The super soaraway Sun’s headline a few days ago - ‘Tell Tony he’s right’ - was accompanied by an horrific picture of bloodied London bomb victim, John Tulloch. Quite clearly, The Sun and Mr Tulloch knew what they wanted and they wanted ‘terror suspects’ to be subject to up to 90 days’ detention if the police could convince a judge the suspect was up to no good. And they wanted Mr Blair to know they wanted this too.

Except, it isn’t quite like that. It transpires that Mr Tulloch isn’t quite the victim that the government - and The Sun - might have hoped for. In fact, he’s nothing like what they might have hoped for.

From The Guardian:

The bloodied victim, John Tulloch, feels deep anger with Tony Blair and politicians for the role they played in stirring up the violence that came to London on July 7.

His views on The Sun aren’t flattering:

“This is using my image to push through draconian and utterly unnecessary terrorism legislation. Its incredibly ironic that the Sun’s rhetoric is as the voice of the people yet they don’t actually ask the people involved, the victims, what they think. If you want to use my image, the words coming out of my mouth would be, ‘Not in my name, Tony’. I haven’t read anything or seen anything in the past few months to convince me these laws are necessary.

I am totally offended by what the Sun has done. Rather than just depriving me of a voice, they have given me somebody else’s voice. Blair’s voice.”

Of course, The Sun has gone a step further and described anyone who doesn’t agree with 90-day internment as being a ‘traitor’. The Sun evidently does not even know what the word ‘traitor’ means. Yet isn’t voting for legislation that is arbitrary, would have done nothing to prevent the 7th July bombings, is unsupported by any concrete evidence that it’s even needed and, importantly, flies in the face of the traditional British liberty to be free from imprisonment unless actually convicted of something bordering on the treasonous? If the authorities arrest somebody and, 14 days later, still haven’t got enough of a case to even charge him (charge, remember - not convict), shouldn’t they perhaps have done a little more ground work before nicking him?

As the police chiefs run around doing Blair’s bidding (prior, as it happens, to a reorganisation of police forces that will see the unchosen ones lose their jobs - where ‘unchosen’ might just mean those who haven’t toed the party line) yet another London bombing victim refuses to play the game. Rachel North (a pseudonym) was on an underground carriage on 7th July when it blew up:

I am not surprised that terrorists seek to do what they can to attack my democratic society, to threaten my liberties, to spread fear, to seek to divide us.

I do not expect my democratically-elected government to do the same. I cannot, and do not speak for all the victims, and nor can, and nor should Tony Blair and Charles Clarke.

I do not see why this ill-thought out macho posturing, which can only destabilise and divide us, by robbing men and women of the ancient and fundemental right of habeas corpus, and making sections of the community afraid, is going to defeat terror.

And I will not meekly accept claims that this is to be done in my name. This is panicking, this is fearful, this is not helpful. I expect better than this, and I deserve better than this. We all do.

I remain disgusted that you should use ordinary people - because that is all we are - bombed people - bloodied people - in this way. Who gave you the right to speak for me, Mr Blair, Mr Clarke? When did I give my blessing to fear-mongering?

I’m not of the opinion that because these people were direct victims of the bombings that their views are somehow more pertinent than anybody else’s - yours, mine or the government’s. They aren’t. But their support for draconian detention laws was taken for granted and it’s good to see them speak out. I look forward to a long Sun article describing accurately and fairly the views of those who do not support the 90 day rule.