It’s not JUST the BBC, but rather the overwhelmingly majority of the UK msm that has little connect to the hopes and fears of real people. A quick glance at the newspaper headlines this morning, a listen to the BBC, and it’s the same story – namely that David Davis has been selfish and misguided to take a political stand on the issue of the erosion of our liberty under this rotten Nulabour government, exemplified in the 42 Day detention bill. BBC Today even suggested Davis had crossed the line into madness. I wonder why it is that our intrepid media, including the BBC, are not even casually interested in finding out if the massive alleged public support for 42 days actually exists out there – or is it a political fiction? Surely Davis will be defeated by going against these widespread consensus, so proving Labour right? Or might it instead prove that the UK electorate ARE fed up with the sustained onslaught on our ancient liberties that Labour has directed over a decade? Why are Labour not challenged as to why they refuse to fight a seat that they could win if these assumptions about popular support for 42 days are true rather than fantasy? I feel sorry for Davis – his reputation has been shredded in 24 hours because he took a principled stand and THAT is not allowed in British politics these days. The BBC- and Nick Robinson in particular – have delighted in explaining why Gordon Brown is now a winner. The problem is we all lose.
THE POLITICAL ASSASSINATION OF DAVID DAVIS.
Bookmark the permalink.
Davis has stepped outside the curtain to address the audience and the director and the scriptwriter are furious. The actors must only deliver their lines and not engage with the audience – such fraternisation with ‘the enemy’ is dangerous.
When you go to University and hack in the political clubs you soon know which of your friends will go to politics directly, and which via journalism or BBC. That they are on candidate lists while broadcasting is no secret to Ben Bradshaw, or Denis McShane, or Gordon Brown, or Peter Mandelson, or Julie Kirkbride, or Boris Johnson, or Ruth Kelly, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, etc.
They know which journalists will be replaced by BBC et al once regime change takes place, and how Scots presence on the airwaves will decline as the English resume control of their occupied country.
The “Common Purpose” brigade have to stick together
It is quite evident that the MSM are absolutely furious and amazed that DD has taken this issue directly to the peopl, albeit his own constituency, without telling them first
Proles can only be fed information through the lens of the MSM – only they are clever enough to properly interpret it
Hence the vitriol
Note that it is the usual suspects that are condemning him – yet even John Pienaar this morning on 5lite was saying that he had read and received hundreds of text, e-mails and blogs praising his action
Seems to me DD has wrong-footed the bien pensants and they are thrashing around trying to cope with someone who doesn’t care less what they say
It’ll be interesting to see who wins if it ends up as Davis v The Sun. I think this is an admirable stand but a strategic cockup up epic proportions.
They can’t even get the Conservative majority right:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7451879.stm
“The Tories won the last general election here with a majority of 6,000. The Lib Dems came second.”
It’s actually 5,116. But what’s about 900 votes between friends?
Somewhat impressively, given the public support for this generally (let alone in safe Tory seat) two of the three ordinary punters the report interviews are against Davis’s actions.
If only David Cameron could have seized the moment and fully backed Davis – with perhaps other by-elections being called – Brown could have been put through the mincer. Then again, what has principle got to do with politics? I say well done Davis and shame on the the rest of those unprincipled scavengers at Westminster.
You could ask why no Labour MP has the bottle to do the same. Why doesn’t Diane Abbott (if she is so against the 42 day detention) resign and stand?
Has Shami Chakrabarti been on the radio or Tv this morning? Normally over an issue like this she’d be all over the BBC.
Funny that the BBC don’t seem to have a soundbite from her.
The spin from the BBC and the msm has imho not so much been aimed trashing DD but at manufacturing a ‘Tory split’ or ‘Tories in chaos’ scenario.
David Cameron has even volunteered to go up to DD’s constituency and knock on doors for him, so he can’t be so hostile to this initiative as the msm are pretending.
Far from letting Brown off the hook, Davis is set to seriously change minds in the country – something it appears today’s politicians are reluctant to do.
Good luck to him.
The News 24 coverage of this breaking story was a disgrace – some hysterical woman banging on along the lines of ‘ how can an MP who voted against ‘gay rights’ be a champion of civil liberties?’ and then following up by asking a Tory ‘is this seriously the sort of person {cue contemptuous sneer} you want defending civil liberties?’
It was outrageous. Hope someone got the clip and put it on You-tube.
This was partiality bang to rights.
Why are Labour not challenged as to why they refuse to fight a seat that they could win if these assumptions about popular support for 42 days are true rather than fantasy?
Don’t be daft, Labour would not stand a chance of winning a seat where they came 3rd in 2005, people will not use this election as a referendum on 42 days.
Davis will achieve nothing other than weakening Dave’s party.
Martin: Shami Chakrabarti was on PM last night and was positively glowing about David Davis. That probably explains why she has not been invited back to talk about this matter.
At least DD is giving some people in England an opportunity to vote on the trashing of the ancient English right of Habeas Corpus by an unelected Scottish prime minister and his phalanx of Scottish MPs.
One can be pretty confident that the Beeb won’t be running with the story of how Labour is doing in Brown’s heartland. The detailed data-sheets from the June Populus poll for The Times have been released. Bearing in mind the usual health warnings, the results are as follows:
Populus/Times
Westminster voting intention – Scotland
Sample size: 136
Fieldwork: 6-8 June 2008
1. SNP 36% (+18%)
2= Con 22% (+6%)
2= Lab 22% (-17%)
4. LD 16% (-7%)
5. Grn 2% (+1%)
6. BNP 1% (+1%)
oth 1%
Giving, according to Electoral Calculus, a seat distribution of:
1. SNP 38 seats (+32 seats)
2. LD 8 seats (-3 seats)
3. Lab 7 seats (-33 seats)
4. Con 5 seats (+4 seats)
5. Speaker (Michael Martin) 1 seat (n/c)
I don’t think we’ll be hearing a lot about this somehow.
Go DD!
I think CCTV has it absolutely right. What DD has done is essentially to challenge the media/political cabal which dominates public discourse. And that’s not just something they can’t bear, but something they can’t even understand. Or perhaps just affect they can’t understand.
DD himself understands pretty clearly – I’m just surpised he didn’t turn to Humphries this morning and say, ‘you just don’t get it, do you.’
The ‘political assassination’ of Davis? More likely, his ‘political suicide’.
Notasheep: She’s not been on 5 lite, BBC News 24, Newsnight, QT or the rest. Normally she’s on every BBC outlet. Nor have the BBC played her interview you say she gave.
The BBC are playing Liberty’s opposition to the 42 days down as they are siding with Davis.
I don’t see how this is particularly BBC bias, you all as good as say its all over the msm not just the BBC in its ‘bias’.
You actually want to make a statement that you politically support Davis, fine, but thats not BBC bias.
I wonder how many of you would be rushing to do the same if it was George Galloway who had done this, frankly I suspect very few.
Personally I don’t support Davis, so we disagree, that’s our freedom to disagree.
A right the terrorists threatening us would like to take away.
If habeus corpus was the real issue you and he would have vehemently opposed 28 days and even 14 days before them, but no resignations and by-elections then, just some hot air and then tumbleweed.
Or when did habeus corpus fall? after 29 days, 30 days, 31 days. The number of days cannot be the deciding factor whether a cherished long liberty has been eroded.
And whatever you think of Labour why should they be so foolish as to play into Davis’ hands?
If you think that will make them weak, try that line, I don’t believe it will fly even for a minute.
What’s more Davis will be up against Mackenzie in a two way fight, don’t be so sure Davis will win.
There is only downside, no upside, if Davis wins he hasn’t beaten the government, and has only got his seat back that he already had.
If he loses the embarrasment will be huge.
Cameron has already told Davis he is taking a massive risk, if he pushes his weight behind him and Davis loses much good work over the last 9 months will be lost.
Conservative momentum would be lost and Cameron would earn the fierce emnity of the Sun and the Murdoch media, given his crawling to the BBC to avoid just this, why put it on the line for so much more of the media, Cameron is a much more intelligent operator than that.
I admire DD’s stand on this issue and I am very pissed of by the reaction of the entire MSM to it. I hope it doesn’t damage the chances of the conservatives but if it does it will be Cameron’s fault for handling it badly not DD’s.
BaggieJonathan,
I did caveat my comment by referring to the entire MSM. For what it is worth, I think Cameron lacks the cajones to fully support Davis but Cameron is not the solution to our political listlessness, he is part of the problem. He and those around him are Janus-like, following opinion polls rather than following principle, they lie over the EU, they lie over liberty, they are gutless in the fight against Islamic terrorism…but then again, we’re here to discuss BBC bias. But every now and again – a ray of sunshine breaks through the dismal political sky and I would be disengenuous if I did not state that I believe Davis is right. 100%.
BaggieJonathan,
I don’t support what Davis has done, and I can’t see the reports that this is not good news for the Tories are wide of the mark. But two things:
1) There’s very little to support the “Tory split” story other than Labour press briefings, yet this is getting fine coverage from the BBC as far as I can tell. They were talking about the return of an acrimonious relationship between Davis and Cameron yesterday, with nothing by way of evidence.
2) The public seem to support him: a fact that is hardly getting great coverage at the Beeb. As in that story I linked to, it’s normally presented like this: “Much of the public seem to support Davis’s move. We speak to five that don’t…”
Will Davis campaign for 28 days to be reduced, dramatically reduced?
“Liberty” says no detention without charge, if you truly believe Davis’ stand is moral and right then surely by logical extension you must agree with them – no 42 days.
In fact no 28 days, no 14 days, no days at all.
Threats to security are no excuse for watering down habeus corpus at all, its the moral stance, isn’t that right.
Interesting questions, but nothing to do with the BBC’s reporting.
I note that MacKenzie is so sure of public support for his position on imprisonment without trial that he has chosen to muddy the waters by including a demand for a refendum on the EU constitution and government spending “on things we don’t care about”.
As he feels so strongly that the police should have the right to lock up anyone they want for as long as they like he should campaign on that one issue, which is what Davis is doing.
If MacKenzie writes an anti government article at some future date and finds himself imprisoned for six weeks (or longer if he gets his way), will the NHS cover me for the injuries I may sustain laughing?
I am fed up of people who can only examine DD’s actions through the prism of party politics. He did what he did as an individual with scant regard for his party. But that does not mean to say he is deliberately undermining his own party, or that his party will not come out of this smelling of roses.
Baggie’s last point – strange, as I usually agree with him on most things other than his choice of football team – is disingenuous. Read his speech, which encompassed ID cards, police databases, CCTV cameras, hate preachers getting away with stuff, peaceful protesters not getting away with stuff as well as 42 days. Read also Iain Dale’s take on it as someone who’s worked with Davis extensively.
This is a man who cares deeply about our hard earned civil liberties and sees them gradually, but surely, being eroded. This was the final straw. Even if the 42/28/14/56/zero question is a bit of a dodgy one, the way the government appears to have bought the DUP vote is ample demonstration of how it will stop at nothing to pass these laws restricting our civil liberties.
It is easy to dismiss Davis as mad, but I see it differently. Our hard earned civil liberties count more than a political career. Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Is the government eroding our civil liberties?
2. Is it likely to stop eroding our civil liberties?
3. If the first two answers are Yes and No, then where will we end up?
Davis has probably sacrificed a lot of his political career, he may have done a small amount of temporary damage to his party.
But he may have just given us a chance of changing the answers to questions 2 and 3 above. And for that, we should be extremely grateful to him.
It is right and proper for the BBC – and indeed most of the MSM – to give some scrutiny to the political implications here, but to have completely failed to scrutinise the issue at stake here is absolutely shocking.
BaggieJonathan
I don’t see how this is particularly BBC bias
The bias is in the unremitting framing of the story as one about divisions among Tories.
Whether other parts of the msm are doing the same is neither here nor there.
They are not addressing either the substance of DD’s argument nor the massively favourable reception this move is getting among the electorate.
As for the ‘Tories divided’ meme… ConservativeHome has run a survey showing the following answers:
This is an inspired move that will draw great attention to a vital issue:
Agree: 65%
Disagree: 25%
David Cameron should invite David Davis back as Shadow Home Secretary should he win the by-election.
Agree: 70%
Disagree: 19%
The Conservatives should repeal 42 days pre-charge detention when/ if we come into Government.
Agree: 87%
Disagree: 8%
Some ‘turmoil’. Some ‘division’.
Oh and one further comment re: how damaging this is to the Conservatives.
Probably not very damaging at all. Remember governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them. We’ve seen it time and time again through history.
Gordon Brown’s well on his way to losing, believe me.
A fisking of Rick Nobinson’s comments that this will be bad for the Tories. Seems nobody else on his blog agrees with him. He seems to keep forgetting that Davis is standing as in independent, not as a Tory.
1] It will pit the tories against the Sun.
No it won’t. Davis is standing as an independent. The Tories are simply not standing against him.
2] Davis might lose the by-election, robbing the Tories of a talented poltician.
Given he won it with a 5000 vote majority last time, and this time the second place candidate isn’t standing, that seems unlikely. In any case, the Tories are already robbed of a talented politician as he is standing as an independent.
3] Davis may win big, thus challenging Cameron.
Except he won’t win as a Tory. He’s standing as an independent.
4] The by-election may be a damp squib.
Not with the BBC et al all over it. You’ve seen tot hat already.
5] David Davis will win and get back into the shadow cabinet where he’ll be divisive.
No he won’t. He’s standing as an independent. As a matter of principle he couldn’t simply go back into the shadow cabinet, even if there was space for him.
6] David Davis goes on the backbench and become a divisive force.
Except he is an independent, so Cameron can just ignore him. No more a divisive force for the Tories than Martin Bell was. Davis has also refrained from making any attacks on the Tory party, only on Labour.
7] The Tory party will have a divisive debate between libertarianism and authoritarianism.
That is exactly what they have avoided. In fact this is effectively a wedge issue that causes problems for the Guardian readers – support Labour or support civil rights.
8] The Conservatives are diverted from their strategy.
No they aren’t. They aren’t even going to be standing, so they can take a few weeks off! It also means that political pundits have forgotten all about Tory MEPs expenses and Caroline Spellman.
9] Cameron doesn’t look in control of his top team.
Don’t remember similar comments when Robin cook resigned as a matter of principle over Iraq, and he was actively attacking the leadership. Davis is not attacking the Tory leadership.
10]Gordon will avoid dreadful headlines.
No he certainly won’t. This is likely to become a cause celebre where the Tories can sit quietly to one side kicking the Spellman issue under the carpet while every civil rights campaigner in the Western world turns up in Yorkshire to celebrate the anniversary of the Magna Carta.
The character assasination of David Davis by the BBC has been disgraceful. To hear the BBC reports you’d be forgiven for thinking you’d tuned into Downing St’s personal news channel. No thought given to the fact that this might actually be a stand taken on principle, and that it might actually be rather popular with the general public.
Bit rich GB calling it a “farce”; same could be said of his entire premiership so far…
Can you define Terrorist for me Baggie Jonathonan? Only I want to make sure that I can’t be described as one of them. You see, I would dearly love to beat Gordon brown to death with a baseball bat, so certain people might think I should be gaoled for putting such a thing in writing. After all, such aggressive attitudes towards the state could indicate terrorist intentions, and putting me in prison for 6 weeks while they find out if there is any substance to their suspicions could be the best option, right?
Ryan, regarding your last comment, he’s running as a Conservative candidate.
The entire MSM? The Independent is portraying Davis as a ‘hero’ and a ‘freedom fighter’.
Personally I am supportive of Davis (never thought I would ever support a Tory), and pleased to see that I has backed the many human rights organisations who are opposed to this legislation.
And of course it will cause problems between Cameron and Davis. Cameron would publicly say he would support Davis in the by-election, to say otherwise would undermine the Tory party. This has caused a split within the Tories, of that there is no doubt. Just a shame some of those so-called ‘left-wing’ Labour MPs didn’t do the same.
Ryan
I am fighting this by-election as the Conservative candidate, but on vital national issues that transcend party politics.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.
jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/13/do1304.xml
“This has caused a split within the Tories, of that there is no doubt.”
Between those that think it’s a good idea and those that don’t? Perhaps.
Even there, though, most Conservative MPs seem to support Davis on a personal level, as far as I can tell, but think it’s a bad move for teh party politically.
Where exactly is the evidence of a split in the way the Beeb and Labour are presenting it – ie a disagreement over policy or personality clash akin to the Blair/Brown divide? Just saying there’s no doubt, doesn’t make it so.
Hugh | 13.06.08 – 12:40 pm
You are spot on there.
Of course there are differing views within the party on the wisdom of DD’s move, but that’s just democratic pluralism – not a ‘split’.
Cameron has wished DD well; he’s offered to come and campaign for him, he’s allowed DD to stand under official Conservative colours. What more could he do?
What’s more, Cameron has appointed a close friend and supporter of David Davis as his replacement as Shadow Home Sec, and Grieve has offered his own public support to DD.
There is no split – except in Labour spin and the minds of beeboids.
What’s more, Cameron has appointed a close friend and supporter of David Davis as his replacement as Shadow Home Sec, and Grieve has offered his own public support to DD.
And why would that be do you think? If he appointed someone who had a different view to Davis, that would clearly indicate a split. Best to appoint someone similar and give the impression it hasn’t. Don’t forget, Cameron is a former PR man. He knows exactly how to deal with this situation and make it appear that all is well.
And the evidence of a split is..?
“The bias is in the unremitting framing of the story as one about divisions among Tories.”
For God’s sake. Davis’ paper of choice, the Daily Telegraph, describes it as “Tory Turmoil” and suggests that Davis is basically giving Gordon Brown a lifeline.
p and a tale of one chip: ‘”Davis’ paper of choice, the Daily Telegraph, describes it as “Tory Turmoil”‘
Well, its Three Lin Whip blog did, that’s true. But that’s not the same thing as a split. The Labour suggestion is that Davis’s decision is a symptom of a split. I don’t see the evidence.
p and a tale of one chip | 13.06.08 – 1:02 pm
Is that the same Daily Telegraph whose editor Will Lewis has a non-aggression pact with Gordon Brown and who has planted his nose so far up the prime ministerial arse that the Barclay twins will have to hire a JCB to get it out?
The same Daily Telegraph, indeed, that appointed the leftie columnist Mary Riddell (ex-Observer; ex-New Statesman) as its assistant editor on Brown’s personal request?
The same Daily Telegraph that’s been sniffily hostile to David Cameron since the day he became party leader?
Take a look what Telegraph READERS are saying on the blogs and HYSs…..
Peterborough Square: if you’re suggesting that the Daily Telegraph has joined some mysterious left wing conspiracy you’re well off beam. I can’t think of a paper, beside the Daily Mail, who is less in the Brown camp, such as it is.
If the DT is sniffily hostile to Cameron it’s because, unlike Davis, they don’t see him as sufficiently loyal to traditional Tory values. They see him as too left wing.
The comments I see on Davis at the DT site support him, which is precisely the point – Davis has strong grassroots support and yet he’s basically put himself on the backbenches and very obviously gone against Cameron. If that isn’t a split in the party that characterises what the media is identifying – the loss from the Tory front bench of someone the traditional Tory voters very much buy into then what is
p and a tale of one chip | 13.06.08 – 1:52 pm
the loss from the Tory front bench of someone the traditional Tory voters very much buy into …
Who says Davis is lost to the front bench?
Conservative activists have their say:
David Cameron should invite David Davis back as Shadow Home Secretary should he win the by-election.
Agree: 70%
Disagree: 19%
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2008/06/65-of-tory-memb.html
PaulS
Cameron says the new shadow home secretary is permanent.
So no comeback for Davis as Shadow Home Secretary.
Or are you saying Cameron is a liar?
Ryan,
If you were to do that you would not be a terrorist but you would be a criminal liable to full punishment of the law.
If I thought you were serious and had intention to carry out your murderous suggestion and I knew who you were I would unhesitatingly report you to the authorities.
Of course as you are so concerned then you didn’t mind being locked up for 4 weeks, its just 6 weeks that bothers you and is so fundamental, right?
Clear enough for you?
“fisking of Rick Nobinson’s comments that this will be bad for the Tories. Seems nobody else on his blog agrees with him. He seems to keep forgetting that Davis is standing as in independent, not as a Tory.
1] It will pit the tories against the Sun.
No it won’t. Davis is standing as an independent. The Tories are simply not standing against him.
2] Davis might lose the by-election, robbing the Tories of a talented poltician.
Given he won it with a 5000 vote majority last time, and this time the second place candidate isn’t standing, that seems unlikely. In any case, the Tories are already robbed of a talented politician as he is standing as an independent.
3] Davis may win big, thus challenging Cameron.
Except he won’t win as a Tory. He’s standing as an independent.
4] The by-election may be a damp squib.
Not with the BBC et al all over it. You’ve seen tot hat already.
5] David Davis will win and get back into the shadow cabinet where he’ll be divisive.
No he won’t. He’s standing as an independent. As a matter of principle he couldn’t simply go back into the shadow cabinet, even if there was space for him.
6] David Davis goes on the backbench and become a divisive force.
Except he is an independent, so Cameron can just ignore him. No more a divisive force for the Tories than Martin Bell was. Davis has also refrained from making any attacks on the Tory party, only on Labour.
7] The Tory party will have a divisive debate between libertarianism and authoritarianism.
That is exactly what they have avoided. In fact this is effectively a wedge issue that causes problems for the Guardian readers – support Labour or support civil rights.
8] The Conservatives are diverted from their strategy.
No they aren’t. They aren’t even going to be standing, so they can take a few weeks off! It also means that political pundits have forgotten all about Tory MEPs expenses and Caroline Spellman.
9] Cameron doesn’t look in control of his top team.
Don’t remember similar comments when Robin cook resigned as a matter of principle over Iraq, and he was actively attacking the leadership. Davis is not attacking the Tory leadership.
10]Gordon will avoid dreadful headlines.
No he certainly won’t. This is likely to become a cause celebre where the Tories can sit quietly to one side kicking the Spellman issue under the carpet while every civil rights campaigner in the Western world turns up in Yorkshire to celebrate the anniversary of the Magna Carta.
Ryan | 13.06.08 – 12:27 pm”
1. No, he is standing as a Conservative.
2. No, he is standing as a Conservative.
3. No, he is standing as a Conservative.
4. I agree it won’t be a damp squib. It will be big.
5. he won’t get back into the shadow cabinet with the home portfolio, Cameron has made that clear. He may in time get back in, I doubt it, Cameron is no mug, why should he encourage perceived splits.
6. No, he is standing as a Conservative.
7. It probably will, but it will be less divisive than the BBC think. In fact it might be an opportunity for Cameron to reinforce his vision of the conservative party.
8. No, he is standing as a Conservative.
9. Actually I do remember such comments at that time. Don’t think it will be important here though, Davis will be seen as a maverick.
10. It certainly won’t, Brown is in the mire, this won’t pull him out, well not that much anyway.
Ryan:
I would dearly love to beat Gordon brown to death with a baseball bat
Ahem….
certain people might think I should be gaoled for putting such a thing in writing.
Well, there is a criminal offence of threatening behaviour.
After all, such aggressive attitudes towards the state could indicate terrorist intentions
Yes. Or rather no. Brown is not The State. He’s an individual. And, whatever else it might be, it’s not terrorism to attack an individual face-to-face, having already announced the intention.
putting me in prison for 6 weeks while they find out if there is any substance to their suspicions could be the best option, right?
Yes. Or rather, no. Remanding you in custody pending trial given the indisputable fact you had written down your threat of lethal violence would be a piece of cake for even the dimmest CPS lawyer.
The issue over 42 days is about giving the cops the power to detain people on their own authority, not on a court’s. If the police can charge a suspect based on clear evidence, a court can act straight away. The whole debate is about police detaining people without charge.
I want to make sure that I can’t be described as one of them.
Can anyone think what a man as confused as Ryan should be described as?
The thing that has already undermined our civil liberties is the incompetence and unreliability of the police, or for that matter the government, the judiciary, or the whole mechanism that keeps society together.
The 42 days, CCTV, identity cards, databases are all easy targets for David Davis but their emergence does not in in itself erode our civil liberties. Any implement, be it knife, gun, motor car or nuclear bomb, becomes dangerous when in the wrong hands. We do not wish our police to have 42 days only in the same way as we do not wish Iran to have ‘nukes’.
The real erosion of civil liberties is the threat to society by an element of hostile brainwashed disaffected fanatics. The rot set in when unlimited immigration, multiculturalism, P.C. lunacy, no-go areas, and calls for sharia law coincided with trash being allowed to erode and overwhelm our culture. Television wallows in dross, crap, celebrity, something-for-nothing.
The number of days allowable for detention without trial become more relevant if the balance of probability is that the accused is innocent. If we could rely on the competence of the intelligence gatherers, the diligence of the police, and could be confident that they had very good grounds for detaining a suspect this issue would be less contentious.
David Davis said ” How would the public feel If they were aware that half the detainees were innocent?” More to the point, how would they feel if they knew that half were guilty?
You can’t restore a liberal and fair society or fix it when it’s gone awry merely by increasing the severity of deterrents and punishments. Bringing back the death penalty, throwing everyone in prison, stoning, lashing and cutting off hands and feet may provide a veneer of order, but underlying it will be fear, resentment and suppression. Not the society that we aspire to.
If the efficiency of the police, the rigour of their enforcement of the law, humane handling of detainees were unfailingly reliable, and the 42 days were only ever implemented as a last resort, then, and only then, would having the safety net of 42 days cetainly be preferable to risking another terrorist atrocity. Even as things are, I am not as against it as most of you.
So I think IF David Davis is right, he is only so for the wrong reason. But I agree with Baggy J that the BBC in this instance is not particularly at fault.
It is getting harder to go against the flow on this blog, and I am only expressing my opinion. So am taking cover…..now. Please don’t shoot! I didn’t mean it. Yes I did.
“Who says Davis is lost to the front bench?”
He’s been replaced already. He’s not on the front bench. He’ll possibly be back at some point but clearly he’s got to win his by election and then Cameron’s got to let him back.
And that’s the point – Davis and Cameron patently don’t see eye to eye to the degree that Davis is prepared to make a fairly strong, public stand, making it clear.
If Davis has the support of the grassroots and Cameron and Davis are at loggerheads, analysts are entirely correct in pointing out deep divisions in the Conservative Party between Davis (and the grassroots) and the leadership. I still can’t see how you believe the BBC and other elements of the media have called this wrong.
P etc. “Davis and Cameron patently don’t see eye to eye…Cameron and Davis are at loggerheads”
There’s simply no evidence for that. The Conservatives voted against 42 days; he’s said he’ll repeal it; what exactly don’t they agree on?
Will86 12:30: “To hear the BBC reports you’d be forgiven for thinking you’d tuned into Downing St’s personal news channel” I think you will find that the BBC is run as Gordon Brown’s personal news channel.
p and a tale of one chip | 13.06.08 – 3:32 pm
Davis and Cameron patently don’t see eye to eye
Cameron’s public statements so far have been:
1. To say he agrees with Davis on civil liberties.
2. To offer to campaign for him in the by-election.
3. To appoint a close Davis ally as his (temporary?) replacement.
4. To describe Davis’s move as ‘courageous’.
In addition:
* Davis has chosen to stand as a Conservative, not an independent
* The Conservative Party has provided the verbatim text of his resignation speech in a prmominent place on its website and has e-mailed it to all party members.
Against all that we have you and Nick Robinson knowingly alluding to some imagined private fury on Cameron’s part.
You just don’t get it.
PaulS
Cameron has witheld financial support for Davis’ campaign. As for his public statements: it’s damage limitation from Cameron. To think anything else is to be staggeringly naive. It’s the Westminster version of “we had creative differences” or those anodyne announcements companies make when they sack an exec but stress it was by mutual agreement.
Westminster journalists from across the political spectrum have come out almost uniformly on this one. You seem to be claiming some special insight based on face value that none of these journalists are able to comprehend.
You can’t seriously believe that at the point at which Gordon Brown was about to be delivered a bloody nose by either the Commons or the Lords that a shock front bench resignation by a Tory MP – and all the headlines it was clearly going to generate – was something Cameron either sanctioned or supported?
p and a tale of one chip | 13.06.08 – 4:17 pm
Cameron has witheld financial support for Davis’ campaign.
Not exactly.
Davis said he wanted to direct his campaign himself, which automatically meant it would not be party-funded.
Westminster journalists from across the political spectrum have come out almost uniformly on this one.
They always do.
PaulS,
I think you are seeing things correctly. Nick Robinson’s ’10 Reasons’ on his blog are more like 10 different bad things that might happen, some of which are the same. The only thing missing is the “Oh, please, please, please!” at the end.