David Davis For Freedom: A Website
DAVID Davis is making a stand. David Davis for Freedom, is the grand name of his website.
David Davis’s record on voting against gay rights can be read here, so too his attitude to the smoking ban.
Others on Davis:
Sounds Of Gunfire - Davis the liberal
Liberty - Shami Chakrabarti’s statement and Liberty view
Amnesty - Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen’s statement.
OurKingdom - Anthony Barnett’s on democracy’s ally
Chicken Yoghurt - Indecision
Labour Outlook - Idiocy
BlairWatch - Dirty Brown
Posted: 17th, June 2008 | In: Conservatives, Politicians, Twitterings, War On Terror Comments (15) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
Recent comments
- Anthony on X Factor: Jedward, John & Edward Grimes, Are Voted Out At Last
- percy stilton on I’m A Celebrity: Quitter Katie Price Wanted To Die With Jedward
- percy stilton on I’m A Celebrity: Quitter Katie Price Wanted To Die With Jedward
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Katie Price To Marry ‘Dumped’ Alex Reid In Jungle
- lynney babe on I’m A Celebrity: Katie Price To Marry ‘Dumped’ Alex Reid In Jungle
Regular Features
June 19th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Well thank you Noseycow for trying to contribute even if you took umbrage at my (perceived) attitude-problem. It seems you were the only one to contribute apart from me. I think this unfortunately confirms that we’re in the wrong place if we’re looking for real and serious debate.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Btw Noseycow sorry if we got our lines crossed a bit.
To summarise, we both agree that:
1. terror suspects need to be detained (post 10 para.
2. 42 days without charge is too long to detain suspects (post 5)
But I also believe that we probably have enough powers even without invoking the 28-day bill.
See this: http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11546706
June 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Sorry! Pressed submit too soon. “legal powers” not “legapowers”
June 18th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Btw if you follow the debate, you will find that we already have sufficient legapowers to detain terrorist suspects without invoking the powers of this new bill.
June 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
1. point taken
2. See your post 5: “…just like all the other politicians”
3. See point 2 above. I was making a contrast, not impugning the integrity of most lawyers and policemen. However the danger posed by this bill is there, as witnessed for example by the opposition of most lawyers and legal experts, and also many chief constables to this bill.
4. Certainly not!!! See post 9 para.2 sentence 2.
5. That’s good. I’m glad we agree here. But the House of Commons bill about the extension of the length of detention without charge is not entirely unconnected to this issue. Once again, I suggest you take the time out to google Lotfi Raissi and find out what really happened.
Sorry if I come across as extreme. Not intended; I just feel very strongly about this issue. Btw as I live abroad, I could hardly stand for UK parliament!!
June 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Amused
Please read my posts before replying.
1- I do not see the need to increase the detention time. (post number 5)
2- I accused Mr Davis of a political stunt, where did I mention that he or all politians are corrupt?
3- How would my belief that most coppers and lawyers are just normal people trying their best to do a good job lead to the UK turning into a faceist state?
4 -Are you suggesting that ALL police / lawyers etc are corrupt?
5 -If you read my (much earlier ) post on the ‘torture’ thread you’ll see that I agree with you about our poor treatment of detainees leading to more fundamentalists.
But in the real world we would all like to travel without being blown up. So some suspects have to be detained. ( They can be detained without being poorly treated imo).
You seem to be outraged by the injustice shown to one person who was wrongly detained. I agree that it is an injustice, but he at least can now get on with his life.
The 52 London commuters no longer have that choice.
As I said before mistakes will be made and we should attempt to learn from them, to prevent them happening again.
If I didn’t feel that you were overly agressive and dismissive I would ask you how would you balance the needs of security against the rights of the individual.
But frankly feel that it is a waste of my time.
You come across as extreme, you take points I have made and extrapilate them into something that is unrecognisable, and acuse me of a variety of things that will ultimately lead to me being responsible for further oppressing the citizens of our country.
I image that as you are not at all complacent I will read about you standing for parliament in the next election, and at that point I will again take some time out to digest your veiws.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“…refuse to believe that the majority are inept or corrupt…”
That’s the kind of thing that led to the 3rd Reich, to the changes in basic rights for those accused of terrorism in the USA and thus to Guantanamo Bay, etc etc. I am not saying that those who are aoverreacting are curropt but they are mistaken.
You also say: “As for Mr Davis, it is a political stunt…like all the other politicians” but then you go on to say “many police / lawyers / judges etc are involved in holding a suspect…I still refuse to believe that the majority are either inept or corrupt”. Noseycow, you are contradicting yourself. That is, unless you are saying:
“police / lawyers / judges” = untainted
whereas
“politicians” = corrupt.
Which would be a pretty sweeping generalisation.
Read David Davis’ House of Commons speech. And many other speeches and articles, such as several by The Economist on this very issue of sacrificing basic principles of democracy in the belief that it will protect us against the terrorists. Here is one example: http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10286059 . Read David Davis’ speech to see how many august figures oppose Gordon Brown’s bill or consider the legislation unnecessary, if the word of august figures is what you are looking for. Read also many other politicians’ views such as Tony Benn, many Labour MP’s, most Tory and Lib Dem MP’s.
In point of fact, this bill will play directly into the terrorists’ hands, cutting off the flow of information to the intelligence agencies by alienating the Muslim community and acting as a recruiting ground for new terrorist as a result of the perceived injustices that will be thrown up by the enactment of such legislation. I have no doubt that the injustices of Guantanamo Bay have been (and the future injustices that would result from the potential curtailment of human rights through this bill will be) a very fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda recruits.
If you really do care about 9/11, 7/7, the Glasgow Airport debacle et al., you will oppose such dangerous legislation and you will certainly not show such blind complacency and trust in the authorities over us.
Complacency is what undermines and ultimately destroys democracy.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Amusedbystander
I’ll take your word for it.
But how many people on London Transport July 7th deserved what happened to them?
And the Glasgow airport debacle shows that these threats do still exist.
Somebody has to try and balance the risks, mistakes happen but many police / lawyers / judges etc are involved in holding a suspect, while their may be an odd corrupt one among them I still refuse to believe that the majority are either inept or corrupt.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Noseycow
Rubbish!! “Refuse to believe” as much as you wish, but I suggest you get your facts straight first. Kindly do a google on Lotfi Raissi and you will find out the real truth about this person. It is a scandal that so few people know, in this media-ridden society, what injustices happened in the name of British justice to this innocent man.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
And slating people who post on other areas of this site will not encourage the debate you seem so keen to have. IMO
June 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Amused bystander
Mr Raissi was he the bloke who went to afghanistan (might have been iraq) and became a suicide bomber taking with him a handful of soldiers and civilians?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html
I personally do not see the need to extend the detention period to 42 days, but I also refuse to beleive that the british justice system and police are so currupt that they will hold anyone without reasonable suspicion.
As for Mr Davis, it is a political stunt, yes he believes in our freedom, to do exactly as HE tells us, just like all the other politicians.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Compared with the tripe on the Anorak McCann blog, there seems to be f*** all on this apparently unimportant topic (?). Says a lot about the majority of Anorak posters…
June 17th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Sorry Agenda Wide. I’m afraid your satirical style is too subtle, too clever, too obscure, too obfuscating for me… I’m just a simpleton who needs good plain old English. Can you explain more simply what you’re trying to say?
Anyway, here’s an interesting URL link (don’t know how long this post will take to get through moderation. All URL linked posts going through Anorak seem to take ages these days) presenting the argument against the 42-day detention without charge:
http://tinyurl.com/4b9×8c
And here are a couple of salient extracts:
Extract #1:
We have the longest period of detention without charge in the free world by far.
Australia allows 12 days detention without charge. France 6 days. Germany 2 days. Canada 1 day. Even in the US after suffering the ultimate horror of 9/11 American citizens can only be held for 2 days before charge.
So if we were to extend still further which countries would be in league with?
In Zimbabwe it’s 21 days.
Even China only allows its police to hold suspects for 37 days…
Our senior law enforcement officers do not support an extension:
Neither the country’s most senior prosecutor the Director of Public Prosecutions,
Nor the former Attorney General nor the head of Counter-Terrorism at the CPS.
Neither this Home Secretary, nor the last one, nor the one before nor anyone else has provided a shred of evidence that we need longer than 28 days.
Even Lord West the Government’s Security Minister said he was not convinced of the need… before being nobbled by Number 10.
I have spoken to the police.
They coped comfortably in every terrorism investigation Britain has faced to date….
Lord Dear, former Chief Constable for the West Midlands, writing yesterday, said that an extension is unnecessary and that many Chief Constables agree privately with that assessment.
And the Head of MI5 has not even mentioned pre-charge detention when setting out the security challenges we face whether briefing in public or private.
Extract #2:
The Home Secretary says her proposals will only be activated when both the police and the CPS request it…
Well, let us consider what can happen when the police and CPS act together.
Take the case of Lotfi Raissi.
He was an Algerian pilot living in London.
A few weeks after 9/11, he was arrested by British police accused of training the 9/11 bombers to fly because he attended the same flying school.
The FBI knew within weeks that he was unlikely to have been involved.
The British authorities had no evidence the he was involved in any terrorist activity.
Nevertheless, they held him in pre-charge detention for nearly 5 months (5 months)
He was eventually released without charge, exonerated of every accusation levelled at him and left to pick up the pieces of his shattered life.
During his prolonged detention, he was stabbed twice by prisoners, who thought he was a terrorist.
He suffered two nervous breakdowns.
He lost his job and was blacklisted so he can’t find a new one.
So much for the argument that those with nothing to hide, have nothing to fear, from extended detention without charge.
Lord Justice Hooper in the Court of Appeal completely exonerated Mr Raissi, calling his continued detention without charge:
‘an abuse of process … a device to circumvent the rule of English law…brought for an ulterior motive…based on unsubstantiated assertions.’
June 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
David Davis for Freedom, ‘but not just any’ freedom??
Is it skinny freedom ? I wondered, whilst enjoying a delicious ‘Skinny Cappuchino’ kindly reminded by M&S not to have a cake
Interesting tactics to redefine and reduce a fatter idea of freedom and give it to a widening group of aspiring voters to enjoy.
Camer’on David, imo, the phenomenon of DDayv-is taking more tory territory
June 17th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
This issue is worthy of far more attention than the circus that, it seems to me, the unending Madeleine McCann Anorak blog has become. Months ago, McCann bloggers were confidently talking about imminent arrests of the McCanns and others in their circle, the real truth being on the brink of coming out, etc etc. All of which, at that time, I predicted was baseless and would come to nothing. Here, however, is a real threat to our basic freedoms and to our democratic foundations, a threat that disturbs not just David Davis but many politicians from a wide variety of spectrums, and yet…almost no Anorak blogger seems to want, or to be bothered, to talk about this.
Where is the real debate? Not here, it seems???