LC: I've just watched, out of your radio car window, children setting off to get a bus to school in central London. In 2001, children were the subject of bombs in central London. Much worse could occur.
[Blah blah Iran (a dismissive "yes" from the interviewer when this comes up) blah blah murder using nuclear material (presumably the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Bad, but irrelevant here to the point of being disingenuous.)]
BBC: I understand that, but you're not claiming, surely, that the 42 day provision will help to prevent disgraceful attacks on children in central London? It wouldn't. It's not set up to do that.
LC: Well it might, it might. That's exactly what I am claiming.
BBC: By what mechanism?
LC: By this mechanism. If somebody is released because the police are not able to carry out a proper investigation, and that person continues on their terrorist way, they may use their skills to do something even more terrible than they were attempting to do or have done before.
Conveniently, this argument would work just as well for lengthening the period beyond 42 days, lowering standards of evidence, or even locking up people suspected of other crimes that could affect kids on buses. How reassuring that he's thinking of the children.