Keith, Georgiansilver and weelittledrummer should engage their brains for a moment.

Where is the evidence that holding and questioning suspects for 90 days without charge would make us any safer? If between the three of them they can answer this, they will have done better than Blair, who was asked this question repeatedly on Wednesday and could give no answer.

A couple of hours later the home secretary (working hand in glove with the nation's chief constables) did manage to come up with an example. He told MPs that the risin case might have resulted in a conviction had the 90 days been an option, whereas in fact the suspect had been released and had left the country by the time forensic evidence came to light.

This example was shot down by one of his own backbenchers, Chris Mullins, who pointed out that the suspect had not even been held for the 14 days then available to police, but had been released after just two! All very heartless of Mullins, given that this was the only example that Blair, Clarke and 40 police chiefs had managed to turn up to support their curious fixation with 90 days.

Why the sudden enthusiasm for dancing to the police's tune? The police are against extending the hours during which alcohol may be served, but that is not going to dictate the legislation. Politicians should take account of professional advice whether it's from lawyers, clinicians or whoever, but it in the end they are elected to exercise their judgment.

Even if there was some new code that said the professionals should dictate the legislation, what about the country's most senior judges, the Law Lords, who are opposed to 90 days? "Exhorbitant" and "reprehensible in a free society" are among the comments they have made. At Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday Balir responded to that by saying "As for the Law Lords, I would rather listen to the police than them." Why? Because he is obsessed with blowing in the wind of public opinion and believed he saw a chance to embarrass the Tories in that respect.

Those in this thread who think it was the Tories who were playing party politics on Wednesday are not in the real world. The Tories have lost members to terrorism, and their cabinet could easily have been wiped out in the Brighton bomb. Lord Tebbitt suffered serious injury in that bombing and his wife was paralysed. To suggest his oppositon to the 90 days was political expediency is as offensive as it is stupid.

Have people forgotten the catastrophic effect of internment in Northern Ireland? In what real sense is the equivalent of a six-month prison term morally more acceptable? Have we really learnt nothing from that staggering blunder (as all but the DUP lunatics now accept it to have been)?

What if Georgiansilver's ofrecast is fulfilled and there is another atrocity? Well first of all, to his acute disappointment, it would probably turn out to be like any others that have occurred so far - that is, completely unaffected by any 90-day legislation. But even if it turned out to be the very first case where such legislation would have made a difference, and even if such an atrocity was certain to occur within six months, I'd be happy to take my chances.

We live with risk every day. None of us can assume we will live three-score years and ten, and even if another atrocity was guaranteed within the next six months, we're probably all at greater risk of being killed by a piece of office furniture than of being caught in that blast. We're certainly at greater risk from road traffic accidents and the consequences of alcohol abuse by others.

One thing's for sure - the Sun newspaper will flourish as long as there are people like Keith, Georgiansilver and weelittledrummer to swallow its ranting crap without question.

Oh, and yes, of course Blair's finished.