I'm not sure what to think about that bill. I've been sitting on the fence about this because i agree we need something to protect us from terrorism, but at the same time - the bill sounds immensly problematic.

For example, say someone left a bag on a train or something, and there was an air of suspicion around you - up to 90 days detained with no charge - and the bag contains nothing more than clothes or whatever. That's the flip side of the arguement. But then again - is it a risk we are willing to take?

If i had to choose i would've been for the bill, but 90 days is too long. Surely they can do everything they need to in say 30 days? Then again - i'm very wary of people, so that's probably why i'm saying that.

I try not to participate in political discussions because i can never seem to come to a satisfying conclusion, and it would seem that i've done the same again. Arguing both ways - sitting on the fence. Again.

The first time the Blair government's been defeated...wow. Momentous. This'll go down well in my next Politics lesson.
Well, I'm happy anyway. I can't say I agreed with the policy, backbenchers prove their effectiveness, and now I have an example of a government loss I can use in my next Politics exam! Three victories for the price of one!
The signs that Tony's losing his touch are really starting to add up. I think he'll be relieved once this last term's over.

They did, however, pass a 28-day period subsequently.