And the answer is.... 42

Why is the government having a hard job selling the idea of 42 days detention without charge for terror suspects? The problem is that there is no logic for the specific number. To sell an argument a factual and sensible underpinning is required, if someone could say this is exactly why it takes 42 days to gather evidence, question the suspect and make a case then it may gain some credibility. It seems that every minister, just see Jacqui Smith on the Andrew Marr Show, prevaricates on the issue and fails to really explain why 42 days was the right number. To me, and perhaps to many others, it just does not seem convincing and I think this is the main reason why there is a problem. Civil liberties are always seen as sacrosanct and any infringement is controversial, hence the government need to make a strong case for every aspect of the extension. Is it me or do they seem unable to do so?

Voluntary or Compulsive?

I am not ideologically opposed to ID cards, as every marketing company, DVLA, NHS, and god knows how many other organisations seem to have my details it would seem to be no big deal. Personally my major gripe is that the proposal was we were being told to have something and then given a bill for the privelege. As we have to pay more for passports, driving licences and various other 'ID' forms, a further high cost card seems unnecessary and designed to annoy the poeple a little more than they were previously. The media says there is a climbdown by Jacqui Smith and the government in makign the statement:

We have always said that there will be no requirement to carry and present a card. That has not changed, and will not change. And there will be no compulsion, either, in having to apply for a dedicated identity card for the purposes of proving your identity.

But I wonder, as ever with these things the devil is in the detail. Within her speech, Smith talked of the selling points for young people having an ID card would be:

It will make it easier to enrol on a course, apply for a student loan, open a bank account, or prove your age

But does this hint that without clear photographic proof young people would be unable to go to college or university, get their loan, have an account ot put it in, or have a drink in the student bar so getting an ID card would be inevitable? It is an interesting idea to ensure that the next generation of youth will need to have an ID card and so mean that in the long term they will become a part of everyday life, but is that what Brown and Smith have in mind while they also make it all seem voluntary.