This Gov't want to opt out of legislation that protects the liberties of the ordinary people, while voting to make sure that the sleazy details of their expenses are kept hidden.
Why should we give the Gov't who took us to war on a lie the right to lock up every Muslim who expresses views contrary to their own?
It's enough to make a terrorist out of anyone.
When Bliar goes he should take his whole anti-democratic, money-grubbing, mean-minded, interfering, double-dealing crew with him.

Alan Watkins-Groves, Lincoln, UK,

I do not understand the comment that Police "fear they may have left the country." Surely this is the best thing that could happen and is to be welcomed if true. It is better that they fight trained soldiers who are equipped to respond than to remain in the UK with the risk that they undertake atrocities of the kind launched against innocent civilians on 07 July.

David, Aylesbury, Bucks

Who has benefitted from the human rights act? Were we in Europe really living in a state where our right to freedom was threathened before this act got adopted? And, shouldn't any rights not come with responsibilities? Sofar, it is clear who have been the beneficiaries: criminals, terrorists and , of course, human rights lawyers who have got themselves a true goldmine. All this was of course to be expected. But, just as religion once thwarted rational thoughts, we now have political correctness to replace it.

John Evert, london, uk

I've got some sympathy with Mr Reid's viewpoint, and can appreciate his frustration but, as tony in birmingham noted, New Labour and Tony Blair got us into this mess with ECHR in the first place.

The issue is that bodies or non-elected interest or power groups - the left wing media, the political and environment lobby groups, and the senior judges - are pushing the agendas of a small group of people at the expense of the majority in the country, from terrorism and immigration, to nuclear power.

But saying that gets you you labelled a a Daily Mail reading, Middle-England, NIMBY! (Well, the middle England bit may be true!)

Dom in Oxford, Oxford, England (the Middle)

Human rights are an outmoded concept cooked up to put pressure on communist regimes in the Cold War. We don't need human rights in the UK, and anyone who thinks the state could turn nasty against so-called minorities, or politicians could abuse their power to oppress individuals, is barking paranoid. Why can't we just let the good chaps in Whitehall do what they know is best for us all

Reg Mad, Blinkford, UK

Don't believe old Reid, blaming the human rights legisltation is a winner for him, imagine the own goal we as citizens would make if we brought pressure on the government to remove the very piece of paper that protects our rights. Next step, extend that detention period to 90 days and all of a sudden, people demonstrating outside parliament can be detained under the terrosim act for 90 days and put on control orders that would make any other civilised country recoil in horror. Of course they won't be charged with anything, but once someone has been through that mill a couple of times, I imagine the government knows they will stop demonstrating and causing a fuss. I might be paranoid, but that doesn't mean my government isn't trying to pervert the rule of law and the people.

Simon, Notts,

We should encourage more of them get out of the country, it's cheaper than keeping them in Prison.

Dave Madley, Alicante, Spain

The sooner Britain opts out of this ridiculous Human Rights legislation the better. John Reid is 100% correct to say that we are fighting terrorists with one hand behind our backs. Only terrorists and fat cat lawyers benefit from the Act and they will both fight in their own way to keep it.

A R Llewellyn, Cardiff,

Anyone who pulls the plug on this odious piece of legislation dreamt up by morons living in a fantasy world, will be remembered fondly for years by millions of law-abiding citizens and will save the taxpayer billions.

Once the plug is pulled perhaps the mass deportations of criminals and suspected terrorists from other countries can start without worrying about whether the laws in another country are good enough to be applied to its own citizens?

So Mr Reid lets see if you have the backbone to stand up to the PC liberal freaks whose shrilling can be heard at the mere mention of the word derogation.

David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK

Well, well. Another predictable response from a predictably incompetent Home Secretary.

Mr. Reid seems to have a penchant for blaming anything or anyone other than the agencies for which he is responsible. Before I read any more ravings about the ECHR and the misinformation which surrounds it, may I just point out that it was drafted by the UK, who were also the first nation to ratify it, some six years before the creation of the EEC. It has nothing to do with Brussels and everything to do with a very British sense of "fair play".

Locking people up, without trial, or evidence, based solely on the "belief" of a government official - couldn't happen here, could it? Yes, it did, and will again if Reid and his like are not stopped by those radical left wing lunatics known as.......the Law Lords.

Ian Canavan, Poole, UK

Unfortunately the effect of the Human Rights Act has been to tied authorities hands behind its back. Who asked for this useless piece of legislation anyway. It was just imposed on us by Europe. Do the other 26 countries in Europe get the same problems with their judiciary over this legislation. Britain has the right to protect its borders & people & if European legislation obstructs our legislators from doing this then we have to derogate from it (& possibly use the same opportunity to get out of Europe altogether, but just use it for trading). Our judges have to be told that they must decide cases solely on the legislation & not to keep putting their own interpretation of the legislators intentions. The rights of the innocent must be protected above the rights of any suspect or offender. This country's eagerness to be politically correct & not to upset anone has backfired big time. How long will it be before there is a compensation claim against the authorities for not protecting them

Lynda Plum, London, england

If there is sufficient evidence to deprive someone of their liberty, they should be charged and then convicted. If not, they should not be subject to 'control orders' that treat innocent (i.e. unconvicted and uncharged) people as criminals.

Harry Watson, Cheltenham,

How bizarre, that after the report of a leaked memo about public sector staff reporting people to the police, whom they suspected my be responsible for a crime in the future, that we cannot even keep under control those we are already aware of. However, the law Lords are those that have dictated that these particular people cannot be kept under tighter control, in the strange belief that the uman Rights of the few are of greater value than the human rights of the vast majority.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Urgent plan of action to remedy the idiotic position this country is in.
1) Leave the EU with its unelected bureaucrats continually interfering in our affairs.
2) Repeal our subservience to the Human Rights Act.

Pierre Catling, Croydon, UK

The human rights acts are useless and constantly waste time and money for everyone, while making a mockery of true justice. McCarthyist thinking makes us paranoid that governments will arrest us for the slightest concern. This is nonesense. It is time balanced thinking prevailed.

CA, Manchester, UK

The sooner we get a new Home Secretary the better.
The lack of cross-party involvement is dreadful!

Carl Wells, Derby, England

So the response to three non-terrorists who weren't under the strongest of orders going on holiday is to allow the police to bust in MY door and say "we're detaining you indefinitely with no evidence other than we feel like it"????

The odds of being a terrorist attack are 1 in 88,000. The odds of dying in a terrorist attack on a plane for a monthly flier is 1 in 55,000,000 (source: CDC).

The odds of dying in the bathtub are 1 in 10,010 (source: NSC). I still take baths.

In fact, you are more likely to be killed by lightning than dying at terrorist hands, and 983 times more likely to be killed by lightning than dying in a terrorist created plane crash.

Look at the risks, then decide on the action. Don't give a knee jerk reaction to a state that has already given away too many rights.

PC, London, UK

It will take the death of many children to change a viewpoint. Human rights are threatened during wartime and will continue to be threatened. But is the alternative better? Allowing terrorists to blow up YOUR children? I think not.

Warren, Cincinnati , OH

Reid should opt out. Of the Government. He's about as competent as Stan Laurel, but without the penetrating intellect.

eric, harrogate uk,

Once again a right-wing ,knee-jerk reaction from the most offensive Labour politician. Is it naive to believe that if someone is believed to be involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime should be charged by the police and prosecuted? If there is evidence they will be found guilty.

And before people complain about the lunacy of human rights law, it protects YOU from a state which would lock you up on the basis of the scantiest evidence on the flimisiest pretext.

Richard, Derbyshire, UK

But what about their Human Rights. Surely any attempt to detain them will be met with resistance from Cheri Blair and Cameron's Conservatives, who blocked the proposed legislation before.

kerry livermore, London, England,

This is, without doubt, the most sensible thing John Reid has ever said!

There should be an emergency Bill to dump the barmy Human Rights Act ... NOW!

It is absurd that Law & Order are compromised and Law Enforcement is hogtied by an Act prompted by "do-gooders".

Are we witnessing a display of realization by Labour that not all their policies have been for the good of the Electorate?

Go for it Gordon!

Labour may yet get my vote.

Tony J, Swanage, Dorset, UK

I don't like to take real threats too lightly ,but this smacks of a deliberate attempt to give the Government and Police an excuse to try and get rid of the Human Rights Act, that they introduced. Perhaps next they will want to make taking cash for giving honours legal as well ?.

Sergei, London, UK

So they are not a threat and we should let them go? What sort of excuse is that? About time the lunacy of these Human Rights Acts was ciriticised by this government. The rights of national security and/or the victim come first.

CA, Manchester, UK

This is, without doubt, the most sensible thing John Reid has ever said!

There should be an emergency Bill to dump the barmy Human Rights Act ... NOW!

It is absurd that Law & Order are compromised and Law Enforcement is hogtied by an Act prompted by "do-gooders".

Are we witnessing a display of realization by Labour that not all their policies have been for the good of the Electorate?

Go for it Gordon!

Labour may yet get my vote.

Tony J, Swanage, Dorset, UK

Does anyone else find it a bit much when New Labour and Blair in particular blame human rights laws for this problem?
Blair was instrumental in the introduction of this legislation, and his own wife has earned considerable fees as a human rights lawyer under this law.
This legislation has caused problems in all walks of life, from cases like this, through to convicted criminals claiming compensation for trivial matters and people being unable to defend themselves for fear of being prosecuted by the criminal.
Too little, too late Mr Reid.

tony, birmingham, uk