John Reid is absolutely right!
The agenda set by by militant islamists has sadly led to a world where ordinary people's safety and security now has to take precedence over notional human rights legislation.

Mick, London,

Reid's proposals are just another example of politicians curtailing important procedural protections for what are essentially selfish reasons. The Human Rights Act has helped hold governments to account over the last 7 or so years. By diluting its provisions the government is just trying to shirk its legal AND MORAL responsibilities, whilst all the time cementing its image as tough on terrorism.

Sam Haskell, Leeds,

Mr Reid bares responsibility for many of the struggles people face, terrorism included.

The government has already been called to account for breaking most of the acts when protecting the rights and freedoms of the public is Mr Reid's duty, a duty his continues to betray. If he considers breaking such laws trivial, he has demeaned his office.

If it was up to Mr Reid, I think it likely Britain would always be at war, that is an intention well demonstrated, so his comments about interpreting law by such a context are as fallacious as they are vulgar.

As for gaps since 9/11, I consider it a greater imperative to consider 9/11 itself, as it is confirmed that the US intelligence agencies and even the FBI had specific foreknowledge.

D. Stanley, Gourge, France

John Reid shows once again his fundamental ignorance of human rights legislation; it is there both to protect citizens from terror, but also from abuses of the state. His clear desire is to give the state far more power over citizens; down this way lie detention without trial, exile and eventually genocide. But then, Reid was inspired by Marxist, we can't expect him to have learnt the lessons of history.

Mike Richards, MK, UK

This is exactly why, in any other position of responsibility, the moment you (pre)announce your resignation, you are summoned to HR while your desk is cleared before the security guard escorts you off the premises to make sure you don't do anything stupid.

John 'modified freedoms' Reid should go NOW before he suggests 'reinterpreting' anything else.

DW, London, UK

The Crown and the two Houses of Parliament, are sovereign. Therefore, "overriding the plain words of an act of parliament" is unlawful and thus void. Unless it is the EU. Then, the 'individual state' is no longer sovereign!

Phil, W Yorks, UK

This from John Reid is astonishing and welcome. The judiciary have become a profoundly anti-social force, and need to be made accountable in some way. Judges do not rule by divine right, and need to be accountable to parliament - overriding the plain words of an act of parliament should mean the sack.

John Bald, Linton, Cambs