this new legislation doesn't go far enough.

anyone who sympathizes with muslim terrorists should be prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

we're at war with islam and yet our own citizens lobby in support of the enemy.

not only is this shocking and disgusting, its also treason.

john, bradford, UK

Concerning " Brown Getting Tough On Terror"
Considering the aim of the terrorists in the UK, To kill and maim as many innocent victims as possible, without mercy.
I believe that it is about time that the authorities considered as wll asimprisoning the terrorists, deporting their immigrant parents and families to their countries of origin. Although this is a very drastic measure it will compell immigran parents & families to monitor and take responsibility for their sons & daughters actions and if neccessary to report them to the authorities if they believe that they are being influenced to take the terrorist path.
Ex Sapper REs

Richman, Netanya, Israel

If you want to get tough on terror, then start at the core causes: stop illegally invading sovereign nations, stop hypocritically trading with nations with horrendous human rights records (ie. China, Saudi Arabia) whilst demonising other states as being 'evil' (ie Iran), stop meddling in the affairs of other nations for our own economic/political gain, etc etc. THAT would root out terrorists more than silly phone tapping would.

robin, london, england

What have we done to deserve this fatuous, meaningless language - 'Brown will get tough on terror' - as though Blair had been 'gentle on terror'! - under cover of which we continue to ally ourselves uncritically to the most right wing, most incompetent, most lawless government ever seen in the USA and enthusiastically associate ourselves wth their war crimes, and thus ensure we are an ever juicier target for the madmen, meanwhile casually trashing centuries of hard won liberties here.. 'Getting tough on terror' should mean, first, that we stop being instruments of terror ourselves. But no, easier to tear up Magna Carta on the entirely spurious grounds that if only we had no rights, no law, we would beat the terrorists. Actually, that thinking means they have in part won already.

julian, london, uk

Be really useful if SOMEONE got tough on crime ! All I see in the papers is relentless, unwarranted crime, murder. Where have the values of people gone ?????/

stevet, Singapore, singapore

Reading all of these comments, it becomes more clear that our use of a common root language leads both the English and those of us in other places, to assume that we understand what is being said, what is really meant, and etc, is simply wrong, there is no way that I can relate to any of the words, thoughts, opinions, which your readers have expressed.

wpo, warsaw, n.y.

"... like the poor victims at Guantanamo. " These "poor" people are against you and me Mr Chuckman. Don't waste your sympathy.
What a pity these rules did not apply during the mad years of the IRA.

Jim Hatch, Acapulco, Mexico

I suspect Bully Broon will confound his party, the country and in all probability destabilise Cameron's Conservative Party by moving even further to the Right than Blair? He will totally confuse voters and IF he manages to pull off another couple of years of good economic news then he will walk it at the next General Election! The Tories must be extremely worried at this proposal!

Mr Lachie Todd, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K.

I don't know what to make of this.

I suspect we have this notion being floated as a counterweight to the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

You need to do something to keep Bush's ugly mob from using their many resources for revenge against policy changes they don't like.

We really are all, to some extent, their captives, a little like the poor victims at Guantanamo.

America simply has too much influence, and we all know what Lord Acton said about power.

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

"we believe in the civil liberties of the individual", Cor Blimey! he could have knocked me down with a feather, "get tough on terror", "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" and not forgetting the classic: "winning hearts and minds" (we will bomb you from a great height).

Phil, leeds, uk.

It is all well and good to allow phone tap evidence in court for terrorist offences, but the problem lies with where does it stop. Should such evidence be allowed for violent crime, drugs related, shoplifting, fly tipping.........
Where does it end and where does it escalate into an even more intrusive big brother society, that this government and in particular Mr. Brown appear to love.
Unfortunately the years have shown a very poor record of passing such law with terrorism and drugs as reasons but then using such to create a controlling mechanism for the normal 'free' population.

Andy B, London, UK

Too late for that now Mr Brown - you and your incompetent government of 10 years (the worse ever in the history of our democracy) have let them all in and the Counrty is running alive with them like the rats in sewers.

An election is what is needed to start the healing process not a Coronation of you as PM!

Michael, Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Just another move towards 1984.

Judy , Liverpool, england

It all comes down to how much you trust current security authorities and Senior Police Officers.

These are the people who will be making the decision whose lines to tap , when, how and for how long.

Do these people have proper emotional intelligence, the right experience, knowledge, discretion, honesty, plain insights and good judgement to wield such power?

If we cannot in all honesty answer a profound YES to the above questions...then the power to use wiretap evidence in a trial should not be allowed.

Just remember the number of high ranking, highly trained people who concluded that de Menenzes was a suicide bomber wearing a suicide vest and authorised the shoot to kill order.
Far too many people, today, in U.K Police and security services. lack the necessary knowledge, experience and discretion to be given carte blanche.
From my experience, authorities are dumbing down and becoming increasing incapable of independent thought and are going with the flow.

Pat van der Veer, Wirral near Liverpool, U.K.

I agree Gordon Brown should allow the Anti Terrorist Squad to take whatever actions they deem necessary to capture these maniacs but it must stop there, these new measures cannot be used as an opportunity for the police to spy on ordinary individuals.

If Gordon Brown really wants to do something to protect us from these maniacs then he should scrap the Human Rights Act, stop all legal aid for any crimes associated with Asylum, Deportation, Immigration, Illegal Entry into the United Kingdom, Preaching Hatred, Islamic Culture and Teachings, Terrorism and Conspiracy to Participate in Acts of Terrorism and Crimes against the State.

He should then allow the Laws to be ammended to close down and withdraw planning approval for any Mosque that allows Preachers of Hate to brainwash young Muslims to perform Acts of Terrorism and to refuse any further planning applications for a Mosque within 30 miles of the one closed.

Burt

Burt, Romford, UK

I see the "90 days in gaol without charge" is back again, despite having been turned down by Parliament on two separate occasions.

Whilst I'm no fan of terrorism or terrorists, I cannot believe that holding a person behind bars for 3 months will really do anyone any good. If the police can't find the evidence of your guilt in 28 days, are they really going to find it in 90 days?

Meanwhile, what if you're innocent? If you just disappear for three months, what's the chances of re-emerging with your job, home life, finances intact? Pretty close to zero, I'd suspect.

Ade, Wallasey, UK

David, burglers don't tend to kill vast numbers of people. I would advise investing in a burgler alarm.

Tom, Cambridge,

I was burgled 15 times in the UK in less than 20 years.
How about getting tough on burglars?

David, Andorra La Vella,

As far as I can tell it is the civil service and the intelligence and police who are most opposed to the use of taps. They are allowed in most other countries. Provided it's left for the police and intelligence officials to decide on each case whether to allow them, where is the threat to national security or to justice?

Isn't it time there was a proper open debate with all the evidence for and against made public so we can all decide what is best in our 'democracy'?

Neil Murphy, cromer,

I agree with Mr Brown that such evidence should be permissable.

However, it's all very well restraining terrorists, but, in the long run, what happens to them - the get the same treatment as 'ordinary' criminals, namely, a slap on the wrist, a few years languishing in the luxury of prison, then let go ........... to do it all again. Even deportation does not mean they won't continue to be terrorists.

Brough, Forfar, Great Britain

About time.
Now maybe we can put some of our suspects on trial and get a result instead of the limbo of tagging.
We have the ability in court to jail or free suspects now we need a sentence of immediate deportation (court to airport) to fill all the gaps.

David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK

Tough on terror cos we are the cause of terror, havnt we heard this rubbish before? The man sets fire to your house then knocks the door to say only he can put it out.

mitch, wolverhampton, england

If conspiracy can be proved with evidence recorded by electronic means then it is evidence of conspiracy and should be admissible in court. After all, the conversation did take place.

Peter Collins, Trowbridge, Wiltshire