That little? And still this is a country that no longer has the death penalty because too many convicted innocent people get killed. Even despite the overwhelming inefficiency of 3 thrown out cases.

It is the same all over. In the US, DNA evidence has overturned convictions of many inmates (typically black males) on death row. As of 2000 the state of Illinois set more people free because their convictions had been overturned in this way than they’d put to death.

And all that loss of life and liberty for what exactly? 52 victims and 700 injured on July 7 05. Your 90-day proposal wouldn’t have stopped it.

Meanwhile just in 2003 there were 290,607 casualties in traffic accidents. 3,508 people were killed. 4,100 children were killed or seriously injured. Of these 2381 were pedestrians and there were 171 child fatalities.

And I doubt any of the “woo terrorists!” crowd would give up a jot of their liberty to save any of them.

Oh but of course if those systems had been right in stockwell as they were right in australia..?

there are people out there who think CCTV is a step too far. i didnt agree with them back when it was an issue either.

We’ve all seen how well systems without evidence and process worked in Stockwell.

We also know that ‘terrorists’ have been falsely convicted even after the rigours of a full trial before now.

Speaking for myself only, it’s not a case of ‘no longer’ trusting the police (although with Ian Blair in charge of the Met and Ken Livingstone overseeing appointments and discipline in the Met it’s hard not to believe they’ve taken a lurch to the Left).

But I do not believe in their perfection because they are human beings, nor do I accept that, when under pressure to produce results, that they won’t do a few things that they’d rather keep quiet about. There are no walks of life in which people do not bend the rules and few where people do not break them. The problem with the 90 day limit is that bending the rules can have more serious consequences for the victim than if he was only held for 14 days.

Your arguments (the public is wrong - it is our job to engage them better and harder) reminds me of Chirac’s immediate response to losing the Referendum vote - make them vote again until they say YES.

Actually, I think we simply need to explain better. I’m talking here about clarifying our objections by appealing to people’s reason not bludgeoning them into submission. Of course, they might still disagree - and with sensible enough reason - but I think we’ve made a less than ideal effort to put across the reasons why we object. My post was a belated attempt but many others could produce something quite a bit better.

i) We are dealing with a different enemy. The game has changed and so must the rules. I would assume that the police are the most qualified to decide the detention period. How can we as mere commentators know the correct number?

I am not sure exactly why the rules must change. But if they must then here’s a suggestion of a rule change: why not imprison everybody convicted of identity fraud, money laundering, credit card theft and document forgery? This would severely hamper terrorist activity since such activities form part of the support mechanisms of terror. It’s a simple idea and only affects those already convicted yet nobody wants to do this because it’s ordinary and bland and, besides, these are the kinds of criminals we want to not put into our already over-crowded prisons. Lock ‘em up for 90 days - now that sounds radical and tough.

If the police are best placed to decide the appropriate detention period why is it that they cannot yet provide us with an example of when 90 days would have been useful to them? If they could provide an example then it would not therefore end the argument in their favour but it would at least add substance to the idea that they’re being inconvenienced by having to let people go after 14 days. I have not yet come across evidence that they let somebody free because they ran out of time. If you have I’d be grateful for a link.

ii) I do not believe this is a Labour plot to make them look tough. It has been the most significant defeat for Blair in his 8 years in power. You dont plan for this.

I think Blair thought he was going to win this. Certainly, when he announced it originally I don’t believe he expected much opposition - especially not from his own side. He miscalculated and it backfired.

If the UK imprisoned people for crimes committed terrorists would have a much harder time of it. If our borders were secure and if we restricted immigration to just those few people we either need for economic reasons or will accommadate for humane reasons then the flow of terrorist trainers and facilitators would be disrupted.

No single measure is going to solve our problems but holding a chap for 90 days when the rest of his cell is out there creating mayhem is no good.

And if the bombers aren’t even ‘on the police radar’ - as the London bombers were not - what use is 90 days of detention? How would that have helped?

It is indeed unusual to find a whole host of Conservatives like yourself refusing to back legislation proposed by the police on the grounds that you no longer trust them!

There is overwhelming popular support for 90 day detention - a point that libertarians and conservatives are either ignoring or condescendingly dismissing. Politicians are ultimately elected to carry out our instructions -as you say, they are our servants.

Your arguments (the public is wrong - it is our job to engage them better and harder) reminds me of Chirac’s immediate response to losing the Referendum vote - make them vote again until they say YES.

You make some strong arguments in favour of retaining the 14 day rule. But i disagree with you in two fundamental regards.

i) We are dealing with a different enemy. The game has changed and so must the rules. I would assume that the police are the most qualified to decide the detention period. How can we as mere commentators know the correct number?

ii) I do not believe this is a Labour plot to make them look tough. It has been the most significant defeat for Blair in his 8 years in power. You dont plan for this.