No I was referring to where you suggested my point that it's an issue of liberty vs security and the difficulty of striking a balance was falacious, I was saying I cant see why. I think striking a balance is almost impossible because there will always be valid arguments against any balance struck from one side or another.

Who is suggesting it is the only measure, there are countless other measures being utilised already.  I personally dont agree 90 days is a fair balance, I'm yet to see evidence which supports it, yet I can appreciate that if terror suspects are caught, the necessary forensics (circumstantial, financial and encrypted data) may take considerable time to complete.  Do you not, for example, see the proposed rolling 7 day judicial review as any kind of safeguard?  This would surely also make it difficult to apply this legislation willy nilly (I love that term).

Yes that's true and trying to get the facts amongst the scare stories is difficult. There is little doubt that a society which can focus upon a bogeyman i a more ordered and generally more easily controlled one. The second and third Crusades (possibly one of the original causes of our current predicament) were a case in point.

I can see your point regards the attacks/planned attacks at hand, but the possibility that associates of the culprits could be traced and arrested and through proper investigation they could then reveal further associates you suddenly make progress in breaking the back of an organisation. I love your happy go lucky approach that someone somewhere in GCHQ or otherwise is just keeping it all at bay on your behalf - no worries.

Of course that's the fear and I share your fear.