detain someone for up to 42 days appears wrong to me. What happens when parliament is not sitting, will the house of commons be recalled for this vote? A better method would have a judge reviewing the evidence and deciding whether the continued detention is justified.

On a related matter, the Council of Europe's human rights commissioner's criticism of 42 days detention appears misguided if what the Home Office minister Tony McNulty said the of the matter, i.e., that it was wrong to draw comparisons between Britain's judicial system and those of some continental countries which do not have the same concept of a charge.

It would be good if Newsnight could compare the different systems for pre-charge detention that exist in Europe to see who is right on this matter: McNulty or the human rights commissioner?

Why not have a simple system like:

For everyday you are held beyond 7 days you are entitled to 拢1m pounds per day if you are not charged/found innocent.

This would encourage the police not to hold people unnecessarily and compensate the innocent people if they do.

I think that the issue of national security is a basic concern for everyone.

The focus on the number 42 is unbelievable; national security is delivered by a holistic approach comprising laws, technical deterrants and people's behaviours. For me its really important that people are not frightened of the terrorists nor frightened of the police; however it is important that people have positive values and are prepared to stand by them. In otherwords what should be important for the detention of terrorists (applies to criminals too) is the people who make the decisions (their values and integrity) and their ability to judge the value of the information presented to them to make these decisions in a objective manner.

I would be more interested in understanding how the PM would monitor, control and report transparently detentions made using this law (including the outcomes of (conviction, failed presecution or deportation) that whether the time limit is 28 or 42!

We should trust our police forces and give them the powers they need. No innocent person has anything to fear from this proposed legislation. I'd rather risk the Police making the odd mistake than risk being blown to bits on a bus or train.

I don't understand ! If the police want to extend an interrogation period they can just apply for it and it would be granted , wouldn't it ?!
Why impinge even further into our civil liberties when the grounds for doing so are spurious and confounded ?

It seems to me if we have to give up our civil liberties in order to defeat terrorism then why bother ?
We might as well become all Islamists living under authoritarian sharia law !

We can't allow ourselves to be under a police state 'just for a little while ' !
How long is a little while and who's to judge when it's over ...??

Gordon,get a life, 28 days is long enough without charge!!!!

I am beginning to think there is a lot of hype and massaging of expectations building up here. If Brown thought he would lose the vote he would not lead this fight from the front as he is starting to. Lots of speculation over how tight it is now will mean he can claim his "leadership" has won the vote in a weeks time.

But aside, from that I certainly hope he loses the vote as I am completely unconvinced it has any merit other than as a suppose "trap" for the opposition and symbol that Brown is tough.

There are two issues that Cameron's conservatives have pursued that have convinced me they are changing. The environment is the one most often commented on, and I agree. But their consistent and prinipled stand against this sort of anti-freedom posturing - even when it was specifically designed to damage them - has been just as important for me.

Its worth pointing out that NOBODY has been held even for 28 days yet so claims that the police will abuse their powers seem a little premature.

Equally in most EU countries you can be detained indefinately if a magistrate orders you detained and in France this requires less evidence than UK cops would need to charge you.

At 1:39 pm on 02 Jun 2008, Simon_Fleet wrote:
Why not have a simple system like:

For everyday you are held beyond 7 days you are entitled to ?1m pounds per day if you are not charged/found innocent.

This would encourage the police not to hold people unnecessarily and compensate the innocent people if they do.



Great! In effect taxpayers will be funding Al Que'da while the police come under enormous pressure to plant enough evidence to ensure you're found guilty of something.

If I thought I'd get 拢1M a day I'd be downloading Al Queda material and tip off the police myself!

On the face of it, 42 days to detain people on terrorism appears no great problem.

The trouble is, however, lots and lots of the laws brought in by Labour have been misused against ordinary people.

We have speed cameras catching and punishing people driving around perfectly reasonably given the overall traffic conditions, albeit a few mph in excess of the posted speed limits - and they get the invoice in the post (whereas the maniacs don't register or insure their cars and so carry on driving around at double the speed limit like maniacs with impunity!).

Indeed, we have existing anti terrorism legislation being misused to see which residential criminal has left the dustbin lid open; or which potentially criminal leaning children are being wilfully disobedient in being late for school!!!!

I am a natural Labour voter. I regret to advise I want "us" to lose to re-learn the lesson that the government works FOR us not to CONTROL us!

The people in charge of the Labour party have too long started to believe their own Utopian propaganda without accounting for the realities of life.

It is time for a change: And I know the tories will be a complete disaster... But at least I know the CCTV will not be being used solely to extort money out of motorists for minor infractions of the highway code when it was originally accepted in order to prevent and detect serious wrongdoing.

Just another 23 months left at most to the next general election. It can't come soon enough!

This proposal has always been more about political positioning than anything else.

Using the "threat of terror" as a way of making the Tories and LibDems look "soft" sucked when Blair tried it, and it still does.

As has already been ably explained, there are other ways of detaining suspects other than this fundamentally authoritarian measure, and the way this has been talked up as a confidence issue for Broon is also, one largely suspects, the wheeze of the Labour whips.

More than once the implied threat of resignation was used during the latter stages of the Blair era as a way of calming backbench unrest. It'll be interesting to see which way the rebels jump now, given Broon's plummeting stature. I certainly hope they stick to their principles, and vote down a measure that is wholly unnecessary and an assault on the civil liberties Britons have fought and died to protect.

What could the Police possibly do with an additional two weeks that they couldn't do with the first four?

Is their argument simply that detaining someone for 28 days without charge would so utterly destroy their life (loss of job, money, home etc) that extending it would be a matter of relative indifference?

...and if that's the case, why hold back? Why not do what the Northern Ireland government did back in 1971 with full-out Internment?

Perhaps it's because, historically, "it proved to be no long-term solution to the problem," as the then Shadow Home Secretary James Callaghan pointed out.

So what's this really all about? And is the government simply trying to cut out the fundamentalists, as one cuts out the middle-man, by opting to scare the hell out of its OWN citizens?

Buy hey, "no innocent person has anything to fear from this legislation" ...except of course, the fear of being detained for up to 6 weeks without charge, justification or apology, innocent or not.

So who are the REAL terrorists?

MOSTLY HARMLESS STATISTICALLY

From my observation, if those who hold power (and legal guns) want to magic someone's rights and or liberty away, it is done. The guy locked up for the Lockerbie bombing is probably a good example. In nasty countries they declare you mad; couldn't happen here of course. But a flexible Attorney General can help in difficult times and if Jack Straw et al can't 'lawyer' somebody from free to stateless in a trice, (nay half a trice) then my perception is faulty.

I believe now the ignorance of the Bush allies to the basic human rights the West has been crying for and accusing the African leaders of abusing.
Why should some one be detained for more than 24hrs without a charge?Is that democracy you campagning for?
Who is a terorist at the first instant? i think the defination should be changed from Western to global one.
A terrorist and a nationalist are not the same.
Lets respect each others norms and values ; these problems will automatically vanished one day.
Dr. Nyassi

Freedom of speech and the principle of innocence until guilt is proven are part of what separates us from other less civilised countries, including the United States at present. If this terrible step is taken we will have descended to the level of a police state, and we will then be morally aligned with countries where imprisonment without charge is OK.

It is clear that the majority of MP's are against the principle of 42 days detention. If they give in it will demonstrate the impotence of the Commons and the need for an upper house independent of the main political parties.

This Government is a complete waste of both time and space....when the so called Prime Minister entered the Stadium the crowd began to chant "Mugumba!Magumba!! Magumba!!!
"They sound very enthusiastic" said his right hand man,as the volume grew to a deafening roar......
The translation can be found in all the previous e-mails from THE SILENT KINGDOM and in the song "Come in spinner" out next month.

It will get you to the top of the tree,but it won't keep you there.
Eight letter word beginning with B.
The Silent kingdom

It isn't a question of whether there is any evidence to support increasing the period of detention to 42 days; it's a question of what measures can be taken to protect our national and personal security, and if this means suspects should be detained for longer than that which the law stipulates at present, then so be it.
As far as I am concerned, 1000 days wouldn't be too much if it meant entrapping a terrorist or potential terrorist.

The word "terrorist" is meaningless. Replace this word in any sentence where you find it in the media and you can get closer to the truth.

The freedom of the majority needs protecting against the freedom of terrorists. I doubt that 42 days will be enough to assimilate evidence in many cases. Those held who eventually prove to be innocent (or not guilty) should be entitled to compensation. But if there's any doubt, lock them up for LONGER and protect the majority from future threat.

It would be easy to stop all crime if you were able to lock everyone up beforehand! Good thinking!

I have no doubt that the vast majority of the population support at least 42 days detention as they would the return of the death penalty and a criminal serving the full sentence that he/she is handed down.

We are however cursed with spineless politicians who are more concerned with legal niceties than they are with proper justice and the protectionn of the law abiding majority.

Providing there are safeguards in place (which I understand there are) I can see nothing wrong with the extension to 42 days. Investigations these days can be very lengthy and involved. I see it as another string to the police's bow in their fight against terrorism. They are on OUR side after all.

At 3pm, Kayaregee said that it's not about whether there is any evidence to support the 42 day proposal. Although I can appreciate the logic behind his or her sentiments, if we go down that route then we are finished as a free country. This happens to be about "terrorism", but where do we draw the line? Murder? Robbery? Being drunk and disorderly? That might sound far-fetched, but all the evidence suggests that definitions tend to get stretched over time.

When people, including myself, call for some evidence to support 42 days, I don't think we're looking for a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". I'm no "lefty do-gooder", but I certainly would need to see that there is evidence ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES (the civil standard) before such further powers are introduced.

If these powers are so necessary, why have no other western democracies felt the need to introduce them?

Kayaregee may be happy for an innocent person to be held for 1000 days, but I'm afraid I wouldn't. I suspect a lot of people who would accept that proposal might change their minds if it were they or someone close to them who wrongly ended up on the receiving end. It's not as if there aren't plenty of examples of such mistakes!

I am all for the government being tough on terror but it is very weak on targeting many of the causes of terror eg preachers in mosques as in the Dispatches programme (and elsewhere in Muslim no go areas), leaflets and publications provided in various muslim areas, expelling those convicted of terror or preaching hate etc and tackling illegal immigration

It prefers to attack the freedoms of everyone to avoid tackling the clearcut causes. This is the marxist statist control of the masses approach

Perhaps the previous writer should decide who should be locked up for 42 days without charge. How does that sound?

Its a fundamental violation of civil liberties that is being proposed. I for one would never support this. I sincerely hope that no other reasonable and civilised citizen of this country would either.

42 days is way too long. Taggart, Barnaby, Morse et al solved their crimes in 2 hours or less. What is the matter with today's police?

I think we should have more faith in the Police. If there is any need to continue questioning for more than 28 days I believe they can get the permission of a Magistrate who should have the evidence before him/her. If I am in error, then I think this would be peferrable to just continue to keeping someone in custody. This information should be given to the suspect as part of their rights when they are taken into custody. If the have nothing to hide they should have nothing to fear. However I think it is important that any advocate who is allocated should have good knowledge of their native language, if they are not resident British, and also be independent from previous contact with the suspect.

I don't see why 42 days is needed,without reference to the Judiciary. Why can he not rather introduce legislation whereby the police can apply to the courts (in camera if necessary) to hold a terror suspect for up to 42 days.

The court could in such cases hear reasons for suspicion, and why it might be necessary to detain a suspect for the 42 days requested by the police.

Remember how the world hurled abuse at South Africa over it's 90 day detention Act? We do not want to share such approbium.

I'd say most policemen are trustworthy, however you can't say that about this government.

Half-truths is the best we get from them.

We were told that they wouldn't raise taxes.

What they actually meant was they'd introduce new charges on our lives and not call them taxes.

They tell us that interest rates are low, not if you live in the real world they're not, anyone care to disagree?

They make pay promises and then back date them, therefore lowering the pay rise and breaking the promise. Or in the case of the police, well they can't strike can they so they give them nothing.

I don't trust anything this government says, marketing and spin are the "new truths" which our government would have us believe in.

It wouldn't be long before 42 days was being misused, and we were being told half-truths again.

Whatever the pundits might say, we are witnessing the last throes of this administration. We have a government that lacks credibility and legitimacy. GB should have gone for a General Election post-Blair and won it. Things would have been manageable, even with a smaller majority. GB and his 42 days is merely symptomatic of the general malaise surrounding English politics.

I think all the contributors to this blog should be locked up for 42 days without charge. Except myself.

I agree with one of your previous correspondents: Brown knows he is going to win so he is leading on this issue and can then claim credit for getting it through which is something his predecessor didn't. If he thought there was any chance of losing, he wouldn't dare to be so supportive of the proposal. Instead he would claim he had been listening to the people - as he told us he would - and determined that there were other ways - as they do in all other western countries - of ensuring that 'terrorists' did not escape punishment.

He probably thinks we don't remember now, and certainly won't remember at the election, that his government doubled it from seven days to 14. Then doubled it again. Then tried to get it to 90 days. Gave up on that and tried 56 days, gave up on that and are now trying for 40 days.

He desperately needs to win on something so let's all feel sorry for him, swallow our feelings and support him.

Its OK for the voting population to be OK with the 42 day rule UNTIL it applies to them personally. I am all for anti terrorist activities but this is control freakery. Once on the statute books it will be extended to cover other suspected criminal activity. Over the last 10-15 years, individual freedoms that were fought for by courageous people who sometimes died to take back the absolute powers of the state, have been chipped away. Unfortunately the state apparatus and the local state apparatus (local councils etc.) cannot resist using common and criminal law for other controlling means - ASBO's RIPA, move on orders etc. - clearly not passed by the same lawmakers for the purposes they are used for. And hey a 42 day period must involve extra police time and the overtime that comes with it. I hope that this is defeated and that Cameron does not take this up as a good idea when he gets in.

Most comments seem to assume we should treat terrorist cases in the same way as other criminal offences. Rubbish. We should be able to hold both suspected murderers and terrorists for longer periods, so long as such decisions are always justified at the highest practical level. We don't want a police state, but we need to be able to respond to real threats. If OUR police, OUR forces, OUR government need more time to assimilate the evidence to make a case for or against prosecution, in our own best interest, they should have it.

I do hope PeterDT was being sarcastic when he suggested at 4:20pm that the "42 days" legislation should be allowed to go through as a token of sympathy for the hapless Gordon Brown?

Surely this issue is too weighty to be decided based on whether or not people feel sorry for the man? What if he were proposing summary execution for littering, should legislation of that nature be passed so that Brown can say that at least he won *something*?

So you need to define "Terrorism" then don't you! You're all mad! You deserve to be locked up without charge for 42 days. What the heck is a terrorist? Its what Media and Police choose it to be. Once day its all the nasty people, but pretty soon it'll be everyone they don't like the look of!

42 days is far to long, as is 28 days, too many people have died defending liberty in this country for us to allow this to happen, it must be opposed.

PS: becoming a police state?

Its not about whether police or anyone else is trustworthy - its about the law! Please someone will you reassure me here that there is someone who has a vague understanding that this is not about trusting the police or anyone in particular - politicians or whoever - its about a principle of law and civil liberties.

Argh!

As a member of the "older" community, I am quite happy with the government trying to extend the period to 42 days. I am sure myself and many others will not feel, we are in a police state

Another point I forgot to make in my earlier submission is this. Given that there isn't actually any evidence to support it, as far as we know, and given that nobody has as yet come up against the current 28 day limit, where did the figure of 42 days actually come from? Why not 60, or 90, or 365?

42 days just seems to have been plucked out of thin air in order to make a point.

Repeated surveys have shown that the majority of the population support the return of capital punishment, but I don't (yet) see the Government rushing to re-introduce that.
We elect MPs to take rational, calm decisions on our behalf and sometimes they go against the weight of public opinion.
Criminal justice is one area where mob rule should be resisted.
Some parts of the police and security services may want extra powers to deal with people they 'know' are guilty, but there have been enough miscarriages for it to be clear that police assertions needs to be challenged. Humans, however well meaning, make mistakes.
Existing serious crime anti-terror laws (an oxymoron in that they actually heighten fear) have been abused from councils using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act to spy over school placements to coach-loads of peaceful protestors being turned by police.
I can't see how voluntarily restricting our own freedoms helps 'defeat' terrorism - it looks more like surrending what we're supposed to be fighting for without a struggle.

It's also important to realise that if this legislation is passed, it won't be just *this* government with the power to enforce it.

You may think that Gordon, Jacqui and the rest are angels who would never wrongly detain someone just because they didn't like them, but consider that in 10 years we may have a very different government in power who *would* do just that. By allowing this legislation to pass, you give them that power.

Coincidentally, St Swithin's Day is now 42 days away. If he's still reigning by then, perhaps he may find that even another 40 days will be a bit longer than he can manage?

INEVITABILITY BROWN

Statistically, Brown SHOULD be psychologically flawed, devious, and in a mess, as he is a product of the same Westminster factory that turned out a long line of flawed, devious (messy, even messianic) predecessors. Blair - delusional, megalomaniac, Iraq. Major 鈥渂ack to basics鈥� (missionary position?) Cones hot line. Thatcher - 鈥渨e are a grandmother鈥� Falklands 鈥渃onflict鈥� (not war on Argentina) Poll Tax. Heath 鈥� Three day week; who governs Britain? Wilson - pound in your pocket, dodgy associations. Macmillan - tobacco connivance; 鈥渘ever had it (cancer) so good鈥�.

Of course, by the same token, the next one enthroned will fit, even more perfectly, the wonky Westminster mould. Don鈥檛 bet on capable governance any time now.
Plus ca change . . .

I agreed so much with the first comment, duncansmith, when he said, we will have become a police state and the extreemists and terrorists will have won our freedom. I could add, how do we prevent this law abused for political ends. Instead we need to show extreemists and would be terrorists zero tolorance, with pressure put on to all their connections and organisations, for instance if they knew that being radical meant their family was deported, their associates and community groups scrutinised and outlawed, no one would want to be deemed to pose a threat. Perhaps the youth could not be so easily influenced when they know that living in Britain comes with a responsibility. If we are to clamp down on radical islam for instance it would mean their family and associations would face consequences, by fast tracking deportation, Revoke citizenship, close down mosques or bookshops they attended. Why do we not treat terrorism with the seriousness it deserves. We should also stop funding endless appeals and take their assets to cover our costs. WHY? because an orginisation who fester such hatred deserve no consideration. Make it clear Britain will not tolorate it in the slightest sense. Those who want to rule us by fear need to fear the consequences for themselves, their famlies and their own community who will face scrutiny and consequences. The problem is at present we have to defend any investigations to lawyers, the human rights act, and sometimes the media. As things stand we are afraid of them already. All this pussy footing around, we are even afraid to offend. We look weak and feeble, exactly what they want. The law can work in other way's beside the number 42.
I am so tired watching our heritage disapear while foreign cultures take over. Why are we willing to be undermined.
Britain has become a joke and I'm not laughing

We've had some frightening experiences with our Prime Ministers over the last few years, but giving the government the power to lock people up for 42 days with no charge is surely one of the most disturbing.
Surely, if the police have a reason to arrest someone on the suspicion of terrorism, they must have some evidence? I would sincerely hope so. So why would it be necessary to keep someone in custody if there is still not enough evidence after a month?
Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon and decides this is a great idea, they may want to consider that this ruling would mean that anyone in the country could be arrested and held with no charges being brought-that means anyone reading this blog, or their friends and families. This is the kind of government behaviour that borders on dictatorship, and is something human rights groups lobby against in other countries!
I sincerely hope we can say goodbye to Gordon Brown very soon. I dont have much faith in the Tories either, but surely they couldnt do too much worse of a job-could they?

Gordon Brown's statement "we must follow through on policy" is very important.
1. If UK believes "42 days without charge holding of terror suspects" is wrong/inappropriate, then it needs be argued in parliament...and revised appropriately.
2. One cannot stress enough the importance of "Government" following through on legal/parliament -specified policy, law, regulation. Diverting from the path enables discrimination and abuses of law/perverstion of Justice, and worst of all, leads the country to lose all faith/belief in governance, law and justice; need I cite specifics of such digressions in the USA, where the average person speaking personal truths in private will attest to their firm firm in a lack of trustworthiness in Justice in the USA. This lack of trust and belief in one's own government can only deteriorate democracy and lessen the ability of citizens to impact governance for good. Surely, such circumstance is indicative of the collapsing of a country's constitution by which it was organized. When a nation loses its belief in its government's ability to serve the citizenry and uphold principles upon which the nation was established, surely that nation, like Rome et al., is facing imminent social and political collapse ?

Question: If a nation is [still] economically viable, but its political and social trusts and beliefs are broken/destroyed/collapsed, ...how long can that nation continue to function as a "country" and "socio-economic union" ?

[How long did it take for the empires of Rome, et al. to dissipate after the socio-political collapse ?]

Question: Can a socio-economic entity [once a nation] be sustained indefinately as long as the social trust and social interests and Constitution are upheld ?

Question: Has the social trust and social interests of the USA citizens been broken beyond repair ? Can such trust be maintained when a large segment of the population, i.e., the poor and vulnerable, are not being served/protected ?

What happens when democracy elections elect leaders who do not uphold citizens interests and the country's Constitution ?

I wish Gavin Esler would pause between sentences.

9. "We should trust our police forces and give them the powers they need. No innocent person has anything to fear from this proposed legislation. I'd rather risk the Police making the odd mistake than risk being blown to bits on a bus or train."

Try telling that to Jean Charles de Menezes' family. Innocent people do have something to fear, especially British Muslims: see "Was it like this for the Irish? Gareth Peirce on the position of Muslims in Britain. ( Also with the recent arrests involving (white) converts to Islam; who's to say who is safe anymore?

No justification for the number 42 seems to have been produced, why not 36 days? Or 54? or 96?

British Muslims along with their brethren rightfully want to resist the occupying forces in Muslim lands and oust west鈥檚 pampered dictators and tyrants. What infringes with the belief of Muslims is what the British government adopts its foreign policy. Recently Mr Blair PM deliberately ridiculed Islam comparing to Bush branding it as 'evil ideology'. They never refrained from narrowly translating the Qura'nic message to the believers of peace but not prepared to budge from the policy they push.

I notice that many posters do not even see the difference between what happens when a Muslim man/woman picked up by the suspected anti-terror police. They, literally vanish from this planet with no trace or contact of their whereabouts to immediate family for up to 42 days.

Consider that while the war against terror=war against Islam rages on in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine whole body of Muslims feel feverish. What makes one boil is that among many past and present No. 10 mandarins boastfully state their personal favoured choice of supporting Israel a British implanted body in the hearts of Muslim region expecting British Muslims to live with the pain and lump it!

Re 56. I think you got it all in a nutshell there; but these issues are rarely discussed in the media.

We need to have a written constitution NOW!!!!
1. ID cards another way for the government to sell information about individuals to multinational companies. ( No hint of stopping terrorism)

2. 42 day detention, why? i never heard the police ask for it!

3. How do citizens stop any of this and further legislation?

we have gone too far in allowing politicians to write and amend laws, WITHOUT limitations.
I believe a written constitution of our own is the only way to stop "OUR" government from eroding our civil liberties now and in the future.

Condoleeza rice once asked the question
' Do you trust the state to do what's right for you!' well do you?

ANY imprisonment without trial is SICK and Flies In The Face of what British Society and Justice are SUPPOSED to stand for.

Only a few years ago our Government would have been Ridiculing Foreign Governments who resorted to those sort of tactics.

We only have a Terrorist Threat because of our Goverment's Foreign Policy and its enthusiasm to support "Everything American, no matter how EVIL, INHUMANE or ILLEGAL it may be.

Our Government LIES about the extent of the "Terrorist Threat" because in recent years it is has become SO CORRUPT and USELESS, that it now relies upon "Government By Fear" in order to keep an unhappy population "Under Control" !

I say Imprison Gordon Brown and a few dozen of his USELESS CRONIES for 42 days without charge or trial and see how they like it. For starters the UK would suddenly become a MUCH NICER and HAPPIER Place !

"Also with the recent arrests involving (white) converts to Islam; who's to say who is safe anymore?"

One of them (in Exeter) threw a nailbomb into a family restraunt in front of about 30 witnesses and was arrested holding two other bombs. The other (in bristol) was busy building a bomb in his bedroom.

Are you suggesting they SHOULDN'T have been arrested! Neither will need even 7 days detention as all the evidence needed to put them away is right in front of us.

Given the tiny number of white converts to Islam in the Uk it seems we should be REALLY looking hard at all of them.