Imagine that YOU are the 'detainee' that some of this great new anti-terrorist legislation refers to. That would mean you can be arrested in your home in the middle of the night. All you may be told is that the Secretary of State, or a Judge has reason to believe that you are "a danger to the State", or that you are "part of an organization deemed dangerous by the Home Secretary".

Your relatives and friends WILL NOT BE INFORMED about what has happened to you. Your legal representative will not be contacted. You will not be told (and cannot see) the evidence or charges against you, You cannot ask questions of counsel, or know the identity of the person who has laid this charge against you. You may be imprisoned indefinitely, or removed to a foreign country, where you may be relentlessly tortured. The confession extracted from you, may be used as evidence at your Military Tribunal. Now, ask yourself, are you still living in a free society?

The British Government is racing ahead with its plans to introduce 'control orders' placing members of its own population under House Arrest. All of this will happen without recourse to trial, when a Minister or Judge, believes they (the citizen) may be "dangerous to the state. "The powers are said to be needed by the government to combat the threat of terrorism. Under the new House Arrest proposals the government would have the right to place restriction of movement orders, on individuals they suspect of being "dangerous" Also restricted would be that persons access to communications technology, where they can stay, or travel too, and who they are allowed to speak with.

In a vote on an amendment, Members of the House have managed to blunt some of the more extreme elements of the Bill. The Bill goes to The House of Lords today and it is thought that the Lords will require further amendments to be added. Including at least a partial concession on those aspects that blatantly break the EU Convention on Human Rights. "Tactical concerns" have been expressed by Cabinet Ministers, over the presentation and spin placed on this executive policy directive, but in all other aspects, it appears to be proceeding unhindered.

So, who are these new 'detainees' to be? What kind of new 'criminal' are we referring to? Someone who is not dangerous enough to lock up, like a burglar, or a con-man, but still requires a large amount of State sponsored surveillance? Of course, the general subjects of the Crown (you and me) will have no right to know the reasons behind this 'criminals' house detention. The reasons why they are not allowed to communicate freely with the outside world are to remain shrouded behind the veil of 'National Security'. We are to assume, that they are "up to no good" and that they are "dangerous". If our brave government and judicial fraternities were not protecting us, they would be on internet chat with Osama, or Zarqawi in an instant, to plot the downfall of the evil infidels.

Opinion poll's suggest we want these profoundly undemocratic measures passed. Personally, I find that hard to believe. No matter how scared they may be trying to make us feel, I have a hard time imagining that the British people want to live in a profoundly undemocratic police state.