Not comfortable with the idea (for obvious reasons) but prefer it to allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in court. In fact I'm not happy with the use of phone-tapping at all, though I guess it might/is be necessary in exceptional circumstances.
Explanation: basically I don't trust the police and would rather have someone unjustly locked up for 42 days than someone unjustly convincted via entrapment and so on and getting life. Of course ideally I'd have neither.
That's understandable, but phone tapping is only one of the options put out there as
Liberty have pointed out. There are other methods including the use of lesser charges etc, utilised across the rest of the western world and shown to work effectively (particularly in Spain). My main gripe is that these other options are not up for discussion - that debate has been shut down. Secondly, that aside, there is no justification nor evidence for increasing the current punitive 28 day limit to 42 days.
I can understand prefering 42 days over phone tapping, but not 42 days over 28.
