The House of Lords will reignite the debate but I can't help feeling this is still going to happen.

I'm trying to think of one other issue within the Labour Party that I am ashamed of other than this idea.

I sort of understood the unilateral/multilateral change of stance during the 1980's and I live with lie each day.

42 days is a disgrace that attempts to fool me regarding terrorists and terrorism.

Internment was a stupid act and 42 days is a political sham, not worthy of socialist support.
Unless of course, if your conscience is a figment of someone elses imagination via a drink in the tea rooms.

Bob, have a guess how many in the People's Republic support this idea. (clue: we have about six of your Sandwell club membership living here in Stoke).

Pathetic.

That would make little sense, you may not agree with 42 days detention but the voters do.

Perhaps we should adopt the system used in Italy and many other countries. As the case involving the alleged murder of Meredith Kercher from England demonstrates, in those countries people can apparently be held on remand for months whilst evidence against them continues to be gathered. No one seems to bat a proverbial eyelid.

Mike, the evidence of that is inconclusive.

Brian, that would involve changing the law to allowing post-charge questioning, which makes far more sense because you at least have to make a judicial case for charging someone first, rather than detaining people until you can make a case. Gary is right (and I don't say that often). Internment was a recruiting officer for terrorism in Ireland, and this change, intended primarily against Muslims, has similar dangers.

The other problem with this legisation, beyond the civil liberties argument, is as Hayman says, it is bureaucratic, convoluted and unworkable.

45 days is very unpopular with the people Labour need to attract and popular with those who vote Labour anyway or not at all.I `m not all that well informed but I have read material claiming that the point Hughes Views makes is based on a misunderstanding of the system in total.
Dominic Grieve has suggested lowering the no days still more and I think a Conswervative administration will be under great pressure to do just that.

I see the new man at immigration has admitted the Conservative Policy is correct Bob ..? Is that more flexibility ?

Gary Elsby said: I'm trying to think of one other issue within the Labour Party that I am ashamed of other than this idea.

You've been watching James Stewart winning the day in those Frank Capra films Gary,real people worry about these things, and real people despite what is said here really don't want to take the risk that someone will blow them up. Real people are also the ones who vote, and you will never get elected if you charge around talking about how offended you are that your government is trying to keep you safe.

Given that under the 42 detention bill the police would have to make a "judicial case" for holding a suspect (and would have to go back once a week to make the case again) it seems to me to be about as broad as it's long.

But then I'm not a lawyer or a terrorist so what do I know...

Would Mike like to name both of those voters who agree with 42 days?

Bob, it may have acted as a recruiting sargeant for terrorists, but the priciple of a democracy operating detention without trial supercedes the terrorist potential.

We can't and shouldn't live in a British Democracy whereby one side scares me into my freedom and my values are worth the equivalent of a determined terrorist.

It's worth comparing the proposed changes with the detention periods in other western nations. The UK is way out of line with the others already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_suspects#Detention_before_charge

I suppose the increase to 42 days is inevitable now that policy is driven by the "something must be done!" mentality.

Dear Bob

Noooooooooooo. This is not about U-turns. There is no reason why the government can't maintain its position on the theoretical possibility of there being a need to legislate for 42-day detention. GB can state the government's intention to bring forward emergency legislation if needs must. And then he can drop the provision in the Counter Terrorism Bill in the interests of focussing on the real economy.

Peter, that's so good it might even be seen as cynical.

newmainia - Conswervative - that is brilliant! Put a patent on it, quick.

But then I'm not a lawyer or a terrorist so what do I know...

How to line your own pocket and thats about it in my experience

"judicial case" ...?
What can that possibly mean when the motive is that they require more information to make a case that will stick. In effect you will have to take their word for it.

My problem is history shows it is either tough laws or death squads.
Look at Mrs Thacther she did not bring in tough laws she just sent out the SAS to shoot dead suspected IRA people wihtout trial. Some innocent teenagers got shot dead as a result. I prefer tough laws. A misscariiage of justice with tough laws is better than a misscarriage of justice with death squads. :

Absolutely right the bill should be abandoned without delay once the Lords chucks it out.

Peter Kenyon: Oh yes there is a theoretical reason why the Government can't maintain its position.

There is not one single shred of evidence that persuades thinking socialists of its value.

Perhaps, Peter, you can explain 42 days?

We don't need a lecture on terrorists, the IRA, ETA, Fundamentalists or any other group of lunatics.We are neither thick or stupid.

We just need 42 days explaining to us, day by day by day, with an individual explanation starting from 28 days.

Gary

Luke Akehurst will have your bollocks. Forty-two days shmorty-two days, the most important thing is stitching the Tories up like kippers and sod owt else.