Why is it that in the US, they can make do with, what?, 2 days, or is it three. They must be at least as much of a target as the UK.

The poll question doesn't say "terror suspects"! I'm sure the voter for 90 days lock-up wasn't thinking of a shoplifter, which is what you should think of if you answer the question as stated. This confusion makes this poll useless as it stands.

This is my biggest gripe with the government.

The arbitrary and dilettante nature of this issue to date has been very disappointing. I don't know exactly how long the limit should be but I do know that it shouldn't be the longest of any democracy by a long way.

As far as I can see the arguments against it are crippling in that:

a) What little information the intelligence services and Police get from the Muslim community will dry up.

b) Extremists will point to the limit and everyone held under it as proof this country hates Muslims.

c) We’ve been here before with internment in Northern Ireland. The IRA had a recruitment bonanza.



Why can’t that evidence be used to bring at least one charge? The law says that once they’ve been charged, Police can’t interview them about evidence and that’s why they need the extension but they should simply change that law.

If, instead of wasting billions on the ID card technology (which the civil service will probably mistake with ebay anyway), the government spent the money on new resources for the Police and border services decrypting files would be less of a problem. They might even catch other cross border criminals.

e) Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown say the Police have demanded this extra time. Since when did the PM listen to the Police? They also demanded that the Government didn’t go ahead with the new licensing laws and weren’t heeded.

f) The argument that terrorists use mobile phones and it takes ages to get info from handsets and servers is nonsense. Evidence comes from listening in to conversations and the bulk of that can’t even be used in court – why don’t they change that law? I’d rather they go through court orders to listen to phone conversations rather than court orders to lock people up.

g) Look at the opposition. Loads of Labour MPs, Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives (whom we’d traditionally associate with this type of guff), the HAC and JCHR committees and the former attorney general.

h) Although a long-term and cynical reason – this proposed limit, when exploited by the right-wing press (which it will be) and when used as a demonstration of Labour being anti-Asian will be very damaging for the Party electorally. Can you imagine the vast number of Asians holding Labour in the same contempt Irish people traditionally hold the Conservatives?

It’s already very difficult to make the case that New Labour isn’t ‘Tory-lite’ – this will make it almost impossible.

Finally, there are also the small niggling considerations that holding someone interminably without having the courage to charge them with something will completely ruin their lives.

Although it’s hard to argue against the government’s intention to keep us safe - there’s also the fact that this is a lurching incursion into people’s civil liberty. What people should always consider, but probably never do, is that this law means you! It’s unlikely that you yourself, personally will be held but, as I’ve said before, I’d rather be protected by the law of the land from such an experience than the law of averages.