O.K., I can do that.

By the way, all the article was doing was reporting the views of the officers who opposed the law. Because you cannot handle the fact, that some policemen disagree with you, you distort the article so it fits in with your caricature of opponents of the 42 day period.

Yeah, but I’m just a Joe writing on a blog in his spare time. I’m meant to have planks in my eye.

The Guardian is respected national news organ and these are professionals journalists.

See?

Even so, you’ll be hard-pressed to give me an instance of “polemic dressed up as fact” in this post. Where there is polemic, it is unashamedly polemic and I make no attempt to dress it up in anything. The Guardian can do the same on its editorial page and in the op-eds. But front-page news is supposed to be just that.

See again?

That’s a pretty decent summary of NuLab Decent thought, isn’t it? “Her arguments are better, but we’re The Good Guys so what we want must still be right…”

“How can that be for the greater good? How many might be child predators, for example?Or serial Killers?”

I recommend some study of philosophy; your first assignment is “why crude utilitarianism is a ridiculous moral system that has been rejected by absolutely everyone”. Possibly also some study of the social and political history of regimes that have adopted a ’subjugate individual rights for the common good’ policy might prove helpful.

The Labour Government wants it for the sake of expediency – to look tough on terror. That is not a good reason to have it.

They are playing silly political games with people’s lives.

“It’s the classic Death penalty conundrum. I’d prefer one thousand guilty murderers to go free than for one innocent person to be put to death by the State.”

How can that be for the greater good? How many might be child predators, for example?Or serial Killers?

It amounts to, I’d rather X amount of kids get killed than one innocent person be put to death by the state. There’s more innocence on the other side of the equation!

I don’t think I read the word “Muslim”! in the proposed legislation so why are people using the argument that such laws have an effect on the Muslim Community? It seems to me that the point being made is “Don’t upset them or a few of them might just carry out that plot”. Its as if we are legislating against a minority based on faith and yet we aren’t!

The reason why people drag the Muslim argument into this is because since March 2007 there have been 60 convictions for terrorism (based on a Home Office answer to Tom McNulty in April 2008). I beleve 100% of those convicted are Muslims. Hence, we are really saying that the Muslim community is affected because that is where the terror suspects come from.

I’d like to know what we are doing as preventative measures.

But whatever we do I will guess that the Islamists will be playing on our fears again by telling us we are targetting their community and trying to make us go soft out of guilt.

I will use the playground defence “We didn’t start it”. Why are we being attacked by guilt when we are being attacked by Islamist Terrorism?

I agree, but that’s not my only objection to capital punishment. I’m also opposed because I believe it is wrong in principle. The same goes for 42 days detention. I simply believe it is an unacceptable extension of the state’s power.

If that were true then I would never ever vote Labour again. Thankfully I don’t believe it is, although Ben’s comments certainly worry me. Labour needs more people like Shami, not fewer.

Not the same. People like Henry Porter of the Guardian are saying it will be the end of democray if 42 days are voted for. Nobody ever said that about Clause 28.

My senior sources say the vote is lost in any event, but Brown is so unpopular it won’t matter anyway.