[DeShark]

I've just spent a good long while reading through this thread and have now just voted.

I have to say I disagree strongly with Garinda's point of view. As I see it the argument reads:

"Any denial of freedom which *might* save a life is justified."

Let's suppose that the police have reason to suspect (no evidence, so cannot charge) a man of terrorism. This man is a single parent, with two children. 6 weeks without a father is going to have serious repercussions on his children.

Let's assume the man is innocent.

Their father will most likely lose his job, his reputation, his friends etc. and then be in a poor position to support his children. Sure, this man has £42,000 compensation to support them with (42 - 28 times £3000), but this money cannot last forever! Eventually, he will lose his children. It will be for them as if their father had been locked up for life. But the man is innocent. How on earth is this justified?!

If there's *evidence* however, then the man may be charged. The evidence will be analysed by a jury and a fair decision will be made. If the man is sentenced to life, then his children will suffer. But this is the fault of the man in question, not the fault of the government which this nation has elected.

If you suspect a man of being guilty, then you should begin gathering evidence. This is common sense. You begin to analyse his behaviour, listen in on his phone calls, gain a warrant of entry to his house, etc. If you gain one shred of evidence that will see him convicted, then you attempt to convict the man.

If you have no evidence, the man should be assumed innocent. This is UK law 101. If you assume the opposite, you should arrest everyone until they can prove themselves innocent. Proving innocence is neigh on impossible, especially with terrorism. If there's no evidence, this man is just like you or me. Everyone's a suspect in a crime, but not everyone is guilty. It seems like everyone here is saying it's ok to treat someone as guilty based on suspicion. Locking someone up for 42 days is the same as calling someone guilty in my eyes. Guilty people are denied basic freedoms to protect innocent people or to punish the guilty people. 42 days is punishment; potentially punishment inflicted upon an innocent!

I must concede however that this black and white view is not practical. Once you have gained a warrant and searched someone's house, they know you're on to them. They'll begin to actively cover traces if they're guilty. So in some cases it is necessary to arrest someone to potentially prevent them from destroying evidence. So how long after their arrest do you need to gather all the evidence?

Well so far... if they're guilty, the longest it takes has been 12 days. However...

If the police are looking for evidence to prove me guilty of terrorism, it would take them more than 42 days, more than 90 days, more than a lifetime. No evidence exists. So if I were locked up, I would be in prison for 42 days, or 90 days, or however long the limit is set to.

This is exactly the problem with this bill. Innocent people cannot prove their innocence!

So, the longer this limit is set, the longer innocent people are locked up for. 12 days has been enough so far. Perhaps cases will be more convoluted in the future, but we have to draw a line. I'd draw this line at 24 days. Twice as complicated as the most complicated case so far.

*IF* a person is convicted and it takes this long to convict him, *THEN* maybe an extension is called for. If not, the increase does not help catch terrorists, it merely detains innocent people for longer!