42 days.....

Sounds like a film title, doesn't it? But we all know what it means and what it's a symbol of.

I ought to be amazed, though of course I'm not, that this has become such a cause celebre for the wet liberals. Yes, let's listen to all the expert advice etc., but let's not introduce any wet-lipped "moral" wabbling and vacillation into the issue. There's only a practical case here, not a moral one. Neither Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus or the Bill of Rights were ever intended to protect the rights of people who want to impose a foreign religion on Britain by terrorist violence. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth they wouldn't have held anyone for 42 days without solid evidence. Sir Francis Walsingham would have cooked some up, and they'd all have been hung by the neck unil half-dead, had their intestines drawn out and their bollocks chopped off, and subsequently had quarters of their bodies nailed up at city gates around the kingdom. Not that Cipriano would go that far - just that the bastards should feel lucky to stay alive, as the ones at Guantanamo Bay should. (Believe me, the Americans won't take any prisoners next time.)

And the idea, floated by Sam Leith in the Telegraph (!) last week, that the 42-day lock-up threatens all of us. No, Sam, it won't happen to you and it won't happen to me. And the wet policemen who claim it will "alienate the Moslem community". Well, it won't affect any normal peaceable Moslems either. Anyone who gets het up about it shows themselves to be at least ambivalent about the jihadis. Let's get this straight: I COULDN'T GIVE A MONKEY'S WHAT HAPPENS TO JIHADI MOSLEMS, AND ANYONE WHO COULD IS A BIT SUSPECT! Now, what part of that did you not understand?