Jonathan Myerson says Jacqui Smith can keep his DNA for as long as he likes. Daft article, great comments. Which is why I've linked it here.

7/7 Conspiracy Theories: the TRUTH at last

UPDATE NOTE: the collection of conspiracy theories below is SATIRE. It has been posted because after three years of seeing utter rubbish disseminated on the internet through blogs, forums, home-made 'truth documentaries' and 'truth research', which are nothing more than paranoid speculation, I believe it is time to show this stuff up for what it really is. The sane, clear-eyed calls for a 7/7 inquiry are nothing to do with conspiracy theories that are posted and repeated endlessly on the internet, and passed around by people who have apparently little grasp of Occam's razor or logic or evidence-based research.

I have noticed that it is a frequent conspiracy theorist tactic to focus obsessively on any small anomaly - normal in archived coverage of rolling, multi-sourced news coverage of a major event under massive investigation, and to relentlessly ask endless questions, which seek to raise doubt on the 'official account'. Very rarely will the practised conspiracy theorist attempt to come up with a counter-narrative of their own; instead, the onus is always on 'The Powers that be' to disprove negatives, and respond to every rumour and question, no matter how evidence-free its orgin. This account represents a round-up of the main 7/7 consipracy theories and attempts to refute them, using logic, evidence and satire. If you are likely to be offended by the lies that are circulated about the 7th July murders - and many are - please don't read on. To those who have expressed interest in the 7/7 conspiracy theories without considering carefully their provenance, origin, agenda and basis in fact, I hope this makes you think twice before passing them on.

You may also want to look at this: 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists.

SATIRE ALERT: This is a guest post from
Connor Spiracy and Thea Wrist

''After three years of 7/7 research on the internet, I can reveal the TRUTH, and I would like to share it with you all now. Everything in the following is taken from a real internet 7/7 research source available only on the internet. Placed together, I'm sure you will see what a compelling case it all makes - much more convincing than the official version. Hold tight - this will change your world...

A few years ago, wicked people agreed upon an evil scheme. In order to bolster their nefarious plans for

(a) introducing ID cards (b) endless war for oil (c) endless war against Islam

a dreadful 'false flag' plot was hatched by

(a) the UK government (b) a shadowy Bilderberg hyper-capitalist neocon cabal (c) the CIA (d)M15/6 (e) Israel (f) Jews, somewhere, (g) possibly an elite part-reptilian super-race.

They decided to attack London on 7th July and blame it on Islamist terrorist suicide bombers. (There are no such things as Islamist terrorist suicide bombers, especially not UK ones, who have wives and children and look normal.) The terrible plot went like this:

M15 placed bombs under the trains, which had been timed to explode. They worked with Israel to do this, Mossad probably, and maybe the CIA as well. The Israeli PM, who was staying near Russell Square, knew in advance and was warned, even though what actually happened was that after the Russell Square bomb went off, he was warned to stay in his room with his security detail, so missing the fourth bomb in Tavistock Square round the corner less than an hour later. A huge world-leading Israeli-owned security and surveillance company won the contract to put in enhanced security systems on the London Underground in September 2004, ten months before the bombings, so that proves everything. Oh, and a passenger who was in the same carriage as the bomb at Edgware, who remained with a dying woman then staggered out in shock said he 'couldn't remember' seeing where a bomb or a bag was. Which also proves it. Kind of.

But if you want a final piece of proof, one survivor also mentioned to a journalist outside the station shortly after fleeing the train, that they had seen tiles on the floor of the carriage fly up. This was because of the bomb which had been placed in a rucksack on the floor of the carriage in front. Erm, but it could also indicate a bomb under the carriage, although photographs of the train interior indicate the bomb was inside. As does eye-witness evidence from survivors who were in the carriage with the bomber. Including a man who stood opposite him and survived with terrrible injuries.

The bombers were innocent; they were however standing in the carriages and killed by the bombs in their rucksacks that they were carrying. But that wasn't their fault, because they were innocent 'patsies' who thought they were smuggling drugs or taking part in a mysterious terror training exercise. That was why they'd bought return tickets, even though a cheap day return is cheaper than a single. They'd even made videos describing why they considered themselves soldiers in a war against the UK. And been to terror training camps abroad and everything. They took their acting role very seriously indeed. But they were completely innocent, remember.

The person co-ordinating the mysterious terror exercise was Peter Power, an ex-Scotland Yard officer, who like many other former cops had set up his own company. His company specialises in training management to be crisis-prepared. So on July 7th, in a shocking and unimaginable coincidence, he was sitting in an office teaching some managers, in a publishing company that employed about a thousand people, how to plan for disasters, like he did every day.

At 9am, the start of the working day, he was asking the managers to consider what would happen if major tube stations were attacked at rush hour. I know. Amazing and frankly not believable - even though there had been a rush hour Al Qaeda attack on Madrid commuters, and a London tube attack was widely considered to be a likely terror target. As part of his training material, he used recordings of a Panorama programme simulating a terror attack on London. He'd been on the programme - God knows why the BBC would ask a respected security and risk expert onto a programme about terrorism and the risk to security, but there you go.

When the real attacks happened in London, where he was working that day along with hundreds of thousands of other people, he was shocked - but used the opportunity to mention the prescience of his security firm. A most untypical reaction of a self-employed risk consultant with an opportunity to talk about his company on national news, I'm sure you'll agree.

The poor not-bombers were killed, along with passengers on the tube trains. But one bomber remained alive. When he realised he was a dupe, he fled to Canary Wharf, where he knew there were lots of journalists in media organisations who would help him. That's what anyone would do in such a situation - hurry across the city to Canary Wharf.

When the young non-bomber arrived at Canary Wharf, he was promptlyshot in broad daylight by black-clad gunmen, in the full view of lots of towering office blocks full of journalists and business people. A much smarter idea than taking him into a van and bumping him off, eh?

His remains were then chopped up, taken back to the exploded bus and carefully scattered about to fool everyone.

The bus wasn't really exploded at all, however. It was full of actors and stuntmen, and used clever pyrotechnics to look like it was exploded. It was all part of Peter Power's mysterious terror drill.

But Peter Power didn't know the real reason why he had been asked to run a complicated terror drill complete with fake exploding bus for the benefit of a few managers in a publishing company who never left their office and were doing a planning exercise on powerpoint with videos in a different part of London.

The wicked plotters behind it all were using Power as a dupe, to add weight to their plot to blow up three trains and blame it all on Muslims. They were so evil that they actually wanted to be found out and send a coded message of their mocking disdain by doing the high-risk strategy of the shooting and faked bus explosion as well; to add insult to this they then cynically arranged for a red London bus with a lift-off roof full of dancers to appear at the Olympic handover to London ceremony.

Thousands of passers-by, police, emergency services workers have all kept quiet about all this, aided by a complicit media. M15 and their masters ruthlessly suppress the truth by allowing bloggers and internet truth campaigners to write about this and distribute DVDs and hold meetings about it regularly.

I realise when I write all this down it looks very silly, and that there is not a single shred of credible evidence to support any of it - which is why it is always better not to explain this is what happened, and instead just ask lots of questions and look at isolated details out of context whilst ignoring anything that contradicts the theory. But now you know that the official account is all lies and the ultimate proof is of course, that 9/11 Was An Inside Job.''

Sometimes all you can do is laugh. Because otherwise, you'd cry. Enough of this insulting, illogical, lazy, deceitful paranoid conspiracy crap flying round the internet, let's have an inquiry - to put this trust-corroding, intelligence-damaging nonsense to bed as much as to get at the truth.

Hicham Yezza

Sorry I'm late with this. I really can't believe that this politically-motivated shabby little Home Office stitch-up is still going on. Charge or release. Charge or release, god dammit. Remember, the comprehensive thrashing the government got over 42 days? You'd think they might get a grip, but no, no, no.

Here we have the sorry saga of the Home Office's attempts latest attempts to shamefacedly bundle an innocent man out of the country because it appears that their heavy-handed attempt to nick him for terrorism charges and bang him up for 6 days and nights without charging him (over downloading stuff that was a) relevant to his degree course b) available on Amazon) backfired on them badly, got into the media and made them look like authoritarian heartless swines last summer.

Clue: You want to win abstract-noun 'wars' about freedom, justice, democracy and liberty? You have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk you know. Sheesh.

SUPPORT HICHAM YEZZA website.
Unity explains why on Liberal Conspiracy.

Paedo-jihadi-facebook-terror!

Paedo terrorist rapist jihadists are using teh internetz to spread filth and evil! OMG WTF!!11 !!
Or How the Internet Must be Controlled, by Jacqui Smith and Geoff Hoon.

After last week's humiliating failure of the government's latest 'anti-terror' strategy, which resulted in them dropping their plans to hold people for 42 days without charging them, and to hold secret inquests in State-implicated deaths, Jacqui Smith and Geoff Hoon came back with their giant database plan. They want access to absolutely everyone's mobile and web records, including social networking sites like Facebook. Why? Because ' terrorists use such communications'.

Not monitoring this traffic is 'giving terrorists a licence to kill people', Hoon actually had the brass neck to say. He confirmed that the government is prepared to go 'quite a long way' with removing civil liberties 'to stop terrorists killing people'.

*headdesk*

Terrorists also wear clothes, Geoff, which might conceal bombs. They live in houses, which have blinds and curtains, which can be drawn to conceal their nefarious terrorist activities therein. Ban window coverings! Get your kit off! If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear!

Anyway, today, as if by magic, we get three full pages in the Times about 'Links between child porn and Muslim terrorists' and 'dangerous and depraved: Paedophiles unite with terrorists online.'

Paedophiles and child porn and terrorists and Muslims and the internet all in one story! I don't think I've ever seen quite so many memes working in concert before: it's like the Chinese State Circus act I saw once when a dozen people all managed to balance on one bicycle and whizz round and round at high-speed whilst we all gasped and applauded.

I decided to take a closer look at the Times story. I note that it has

10 mentions of 'Muslim'
6 mentions of 'Islam'
5 mentions of 'Islamic'
8 mentions of 'Mosque'
8 mentions of 'Jihad'
6 mentions of 'Jihadi'
29 mentions of 'Terrorist'
15 mentions of 'Terrorism'

So what evidence have we got for all this?

a) An East-end rapist, who got seven friends to lie for him and give a false alibi that he was giving a sermon on repentance at a mosque during Ramadan when the attack took place. He was caught after being investigated by police over suspected links to a 'jihadi gunrunner'. DNA taken after he was arrested proved he was wanted for the vicious rape a year earlier. His computer was seized and found to contain child pornography downloads. He has never been convicted of terrorism offences.

b) Another suspected terrorist - also calling himself a Muslim - who was also found to have hard-core child porn when raided in a different investigation.

c) Hard-drives found at a Milanese mosque allegedly used by Islamist militants, which contained images of children being sexually abused that were also encoded with messages as 'a clandestine method of communication'. An Italian 'anti-terror magistrate' (a what?) said that pornographic images were being used to camouflage 'messages of quite a different content', and remarked to the Times that the men did not have 'paedophile tendencies', but 'in many parts of the Arab world - wives are often very young girls of 11, 12 or 13 who because of family negotiations are given in marriage to men much older than them...' . He then added, 'But that is not paedophilia, it is a question of Arab culture'.

(That last statement is utter rubbish by the way. The average age for marriage in Arab countries in in the 20's and rising. You can read a full report into marriage in the Arab world here. Even in Yemen, which has the youngest wives, the percentage of married women aged 15-19 has declined from 27% in 1997 to 17% in 2003.)

The person who ran the mosque was sentenced to 8 years for terrorism offences, in absentia.

Any more evidence for the CHILD PORN INTERNET MUSLIM TERRORIST thing?

Well, there's this.

d) The Times found 'a case in Spain where an Islamic terror suspect is accused of downloading child porn'. It's still before the courts. The case concerns an alleged terror cell broken up in 2007. Spanish police say thousands of hardcore child porn images were found on home computers.

e) There's an Algerian awaiting trial who is accused of incitement to jihad via the internet and of sending money to prisoners belonging to a banned Islamic group accused of killing 45 people in Casablanca in 2003. He is also accused of downloading child porn.

f) And a case in Yorkshire where child protection officers 'stumbled upon a nail-bomb terror plotter'. He was white, and making bombs to attack Black, Asian and Jewish people. He was not a Muslim, in fact, he was an anti-semitic Islamophobic nazi loon. He had 39,000 child abuse images.

g)Also a Salford chemistry student nabbed for looking at explosives websites and downloading 7 child abuse images. He was 21 years old, also white and non-Muslim. He was jailed for explosives offences, not terrorism.

And er, that's it.

I can't see that these few cases - from all over the world - justify the number of mentions of Islam, Muslim, terrorist and all the rest of it in the copy.

I really can't.

Nor can I see how the fact that some men - some nasty pieces of work - are into extremely horrible sex and violence - online and offline - in any way justifies the government wanting to spy on everyone's emails and phone calls and web use.

If anyone would like to have a go at explaining it in the comments, please feel free.

42 days. Once more for those at the back

Jacqui Smith is bowling hard and fast, and stepping up to bat we have the indomitable Shami Chakrabarti, the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, various peers, rebel Labour MPs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Lord Goldsmith, all hoping to defeat the government's plans to lock people up for six weeks without charging them with any crime.

Don't be fooled by the 'concessions'. Fluffy and reasonable this ain't.

...in a report published on Thursday the joint committee of MPs and peers said it believed the plans breached European human rights laws and the amendments offered were "inadequate to protect individuals against the threat of arbitrary detention".

The committee said the description of a "grave exceptional threat" was not tight enough.

Committee chairman Labour MP Andrew Dismore said: "The government has talked of a major emergency, the 'nightmare scenario' of simultaneous plots across Britain or two 9/11s at once.

"Yet the amendments tabled by the government provide for possible events falling well short of that."

The report also said requiring the home secretary to declare publicly there was a serious enough emergency to justify the powers was not much of a safeguard without independent scrutiny.

And allowing Parliament to vote on the individual case within seven days - another concession - would make little difference as any debate would be "heavily circumscribed by the risk of prejudicing future trials".

Why is nobody stating the obvious? If there were two 9/11s, there wouldn't be much point trying to bang the perpetrators up for 42 days in the aftermath. They'd be dead.

42 days wouldn't have stopped the 7/7 bombers. ( *Lead bomber Mohammed Siddique Khan could possibly have been arrested for suspected fraud back in 2004 if you want to be awkward, and a more thorough investigation into his activities and associates at the time might well have flagged him as flashing code red if more dots were joined up and intra-agency communication was better). There have been some great successes in the Battle Against Unimaginable Terror. The police and security services brilliantly disrupted the plot to make a fertiliser bomb
(Operation Crevice) and the alleged airline-bombing plot trial is concluding soon. We have not had any further successful attacks since 7/7 and 21/7. Indeed, recently all reports of attempted terrorist activity have shown the terrorists to be pretty useless, and more likely to kill or injure themselves than us.

It was local Muslims in Bristol who tipped off police about Andrew Ibrahim, a 19-year old convert with a history of drug problems who was allegedly making a suicide vest and assembling explosives. He was not on the security services radar. The trust and good will of local communities in preventing murder-attacks is priceless and one of our best assets in saving lives.

Time and again it is pointed out that draconian laws, laws that look like they are targeting Muslims unfairly, drafted on the basis of what tough-talking politicians say might be needed - rather than an honest assessment of the current situation are not only undemocratic but counter-productive. The Security Services, the people who do this day in and day out are not asking for this law. I repeat, the Security Services are not asking for this law. Don't ask me how I know that, because I can't tell you. But it is true.

This is political posturing at the expense of our safety, and to make it even more disgraceful, the threat of Labour being holed below the waterline is being brandished in order to frighten voting MPs into thinking, presumably, about their jobs and their mortgages. Well, tough luck if the Labour top brass has got themselves on a sticky wicket with this dangerous law. They can't say they weren't warned.

And given the sacrifices of blood and treasure that millions of ordinary men and women have made to protect our freedoms in the last hundred years, against far more dangerous enemies than suburban teenagers with a death-fetish and a bedroom full of hate-literature and a cupboard full of household chemicals, anyone voting for the law against their conscience to protect their bloody job ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Kitchens Direct: the saga so far

Kitchens Direct came round in early March to give us a quote for a new kitchen. It was a reasonable price, better than the others we had quoted, and we managed to keep it down by just fitting new cupboard doors, not replacing the whole cupboards for the top part of the kitchen
( because there was nothing wrong with the cupboards, which were four years old, also from Kitchen Direct and covered by their 5 year guarantee. It was just that the doors wouldn't match the new kitchen).

The surveyor came round in mid-March and said what they had quoted wasn't do-able; the whole cupboard carcasses would need to be changed. I pointed out that they had drawn up a contract stating doors replaced only, and agreed a price with us, so if what they had quoted wasn't do-able, that was really their problem and they should have said so at the time. He agreed, called the branch who first demanded more money, then caved when I pointed out they had a contract with us, and said they'd replace the cupboards for the same price. Two weeks later, almost £1000 was removed from our account (the deposit), so we took up the floor and tiles as instructed a few days before the delivery of the kitchen on April 2nd and waited for it to arrive and be installed the next day.

Nothing.

Nothing the next day either.

I phoned them up-the branch said I needed to speak to head office, the head office said I needed to speak to the branch. Back and forth. Eventually I managed to speak to someone. They couldn't deliver, apparently, because they needed to get some more money off us - the price had gone up. Why? Because of the cupboards.

'But we told you we only wanted cupboard doors, and you said fine, signed a contract to that effect with the price broken down and then agreed that you'd made an error and said you would stick to the contract price after the surveyor came round. And you've taken nearly a grand off us, and failed to deliver the kitchen, and not got in contact with us, and in the meanwhile we have no floor and the kitchen tiles are all taken off so the kitchen is a mess and is damaged. And now you're holding us to ransom and demanding more money.'

Claims that they called us. Oh no you didn't. Claims they will call back. But they don't.
More chasing. The amount of money they are demanding goes down, but they still want more money.

'Is this good business practice, drawing up contracts, taking nearly a grand out of customers' bank accounts, getting people to rip up floors and then demanding extra money after failing to deliver kitchens without explanations?' I ask them.
No, they say.
'Is it your normal business practice?'
No, they claim.

Eventually they agreed a new price with us, and promised to get in contact about a new date to deliver and install the kitchen .

That was on Friday.Nothing happened and nobody called.

Yesterday, someone called from Kitchens Direct. Was he arranging a delivery date? No, he was asking for more money - the extra that we had finally agreed with them in order to replace the cupboards and deliver the kitchen.

I explained that they had already had the best part of a grand off us, that they had made an error in pricing which was technically their problem and failed to deliver a kitchen on April 2nd with no explanation for not doing so and I was buggered if I was going to give them any more until they delivered the kitchen. They could add the extra we had agreed onto the delivery price, at which point we would pay the balance.

He called back to say this had been agreed and someone would call with a new delivery date that day. Did they call back? Nope.

Last night I was down the pub with Kings Cross United and the phone rings. It was Kitchens Direct.

Would I like a surveyor to come round and give me a free design and quote for a lovely new kitchen?

I laughed hollowly.

'You have no idea, do you?' I asked the salesgirl.

'No' she said.

I explained, she went away.

I have given up waiting and managed to chase them and they have agreed to install and deliver the damn kitchen. In mid-May.

We shall see what happens next.

*Sigh*

42 days: NO

Today's spit-coffee moment number one: the Guardian reports today that the Government's own human rights watchdog has vowed to mount a legal challenge to this latest frightening attempt to make it legal to hold people and question them repeatedly for 42 days without charge - without even telling them why they are being held . The Equality and Human Rights Commission says it goes against human rights law and may breach the Race Relations Act.

And number two: Geoffrey Dear, former chief constable of West Midlands Police and HM inspector of constabulary says passing the law will be a PR coup for Al Qaeda. Which is more or less what I said in the Sunday Times, and in the Guardian last November, and said again when giving evidence at the Home Affairs Committee, with David Davis and Nick Clegg. (You can watch all three of us getting worked up about the subject on video here, or read the transcripts or full report).

The Home Affairs Commitee agreed with us by the way: they don't support 42 days either.

Meanwhile, yesterday Nobel peace prize-winner Desmond Tutu and top intellectual chap Noam Chomsky also urge people to vote against the bill, amidst mounting international pressure to drop the clause. Shami Chakrabati from Liberty continues to do her inimitable thing in the tearooms of Westminster, helping MPs see the big picture - and I wish her, and Amnesty and everyone else opposed to this nonsense - which will not make us any safer - every success.

Having spent most of last week working on an interview with a Muslim man - a father of five who was detained for a week in Paddington Green police station, then slammed into Belmarsh jail with most of the U.K's terrorists and terror suspects, before being found not guilty of all charges by a jury, I am clearer than ever about the nature of the threat we face - and what it is like to be suspected of being part of that threat. More on that soon.

This next fortnight you will see and hear a lot about terrorism in the news. The trial of the alleged airline plotters is about to start and the trial of four men alleged to have conspired with the 7/7 bombers. You will hear chilling details from the prosecution's case. You will probably feel afraid. Please, try not to be. The chances of you or your loved ones being affected by a man with a bomb is very, very small. You, and I are most likely to die of heart disease, stroke or cancer, in a bed, not in a terrorist atrocity.

There are undoubtedly angry men planning wicked things who walk amongst us. You do not have to explain that to me: I know, I have seen the damage they do.

They are fuelled by a monstrous, paranoid sense of grievance that the 'war on terror' is a war on Islam and that Muslims are oppressed here, and all over the world. They feed off conspiracy theories - which are not mainstream - and they also feed off news headlines, which are mainstream. They seize on reports of the suffering of Muslims at home and abroad to make their case and recruit others to their cause.

Their unelected spokesmen oblige the cameras with blood-curdling soundbites - which make excellent copy and are duly publicised by the media. This in turn hardens the attitudes of the public, which makes politicians think draconian laws are what will play well with the electorate. It also infuriates Muslims, who see the excessive coverage being given to the extremist fringe, and who wonder why.

And so anger hardens and polarisation begins and we all lose our freedoms, we all become less safe, and nobody wins. Nobody at all.

We can win against this tiny minority of people who wish us evil. We have already made some great strides into discrediting and disrupting them. They are extremely vulnerable to good intelligence operations. They can be infiltrated, tracked and arrested and stopped. They know this, and it makes them even more paranoid. They know that were they to stand for election, they would never win any votes. They know they are weak; that one of their best weapons, indeed, their only real weapon is FEAR - and the knee-jerk anger that divides and splits us neighbour from neighbour, colleague from colleague, family from family, along racial and religious lines. They need PR and horrifying headlines to sustain them and give them cover and legitimacy.

This latest law will help them and it will not help us. We must not let this law through, we must not allow our fear to enfeeble us and drive our responses - that's setting the debate on their terms, the terms of making us afraid. That's what terror is - the art of making us terrified.

We need to cut off their oxygen, we need people to speak out against them and name them for what they are: murderous death-fetishists who shame their religion and their communities. This law, this unnecessary, unfair and dangerous law will not help people do that.

What you can do:

1. Write to your MP. It has never been easier to do this - this website sorts it all out for you.
2. Visit LIBERTY and AMNESTY for ideas and suggestions
3. Sign the 'Not a Day Longer' petition and pass it around.
4. Write to your newspaper
5. Write about it on your blog and I will link you ( let me know if you do)

Say no to terrorism, no to terror and no to fear. We need to act like winners, not like losers. There is no need for this law, it is shameful, it is harmful, and it is not needed . It's time to speak out, if you love freedom and want justice and if you want to feel proud.

BLOGGERS FROM ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM SPREAK OUT
Tom Paine's The Last Ditch
Looking for a Voice
Chicken Yogurt
Ten Percent
UK Liberty
Pixelisation
SKY NEWS blog
Letters from a Tory
Coming up for air
Chicken Yogurt again
Heresy Corner

News media comment and coverage
Rachel Sylvester in the Telegraph
The Independent
Guardian Leader

The rebels, Lib Dems and Tories won't show their hand yet: the bill will go into a Committee hearing, and the real fight will kick off in May.

Worth making a fuss early though - before the cavalry charge and full-on assault at vote stage.
Let your MP know the score NOW so they can be in no doubt what you, who elects them, wants.

UPDATE: David Mery adds '42 days is only one of the several unjust proposals of the Counter Terrorism Bill 2008. You may want to add a link to CAMPACC as it has published good background on the CT Bill and material to help write to one's MP. See www.campacc.org.uk/CTB08_260208.html. I've republished the summary in html at Creating a climate of fear: counter-terrorism and punishment without trial.

Justice has also recently published a briefing on the Counter Terrorism Bill.
(More slightly older links in Oppose any extension to the pre-charge detention period - lobby your MP)