A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, and the Labour Party - With subtitles for the Hard of Left. Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Candidate vs Davis

Ex-Sun Editor Kelvin MacKenzie has just said on "This Week" that if Labour don't run in Haltemprice he will stand on a pro-42 days ticket (he actually said earlier in the programme he was pro-420 day detention), and Murdoch has already said he will fund the campaign.

56 Comments:

Blogger Merseymike said...

Well, that just about sums it up - a reactionary hard-line authoritarian former editor of a homophobic, racist rag.

Is that the depths to which the Government has sunk? The fact that the Sun was prepared to support new labour should have warned us....

12:25 am, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous ex labour said...

How low has the Labour party sunk under the weak, useless, deranged Brown when they pitifully hope that some lowlife like Kelvin McKenzie (financed by Murdoch) does their dirty work which they are too gutless and cowardly to do themselves?

12:39 am, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Albert Shanker said...

In his resignation speech, David Davis managed to use the words "I" and "Magna Carta" in the same sentence.

What an ego-trip.

Labour should stand no candidate against this stunt.

1:35 am, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Exile said...

The state is no friend to any working man. Have you forgotten how its bootboys were used to crush the miners? As socialists our aim is obviously to discredit that state as much as possible by chipping away at its hegemony.

As far as discrediting Nu-Labour goes, your friendly Exile reckons that if you didn't exist, some bugger would have to invent you.

4:53 am, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the things few people have commented on is the lack of a coherent narrative from Labour on this. A atark reminder of the difference between the patry under Blair and now under Brown. Handled rightly this is a gift. Where's Brown? Probably kicking his bon across Downing Street. Meanwhile the best they can hope for is that The Sun - that's right, The Sun - field a candidate to defend their politically inspired internment policy.

Well done.

7:51 am, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Ravi Gopaul said...

So that bloated pig's bladder is planning to stand. Thatcherite vs Thatcherite.
What a choice! I suppose if I were to chose, it would have to be Davis, I can't stand McKenzie, a thoroughly disgusting man.

8:56 am, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Duncan Hall said...

I will - and will encourage others to, as well - make strong representations to my neighbours and comrades in Howden Labour Party NOT TO LIFT A FINGER for McKenzie or any similar populist, right-wing non-Labour candidate in this by-election.

8:56 am, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Ted Harvey said...

SO, Murdoch sponsoring a proxy Labour candidate? Meanwhile in typical Brown style the Government dithers about whether to declare 'its all nothing to do with us' or to have the guts to put up a proper candidate.Just what can you say when we have got to this stage?

9:46 am, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Jake O'Leary said...

Merseymike - what are you on about? No one in the Labour Party has asked Kelvin to stand - whether he does so or not is entirely his own affair.

Why should Labour dignify this crazed stunt by standing a candidate? Let golf club bore David yell into the abyss on his own. No one will be listening.

10:55 am, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous hughes views said...

D'yer know where I should sign up to assist Mr McKenzie's campaign?! I certainly don't agree with everything he stands for but on this civil liberties for terrorists nonsense he's very sound. The liberty not to be killed by a bomb on the tube rates pretty high on my list....

11:09 am, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Merseymike said...

So, are we going to get clear instructions from the labour party and the Government that Labour voters should not back McKenzie.

Luke seems awfully keen on his candidature. Sometimes, silence speaks volumes.

And I think its Labour who are not listening which is why they are losing voters fast. No point in having a supposed left of centre party which is both authoritarian and right wing.

11:11 am, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous tim f said...

Somehow I don't think Mr Murdoch will be running a volunteer-heavy campaign. You might be out of luck there.

As for Labour Party members who live in the constituency, I would encourage them to stay at home (or better still, protest by traveling to a marginal constituency and doing some campaigning for Labour there). A turnout of 20% against 60% in the Crewe by-election would show Davis' stunt up as sham.

11:15 am, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous tim f said...

NB that comment aimed at hughes; views, not merseymike.

11:16 am, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Luke Akehurst said...

In what sense can reporting that he might stand imply "seems awfully keen on his candidature"

I haven't commented on it - if we (Labour) are running I would not comment positively about another candidate, if we decided not to stand then it's not our fight.

11:27 am, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Merseymike said...

If I was in the constituency I would vote for Davis, even though I don;'t like many of his views. But he is right on this issue and it needs to be kept on the agenda until the lords throw it out. By then, the Government will be so discredited that more rebels are likely to put it, and this painfully inept prime minister, out of its/his misery.

11:28 am, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Labour fields no candidate then we are free to support who we want, under the party's rules.

Given a choice of the three declared candidates so far, there is only one logical choice Labour supporters can make.

Vote Monster Raving Loony Party!

Come on, they've been fighting elections for fifty years without winning a seat, and surely these farcical circumstances are made for them!

11:34 am, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Jackson Jeffrey Jackson said...

"The liberty not to be killed by a bomb on the tube rates pretty high on my list...."

Well done on spotting the real issue which Parliament voted on. It's surprising that so many MPs want to be killed by bombs, isn't it? Funny people.

Inspired by that posting, is it time that an IQ test was brought in for anyone who wishes to use a computer connected to the internet?

12:03 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous U.N. Owen said...

This smells of a trap. Labour are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They should stand back and let these buggers fight it out amongst themselves. Just imagine the look on Davis' face if Kelvin wins!

1:10 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Bob Bob said...

So....

The Vermin is only going to stand ONLY if there is no Labour candidate...

If that isn't a Labour candidate by proxy, then I don't know what is...

The only reason why Chairman Brown wouldn't let anyone go for this, is because he can't find anyone in that part of the world who agrees with this neo-fascist legislation...why don't you go for it, Luke, if you feel so strongly about it...

Or is it, that you can't defend it, and you like most of this Zanu-Lab cabinet, are just blowing hot-air as always.

The moment, Zanu-Lab are voted out, is the moment, that the Socialist Heart of The Labour Party can reclaim it, from bastards like you.

2:29 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Dave H said...

Anybody who conflates the current government with Zanu PF is too immature to post on the subject.

Or indeed be let out without parental supervision...

3:49 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Shamik said...

McKenzie should win, indeed he must win for all our sakes.

As he said, why should any law-abiding Briton fear ID cards, CCTV and a DNA database?

What the Liberty clique are arguing for, literally, is the right to get away with murder, rape, theft, etc. etc.

If you've got nothing to fear you've got nothing to worry about.

End of fucking story.

4:02 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But if you're innocent and locked up for 42 days then released without charge, that's not on.

You lot are cracked. Frightening

4:19 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Oxbridge Prat said...

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Tell that to Rizwaan Sabir, a 22 year old research student who spent 6 days in custody for possession of documents downloaded from the public section of the US Department of Justice website.

4:38 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Blogger Ravi Gopaul said...

Hello Sham, it’s been a while how have you been? Well it will come to no surprise that I completely disagree with you (but then I wouldn’t have it any other way would you?).

The idea that armed police can burst into your house, scare your family half to death, bundle you into a police van to an undisclosed address and question you for up to 42 days while at the same time your family have no idea how you are is frightening.

Imagine how you might feel after that treatment, is it not likely you might turn against the government? What a great score for the terrorists.

This is what the neocons/neoliberal hawks don't understand. They want us to go for them all guns blazing because eventually we'll end up hauling an innocent person into the police station and they die in custody. The same goes for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, these are just recruitment sergeants for the terrorists. We need "more jaw jaw than war war". Again good to see you though, look forward to reading your continuous bile (!)

4:56 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Rich said...

Personally I think the Sun is losing its influence. Luke you appear to be behind Murdoch, the man that destroyed the printers union.....and you wonder why the unions are turning their backs on weak Labour.

Will Labour do anything to stay in power.

5:35 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Rich said...

Good post Ravi, and it is this gun ho approach that left an innocent man dead on the London tube.

How low will this government stoop.

One bit of good news, the Irish have kicked out the treaty. At least they still have a democracy and the freedom to choose.

5:37 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect that Luke's brain is short circuiting as we speak, torn between saying that no one should have a vote on the Treaty (cos the public don't support it and the govt would lose) and his assertion that 42 days is hot to trot because 62% of the population support it.

The travails of self interested hypocrisy.

6:22 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, are we going to get clear instructions from the labour party and the Government that Labour voters should not back McKenzie."

Since when has the party or government given clear instruction NOT to back a candidate in an election they are not contesting? By NOT standing Labour are showing that they believe the whole Davis stunt is a farce, why should they then start telling people WHO to vote for, wouldn't that be a bit hypocritical? Letting Davis slug it out with someone like McKenzie is EXACTLY what Labour should be doing.It was a farce from the start and it will end in farce...good.

6:31 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous David S said...

Re: Anonymous comment. After some difficulty I have got my head around the apparent conflict between my glee at the Irish referendum result and support for DD. We need to find out whether the poll scores in favour of 42 days (or 420? - why not life?) are knee-jerk reactions or considered opinions. For those who say that our elective democracy is better than government by plebiscite, well it would be if the vote wasn't debased by threats, arm-twisting and pork-barrel politics. And McKenzie will do as he is told by Murdoch (it wasn't even his own idea, for God's sake), whereas DD will not do as he is told by Cameron. That on its own is almost enough for me.

6:54 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go, that's where your lovely triangulation gets you - cheering on Kelvin Mackenzie of the Scum.

Go on, do it, fine, who is anyone to stop you? Just don't be so hypocritical as to call yourself socialist or social democrat or left or anything of that ilk. This is the pure milk of Thatcherism with an authoritarian twist.

7:02 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice to see the anon tossers are all out to support terrorism.

Myself 42 days with judicial safegards is quite in order, and if the Chattering classes object to that, well I would be happy to drop the safegards.

Keep it up Luke 'cos with all the useful idiots saying they will never vote Labour again it makes me wonder how we ever lo
st an election in the past !

GW

8:16 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymong 8.16.

If someone is plotting a terrorist act, arrest them, CHARGE them over what they're doing and lock them up.

Locking up potentially innocent people for six weeks and not even telling them what they're supposed to have done (if anything at all) is profounding un-British and unjust.

Prat.

8:20 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Murdoch has already said he will fund the campaign."

Hmmmm. An American funding a Parliamentary candidate. Don't we have rules about that kind of thing?

11:56 pm, June 13, 2008

 
Anonymous Antonia Fitzwalter said...

Why don't you stand for Haltemprice, Luke? You could stand under the name Luke Beresford B'Stard Akehurst, Labour's New Statesman candidate. After all, David Davis bears an uncanny resemblance to Piers Fletcher-Dervish.

10:11 am, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"with all the useful idiots saying they will never vote Labour again it makes me wonder how we ever lo
st an election in the past !"

Yes it is a wonder isn't it? I've noticed quite a few letters over the past couple of years on the same theme in the local press- usually signed by someone with a name like Major Humphrey Beaumont- Smythe the third (retired).

I'm not a fan of 42 days but the idea of the Tories as guardians of liberty is a real rib tickler- virtual house arrest for striking miners, media bans on Sinn Fein, union bans as GCHQ. There's no reason why Labour should play Davis' game, people don't vote on a single issue in any election let alone a one off bye election.If Davis had the courage of his convictions he would not have ensured the lib dems stood aside- with Labour's vote in the constituency at 12% he's taking no risk at all. Ignore the nutter...

11:34 am, June 14, 2008

 
Blogger Shamik said...

Tell that to Rizwaan Sabir, a 22 year old research student who spent 6 days in custody for possession of documents downloaded from the public section of the US Department of Justice website.

Yes, that was wrong. A monumental fuck-up by the authorities, but nobody died.

Ravi - if someone who is truly innocent is locked up for 42 days that would be wrong, but I can't see it happening. We're told the police need this extra time to examine and decode scores of encrypted files on computers etc.

I ask you why any normal person would have so many files locked down so securely that it takes more than four weeks to crack?

However, leaving aside 42 days, how about my points on CCTV, ID cards and a DNA database...

These are things only criminals need fear!

12:20 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous Major Humphrey Beaumont-Smythe III (retired) said...

What you need my boy is a damned good thrashing. What a shame so many of your Labour chums are in the queue before me, so I may never get the pleasure.

12:51 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous Godfrey Bywater said...

It's plain for all to see that you're no Brownite, Luke. He made the transition from Stalin to Mr. Bean. Whereas you seem to have made the transition from Mr. Bean to Stalin.

12:54 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Blogger oldandrew said...

I don't know what it says about me, but I'd be quite happy to be locked up for six weeks as long as I'm fed properly, treated well and have a chance to set Sky+ first. And obviously as long as it wasn't in the summer holidays.

1:55 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could one of you who seems to think that being able to lock someone up for 42 days without charge will stop a terrorist attack.
if the security services have enough iformation to arrest someone for suspicion of being involved in an imminent attack they will do so regardless of if they have 28 or 42 days before charging. This dross about it will stop a suicide bomber is pathetic. The security services will NOT leave someone they know about on the streets if they believe they are about to commit an attack. If they do not know about them having the option of 42 days does not matter because the first time they see them they will be spread across large parts of the country.

4:46 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous a very public sociologist said...

Luke, do you not feel a little bit ashamed that MacKenzie, a nasty piece of work opposed to everything the labour movement stands for, looks as though he'll be making the case for your government?

9:19 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is begining to look like a contest of british eccentrics, to save face and show he is serious David Davis should join with the lib dems and labour and refuse to stand in such a farcical election

Paul Smith

9:34 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Labour Party activist since 1988 - firmly on the moderate wing of the party. National Secretary of Labour Students 1995-6. Parliamentary candidate for Aldershot (2001) and Castle Point (2005). Hackney Councillor (Chatham Ward) and Labour Group Chief Whip since 2002. Supporter of Europe, NATO/nuclear deterrence, Israel, electoral reform. Guardian reader. Dad. Stoke Newington resident. Amicus union member. Employment history as a Labour Party Organiser, Local Government Political Assistant, Public Affairs consultant (specialising in advising defence and aerospace companies)".......................... Arrrrgghh I used to meet people like you when I lived in London. We used to take the piss out of you lot. Yes you fit the bill well. Lefty student, Guardian reader, local government employee the list goes on. You're a walking clique what a laugh. Get a real job and grow up and get some real political opinions. My fifteen year old is more mature than you. Ha ha ha ha I'm still laughing now you twerp.

11:12 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous Rich said...

Completely off the subject but isn't it time that Britain took some real action against Mugabe. I'm sick and tired of this dictator destroying what was once the pride of Africa. As a nation we have a duty to defend the rights of those people being targeted by Mugabe.

Surely we have to act now.

11:46 pm, June 14, 2008

 
Anonymous Ted Harvey said...

Latest signals are that Labour will not put a candiate up against Davies.

So at least Gordon Brown is now making a virtue out of consistency; when faced with the excercise of democracy through a vote(whether for you as PM or for your Government or at a by-elction etc.)tou dither and procastrinate awhile before deciding not to put up.

Incidentally his acolytes in Scottish Labour have done the same with similar bad results over the long run. We have Wendy Alexander (unelected Scottish Leader) and her election funding 'difficulties' as Sunday front page news again today.

12:11 pm, June 15, 2008

 
Blogger Martin Meenagh said...

I have been a Labour member since I was 16, in a steeltown. I can just about accept that student union hacks with no proper job experience can spend their time undercutting unions and selling public administration to their mates, because something could arise that may be better.

I can also accept that some immigrants, because of a misplaced desire to avoic the appearance of racism, are more acceptable than others, so my own family's irish catholicism can be something to be sneered at by the ranks of Labour activists.

I can accept that there may be a fiscal case for not taxing the super rich with capital gains, but not for truckling to them or sucking up to the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

I can accept that there might be reasons why marriage, abortion, and religion may all get some people motivated and the destruction of institutions via a common line on these points could get 'radicals' going.

I can accept that anyone I know involved in Labour representation might well be a timid narcissist brave only in their own promotion.

But these are the final straws. Locking people up for six weeks? Wheelie bin fines? Crooks and halfwits in local government 'elected' on 19% of the vote surveilling everyone like a bad 70s Kojak episode, descending on mothers whose children litter whilst throwing money at death cults and punishing anyone who pays taxes, owns a car, raises a family or goes to church?

Government without law is a band of robbers and brigands. Taking away the protection of the law for temporary emergency is wrong. Allying ourselves with people who want to lock religious nutters and people who look like them up without a proper charge, and exploiting the victims of terrorism to defend it, is wrong.

Ignoring the people of every country whose partnership we are meant to laud when they vote against a bad treaty and then proceeding anyway is wrong.

Push off. I've had enough. I resign.

12:45 pm, June 15, 2008

 
Anonymous Rich said...

Reading some of these posts it is very clear that Brown has upset most of the hardcore Labour supporters. The next poll should be very interesting indeed and I expect that Labour will get a very big shock.

The shock might be big enough to force Brown out of office and the result would be a general election.

Although Luke might think that holding someone for 42 days is harmless but such an act could pave the way for a following government to erode of freedom even more. We can't predict the future but we can protect our liberties.

1:17 pm, June 15, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its been well over 24 hours, any chance of one of you anti terroism experts answering my question

Anonymous said...
Could one of you who seems to think that being able to lock someone up for 42 days without charge will stop a terrorist attack.
if the security services have enough iformation to arrest someone for suspicion of being involved in an imminent attack they will do so regardless of if they have 28 or 42 days before charging. This dross about it will stop a suicide bomber is pathetic. The security services will NOT leave someone they know about on the streets if they believe they are about to commit an attack. If they do not know about them having the option of 42 days does not matter because the first time they see them they will be spread across large parts of the country.

9:46 pm, June 15, 2008

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Luke

I was pretty suspicious about Mr Davis's actions, but am picking up some interesting moods. In my office/ depot - a blue collar business where political correctness is near unheard of, with little interest in current affairs - I've heard people talking about and objecting to the 42 day rule.

This is an environment which would tend to be labour voting but socially very conservative (and, lets state facts, very anti-immigration). People find the idea of this term of internment simply wrong and care enough to discuss it in public.

Perhaps from the opposite side of society the issue is making Mr Davis an internet hero. Even your blog is gaining fame!

10:00 pm, June 15, 2008

 
Anonymous stephen said...

As he said, why should any law-abiding Briton fear ID cards, CCTV and a DNA database?

What has the British state to fear from people who do not want to carry ID Cards or be registered on a compulsory DNA database? Does the british state really think that there is such a torrent of undetected criminality that it must register everyone on the DNA database? What on earth is the British state afraid of?

What the Liberty clique are arguing for, literally, is the right to get away with murder, rape, theft, etc. etc

In what way does not being registered on the DNA database give one 'the right to get away with murder, rape, theft'?

If you've got nothing to fear you've got nothing to worry about

So why's the British state got secrets?

End of fucking story

A very convincing argument

11:00 am, June 17, 2008

 
Blogger Shamik said...

In what way does not being registered on the DNA database give one 'the right to get away with murder, rape, theft'?

If your DNA's on file you'll get caught. If your heinous act is captured on CCTV you'll get caught. ID cards represent no threat to the law-abiding. It's time to turn the screw on the criminal class and the lawyers who defend them, time to make their lives hell the way they're making ours.

Liberty are there to defend criminals. That's their job. The vile Shami Charabarty doesn't defend my rights, nor does she defend the rights of the victims of crime.

Why's the British state got secrets?

Why do you think. If you're trying to suggest the rights of al-Qa'eda wannabes and common crooks are somehow comparable to those of the State you're way off the mark.

1:38 pm, June 17, 2008

 
Anonymous stephen said...

If your DNA's on file you'll get caught. If your heinous act is captured on CCTV you'll get caught

So criminal's didn't get caught before CCTV or DNA datbases? I believe in using English honestly and precisely. You claimed that not being on the DNA register amounted to a 'right to commit murder'. I am not on the DNA register. Perhaps you could explain, sans emotional bullshit, how that gives me a right to evade a murder charge or conviction.

ID cards represent no threat to the law-abiding

In case you hadn't noticed, brainstrust, those who WANT one already have an ID card, it's called a passport. I see no good reason to spend £20 billion on another form of ID, when there are more than a thousand worthier causes to spend the money on. Why is the state so terrified of people not being registered on an ID database? Where does this unhinged paranoia come from. What do you think we are going to do to you?

It's time to turn the screw on the criminal class and the lawyers who defend them, time to make their lives hell the way they're making ours

So how's an ID Card going to do that?

Liberty are there to defend criminals. That's their job

Really? That's in Liberty's charter is it? You are a very silly man. You should calm down. This sort of paranoia will make you ill.

Why do you think

I dunno. If you have nothing to fear, you have nothing to hide.

If you're trying to suggest the rights of al-Qa'eda wannabes and common crooks are somehow comparable to those of the State you're way off the mark

No I am not suggesting that at all, you silly obtuse man.

10:31 pm, June 17, 2008

 
Blogger Shamik said...

You pathetic little weasel. If we listened to demented, amoral vermin like yourself and Scummy Chakrabarty there'd be a lot more rapists and murderers on the street.

The whole point of the criminal justice system should be to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, not that I'd expect an aarrogant, feckless muppet like you to understand that.

If you were on the DNA database and raped or murdered someone you'd get caught straight away. But that would be "unfair" according to your warped perspective. Criminals must be allowed the right to get away with it, mustn't they? Either by expunging their DNA from the database, by ridding the streets of CCTV or by having some scheister lie through their teeth in court.

I suppose you also think the "human rights" of Abu Qatada come before my right not to be blown up on the tube in the morning?

Weak on crime, weak on terrorism, weak on extremism. It would be laughable if it wasn't so damn serious.

5:22 pm, June 19, 2008

 
Anonymous stephen said...

You pathetic little weasel. If we listened to demented, amoral vermin like yourself and Scummy Chakrabarty there'd be a lot more rapists and murderers on the street

I asked you some specific questions about how ID Cards would make a difference and you respond with abuse. I am not suprised. You are tacitly acknowledging that your arguments are very weak.

The whole point of the criminal justice system should be to punish the guilty and protect the innocent

Yes indeed it is. Whare did i say it wasn't?

not that I'd expect an aarrogant, feckless muppet like you to understand that

Oh dear. I have asked you a few basic questions about the efficacy of ID Cards that you are intellectually ill-equipped to answer and your response is to call me 'feckless'. I suggest you acquire a dictionary, Mr Malaprop.

If you were on the DNA database and raped or murdered someone you'd get caught straight away. But that would be "unfair" according to your warped perspective

What I think is unreasonable is that unconvicted people are put on the DNA database. These people have not 'raped or murdered' anyone.

Criminals must be allowed the right to get away with it, mustn't
they?


No, I never said that. But I can see why an angry silly man like you might choose to attack me like that.

Either by expunging their DNA from the database, by ridding the streets of CCTV or by having some scheister lie through their teeth in court

The only people who can get their DNA expunged fronm the register are those who have not been convicted of any offence. By defintion, they are not criminals. But then you are in such an irrational wax of indignation that simple facts like that don't matter to you, do they?

I suppose you also think the "human rights" of Abu Qatada come before my right not to be blown up on the tube in the morning?

I can't be held responsible for what your fetid imagination comes up with. Think all you like. You would be wrong.

Weak on crime, weak on terrorism, weak on extremism. It would be laughable if it wasn't so damn serious

I am not at all weak on extremists like you.

9:31 am, June 20, 2008

 
Blogger Shamik said...

You prick. Insulting me then becoming all high and mighty.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out, you hypocritical fuckwit.

If an innocent man who's DNA is on the database remains innocent for the rest of his life, why would he object?

Scum like you aren't worth arguing with.

11:02 am, June 20, 2008

 
Anonymous stephen said...

You prick. Insulting me then becoming all high and mighty. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, you hypocritical fuckwit

I couldn't care less if you call me rude words. It does not offend me in the slightest. What I find interesting is that angry incoherent people like you are unable to produce any arguments to support their strongly held opinions. You are like the pub bore who gets apoplectic when contradicted.

If an innocent man who's DNA is on the database remains innocent for the rest of his life, why would he object?

I have told you why he would object. Because he is innocent and therefore the state has no business to keep his DNA. By the way, are you on the DNA database? And if not, why have you not volunteered for the privilege?

Scum like you aren't worth arguing with

You are not arguing, old bean. You are ranting.

11:18 am, June 20, 2008

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 
Free Hit Counters
OfficeDepot Discount