How bad is an article on Comment is Free?

I find that I can usually predict how vacuous an article on CiF is by seeing whether it meets the following criteria:

(a) Is it written by Henry Porter?
(b) Do the subsequent comments suggest that - had one not already read the article - that it is the finest piece of writing since J.S. Mill loaded up his Quill 2.0 application and looked around for the parchment?

If there is convergence on (a) and (b) then you have some idea how I felt when I read this.

Henry's key points seem to be:

(a) We shouldn't have a debate on detention of over 28 days because the notion is an Affront To Liberty, there've only been a couple of terrorist plots in recent years and they have largely focused on public transport. Henry travels by car.
(b) CCTV cameras in town centres and speed cameras are an Affront To Liberty.
(c) The State is, by it's nature, determined to take away your liberty because:
(d) The State is evil.
(e) Gordon Brown is "after your rights". Why and how isn't fully explained in the article however. Presumably he's "after" them because Brown is in charge of The State (see above).
(f) We should have a Bill of Rights because the organisation behind the Power Inquiry and the LibDems says so, hopefully leading to PHAT contracts for all the organisations involved in these endeavours should Brown be persuadable on the issue. Trebles all round!

He is pleased, however, that the right to protest on Parliament Square has been restored; walking past it this morning, with its array of tents, it resembled a kind of Westminster Eurocamp. A triumph for disciples of Voltaire indeed.

Oh and another thing, I'm fed up of everybody citing the Rowntree Trust "on liberty" as if they are an impartial organisation whose utterances have the authority of Holy Writ. It wasn't too long ago they were funding the woeful Power Inquiry as well as slipping the LibDems a substantial amount of wonga which, to some, might suggest an agenda.

Sorry, I'm a little cynical today.