The 42-day detention issue is one of those where I'm in such a different paradigm to opponents of the Government's position that I actually don't even know where to start debating with them.
I just don't get why any one would want to constrain the security forces' ability to lock up and question people suspected of terrorist offences for long enough to help stop mass casualty incidents.
The worst thing that can happen is that someone spends 42 days in Paddington Green and then gets let out, apologised to, and no doubt compensated. Unpleasant for the individual but not life-threatening.
The worst things that can happen if the police don't get enough time to investigate properly and stop a terrorist incident is in the "best" case a mass-conventional casualty event like 7/7 that kills many people and maims and psychologically traumatises many more, in the worst case its far, far worse stuff involving dirty bombs or biological or chemical weapons that could cause an unimaginable human catastrophe.
Having rather a great desire to live, and not to be shredded by a nail bomb or infected with small pox or polluted with radiation on my daily commute into central London, I am rather relaxed about the police having just six weeks to chat to folks thinking of doing this to me and other Londoners with a view to stopping them doing it.
The irony that at a time when the Labour Government can't seem to do much that is popular there are a whole bunch of Labour MPs prepared to vote against their own Ministers on one of the few issues where we are wholly in tune with what the public wants is profound. I'm with the 69% of the public who support the new 42 day limit. I find their voice rather more compelling than the incessent scare-mongering and Orwellian paranoia of Shami Chakrabati.