Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Three things struck me about last night's Question Time where David Davis was the main panellist.

The BBC despise him and what he has done. I am not saying that a memo went out, but a corporate view was formed, instantly and deeply, that he needs to be banished to the outreaches of purgatory. I first sensed this munching a sandwich and listening to the World At One, when Martha Kearney asked a BBC researcher whether the opinion polls showing 65 - 69 per cent support for 42 Days might be as a result of asking the wrong, or at least a loaded, question. No, said the voice of the Corporation's research department, public opinion is overwhelmingly on side of 42 days - and, he implied, unshakably so.

The BBC now seems to feel it has a vested interest in keeping it this way. Its fundamental charter that justifies its license fee is its duty to inform, educate and entertain. It does the first and the third all right. But does it educate? What if DD manages to take the issue of principle behind 42 days - that people should not be subject to arbitrary detention - to the public and in so doing moves public support of 42 days from 69 to, say, 49 per cent? He can only achieve this by education - by a three-week teach-in and genuine debate of the issues. If he can do that, won't it show up a lamentable feebleness of the Corporation and its failure to fulfil its mandate?

This cannot be allowed! Across the board its commentators scorn and deride Davis, belittle his motives and sneer at his pretensions. A deep-seated Reithian contempt for the unwashed, and fear of a genuinely educated public, is on display.

If so, I suspect this might be the BBC's version of Brown's mistake of thinking that he can go for 42 Days and emerge unscathed. It is not surprising that, without a proper debate, the public is uninformed. It is not, I suppose, the BBC's role to force an education on the public against the wishes of both the government and opposition. But now David Davis has presented public service broadcasting with an opportunity not an embarrassment. He has called for a full open debate to educate voters on what is at stake. He has claimed - and who can deny this? - that the debate provided by parliament was suborned and corrupted. The BBC should seize the role of providing as full a public airing of the issue as possible. It should welcome Davis's call to take the principles and history of how we are governed to the public. People feel stifled and unrepresented in official argument, and the Corporation now has a chance to help open it out. If it and its broadcasters treat the whole episode as a ‘stunt' they too may go down like New Labour as a wider public lays claim to the license fee.

[Update: To see what I mean just look at the BBC's snide know-all "analysis" of his demarch 'Can Davis make it as a maverick' which at no point considers whether he resigned because of a disgarceful corruption of the Commons vote or whether a strangulation of liberty might be taking place that he'd not be able to reverse if he continued to play the game. It is not that the BBC has to agee with him, but it does have an obligation to assess whether there is a serious issue at stake not just a personal gambit.] 

To return to the main issue at hand, Davis was worsted on one aspect of the argument. If Habeas Corpus is such a principle, why support 28 days? What is the big difference between 28 days and 42? A fortnight, yes, but is this a principle?

He seemed unsure of the answer. But this is, surely, that 28 days has not worked. Public opinion thinks it is about locking up terrorists. In a striking voxpop for the Guardian Martin Wainwright went round the constituency of Haltemprice and Howden and the first person he interviews says, "I know David very well so I suppose I should agree with him. But I do think that the longer you can keep them to make sure that we're all safe - everybody's safe - in our country is quite a good thing really".

The clear implication is that the people being "kept" are a threat. This indeed is what persuaded the Commons to accept the 28 days compromise in the first place, after 90 days was rejected. The police convinced all parties including Davis and the Conservatives that they needed more than 14 in order to the complete compiling the evidence to make their charge. In other words, they produced evidence to show that in order to properly charge serious terrorist suspects they needed more time. Or, to put it another way, they only wanted to hold people they knew they would charge but needed more time to do this. Judicial oversight was put in at 14 days as a check to make sure this was the case.

But it has failed. They have held six people for 27 days and then released three of them as innocent members of the public. The power of extended detention without charge is not just being used on those they know they will charge. (I have analysed this in An Abundance of Caution).

Now we know this, to ask for a further extension is outrageous. This is why the stand against any further extension is being made now. It is not only about a day or 14 more, it is about saying ‘no' to a permission for administrative detention of the innocent, now that we know this is what happens.

The next stage of the argument (but David Dimbleby had cut Davis down by this point) is to ask how to ensure that those who are held are charged much sooner - which is where post-charge questioning and permitting the use of intercept evidence come in.

There is a second part of the answer to the question, ‘Why then, agree to 28 days?' This is ‘Enough is enough'. Parliament, in its wisdom or lack of it, agreed to 28 days with all parties being convinced to reach a consensus. 42 days was pushed through with methods that are unacceptable. We can no longer trust the House of Commons.

Well! Welcome to the real world David Davis! Some of us have known this for many years. But the political class builds its self-importance on the myth that Parliament does work. Labour spokemen and women say that they won't fight the by-election because Davis should have the argument where it "ought" to be held in parliament not in public. To which the answer is, pull the other one!

A final thought on the programme. It had Jerry Springer on (also Hilary Benn but he seemed useless). His reaction was that fundamental issues, like imprisoning people without saying why, should not be decided by politicians at all. They are bound to play to short-term interests. Principles needed to be constitutionalised. Did I see Davis nod his head in agreement? Constitutional rules are adjudicated by judges. If the Commons cannot be trusted, then parliament sovereignty can't be either. In which case we need a written constitution. In which case, other Conservative front benchers like Nick Herbert need to be careful about attacking ‘the judges' for removing the ‘democratic right' of politicians to decide everything.