Urgent consultation on the Counter-Terrorism Bill

I don't believe the bill will have any effect, either up or down, on the incidence of terrorist attacks. Foreign policy changes might have though...

People, whatever the crime they are alleged to have committed,are innocent until proved guilty. This means that they should be subject to the normal rules and procedures of the criminal courts. Lengthy stays in prison before any charge is made undermine our tradition of fair and open justice. Our freedoms should not be put at risk.

It is important that the counter-terrorism officers can detain and question suspects. Of equal importance is the need for this to be expressly used in specific instances only and not used regularly as a means of suppressing the liberty of individuals who may not be terrorists. Given the previous circumstances (bombings and threats of further bombings) I think it would be unwise to reduce the length of time a suspect can be held for questionning. The other side of this debate should include acceptance by communities from across the world that when someone comes to the UK the expectation of the majority of its people in addition to its enforcement authorities is one of people who conform to a peaceful way of life and go about their daily business without making threats and causing harm to anyone. A person who comes to this country to visit or live accepts this as our way of life and as long as they live in this way, they will be treated with respect. The moment it is proven that an individual has done the opposite, expel them from the UK. A rule stating this expressly should be used as a deterrent (as in other countries who have particular laws about expected standards of behaviour). This will create a more civilised way to treat all people as well as providing a clear signal of the importance we in the UK attach to both being treated with respect and equally treating others with respect.

I chose 14 days merely because it is the lowest length of time of the choices, not that I agree with it. There is no difference between a terrorism suspect and a suspected mass-murderer. If the police can manage with the normal time limits in the most difficult non-terrorist cases then they should be able to deal with terrorist cases. During The Troubles Labour consistantly voted against the renewal of the 7 day detention limit on precisely these grounds. In my view, nothing has changed.

We have learned nothing from the experience of Northern Ireland which clearly demonstrated the pointlessness of responding to terrorism by abrogating the rights of people who may be thought by the authorities to sympathise with terrorist organisations.

The whole of the governments justice policy whether on terrorism or on domestic crime is in total disarray. Apart from the fact that the prisons are full, the locking up of more and more people is counter productive It creates angrier young men and women, makes children into disruptive adults, makes the mentally ill and drug addicts worse and may finally make martyrs where there were none.

None

There is no evidence that 28 days have been insufficient in the past; therefore no justification for extending the period

We are being manipulated to believe terrorism is more threatening than before for suspect reasons. The best way for governments to counter it is to be seen to be democratically just, and oppose it as a criminal issue, not a political one.

Question 5 should have the option of "Won't make any difference"

I believe that interrogating anyone for an extended period is counter productive. Detentions should only be made once a strong suspicion preferrably with evidence is available. The argument that evidence needs to be collected post arrest is strange - on that basis anyone could be detained. The basis of current law has worked for hundreds of years and for people who did not have our technology. It is extremely odd that with all the resources and technology available there is a need to increasingly detain people and for longer and longer periods. Terroism has always been with us and always will be - it is not a new phenomenon. It is has always effectively been dealt with by the majority of people not allowing themselves to be victimised by random acts of terror and by governments recognising and dealing positively with disaffection before it begins to fester.

Shami Chakrabarti often has interesting points to make, but on the whole i find her very unbalanced - she seems to fail to appreciate most people's concerns. I tend to expect her to be trying to cause a sensation with how 'shocking' Britain's actions are, so i usually approach her views with lots of scepticism.

I don't believe the bill will have any effect on terrorism in this country because the issues are unrelated. The terrorism we face concerns personal freedoms and plurality: our response must not go down the same route. Other countries do not seem to need the same approach. We must work with Europe on this, and set out a common approach.

Counter-Terrorism Bill sends a message to all terrorist groups that they are winning - the British state is afraid of them.

Extending the period of pre-charge detention will not lesson terrorism, it failed to do in Northern Ireland during Internment and it will fail to do so this time. We are have the longest period of pre-charge detention of any democratic government in the world. Further extentions are completely without precedence and have not been proven. Further just because the security servcies state that they would like it, does not been that it is in the interests of our national security, in the same way and the nuclear industry wanting new nuclear power stations, or the road lobby wanting more motorways or the removal of congestion charges, is not always in the national interest. We should have courage and avoid knee-jerk responses to the question of terrorism. Do less better may be more advantageous than additional legislation and pre-trial/pre-charge detention.

Habeas corpus is one of the aspects of British culture of which I am most proud. That's the part that needs teaching in schools. Use it or lose it! Am for wire-tap etc. in court, but only if strong technology is used to prevent post collection tampering. E.g. inaudible encrypted data added during collection.

Any kind of terrorism which hurts the innocent is despicable. But locking people up for 42 days with out charge and the finding out they are innocent is just as despicable.

I picked the 90 day option as it is nessery to use this time to track data/money across borders. Also to decript incripted hard drives.ect The full 90 days need not be used in full, but thay need to be thear to give vital time to the investgation if needed.

I have found the statements by Jacqui Smith and Shami Chakravati confusing.The former says that the extension of pre-charge detention proposed in the bill is to be up to 7 days at a time under judical and parliamentary oversight to a maximum of 42 days. The latter that the home secretary only has to inform Parliament that she has triggered the 42 day limit which cannot then be challenged, and Parliament could only vote on it up to 30 days later if the government sought to renew these powers for a further 30 days. I cannot make any sense of that statement. Neverthless Shami Chakravati lists a formidable array of people which she claims to be opposed to the counter-terrorism bill and I think there must be very good reasons for them to adopt that stance.

Muslims in Britain feel very strongly that they have been targetted by the Terrosism Act while 99.9% of the 1.5 million Muslims in Britain are very law abiding citizens. It is a very tiny minority who are extremist. The present policies and the media campaign are alienating young Muslims. A good example of the Islamophobia is the way the Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has been hounded by the media for his innocent comments regarding Sharia law.

Good morning Mr Hayes and everybodyelse within the British Government , I'm writing as an Ex-Soldier whom served 2 years in the Royal Air Force Regiment and 7 months as a British Army Cadet and whom is now both a Security Officer for Charter-Scurity PLC and a member of Luton South Constituency Labour Party , I both personally and ploitically think the United Kingdom should toughen up both its' foreign policy and counter-terrorism bill too ; we do need to be in control and take on both the terrorists and would-be terrorists and if it means arming our police forces with sufficient weaponry in full-view like Bedfordshire Police . We do need to be strong and tough in the face of terror so as to prevent another 7th July 2005 on mainland U.K or another 11th September 2001 in America too . As for our relations with America ; we should continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with America in the wars against terror after all during the Great War when Britain was in very serious trouble , the United States of America came to our rescue and also in the Second World War to defeat Nazi Germany . We MUST NOT THESE HISTORIES . Britain should be more more cultural YES ,but in the face of terrorism WE'ALL EVEN OUR POLICE , SOLDIERS , POLITICIANS AND SECURITY OFFICERS LIKE ME BE EXTREMELY VIGILANT AND ALERT IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM HERE IN U.K . Please acknowledge this very , very passionate email and thank you . Yours faithfully , Leandro Roberts .

If people abide by the law then they will have no interest from the authorities.However any one who takes the risk of offending any one must be subject of investigation for the protection of law abiding people.

I believe that, if people in this country or coming to this country want to harm any persons in this country then they forfiet their civil liberty rights. they must be locked up until proof/evidence has been uncovered for proof of guilt/innocence.

UNISON has a clear policy of opposition to any method of dealing with the threat of terrorism which discriminates against and alienates communities instead of working with them. The destruction of civil liberties entailed in the “war on terror”, and the associated anti-terror laws, is both ineffective in stopping terrorism and dangerous to democracy. UNISON believes the Government has not made the case for extending pre-charge detention limits beyond the current 28-day period, which is nearly four times longer than that of most comparable democracies.

The case against the counter-terror bill boils down to it being more important to avoid the remote possibility (given the time limits and the exceptional degree of judicial and parliamentary scrutiny referred to by Jacqui Smith) of an innocent person being wrongly held for 42 days than to avoid the possibility of a terrorist slipping through the net and thereby causing untold mayhem. Which is no argument at all. (see my fuller comments on the Chakrabarti thread)