David Davis' opposition
With 25 candidates running against David Davis, in the absence of a Labour candidate I would be thinking about voting for Jill Saward if I lived in the Haltemprice & Howden constituency. Her stance on the issues Davis wants to debate in the by-election is set out here. I think Davis might get more of a debate than he bargained for.
Also running in Haltemprice is my Hackney acquaintance Rev George Hargreaves (Christian Party) who targeted my council ward as Christian Party ("Proclaiming Christ's Lordship") agent in the 2006 borough elections with leaflets claiming Tony Blair was a Marxist dialectical materialist so Christians shouldn't vote Labour! He also put out extremely inflammatory leaflets in the Springfield Ward by-election last year (with his wife as candidate) which seemed to designed to damage relations between Stamford Hill's Orthodox Jewish community and their Christian neighbours. Luckily only 40 people in Springfield were taken in by this unpleasant tactic.
posted by Luke Akehurst at 10:20 pm
11 Comments:
Another variation on the new Labour triangulation concept of justice that "It is better than ten innocent men go to prison than that one guilty man go free - especially if the swing C2s in marginals find out about it via the Sun and Mail".
Politically expedient but unBritish andwrong.
7:23 am, June 28, 2008
Luke you said:
"I think Davis might get more of a debate than he bargained for."
Well it would be more than we could have bargained for, given that the gutless Prime Minsiter and amoral Government have ensured that they have not put up a candidate... talking of not standing for elections, today in Scotland we have finally seen the undigified end to an undignified
episode in Scottish Labour history with the forced resignation of Wendy Alexander; a real loss to Scottish politics brought about by the institutional collapse of the Scottish Labour Party. I've said it before - all the warnings for UK Labour are there in Scotland, starting with the lesson that if you do not stand for election you lack authority and legitimacy from thew outset. Did you hear that Gordon?
5:55 pm, June 28, 2008
Victims of sexual violence come before the rights of suspected terorists
So how does that work? How does requiring evidence and conviction before interning suspected terrorists harm the alleged 'victims of sexual violence'. If I lived in H&H I'd love to ask Saward that question and see her squirm. Just another example of the hysterical infantilism of politics. I hope the witless Saward loses her deposit.
10:47 am, June 29, 2008
I can't decide whether I'd vote for the Green or the Trot.
5:24 pm, June 29, 2008
"Victims of sexual violence come before the rights of suspected terorists"
Indeed, that is a totally idiotic statement.
The two have no relation for a start, and secondly, supposing both the people are innocent, I think they have a lot more in common than they do apart.
The real balance to be had is between innocent and guilty, and that is best decided by a speedy and fair trial of the accused.
5:26 pm, June 29, 2008
I think the title of the article "Victims of sexual crime should come before suspected terrorists" by Jill Saward is unfortunate and taken out of context, makes her appear stupid and thoughtless. But seen in context (David Davis has focussed considerably on the rights of suspected terrorists but NEVER given so much as a passing thought to the victims of crime, sexual crimes against women in particular) I think Jill is making more than a suitable opponent in this "single-issue" by-election.
Also, to the folk who have commented so negatively already, please note, Jill admits that she is not a party political animal. She is naive (hence the poorly worded title of her article) but she is sincere and hard working. I know her and I think she'd make a good constituency MP toboot!
12:53 am, July 01, 2008
Sorry Dalston Dan, but innocent people who find themselves embroiled in a criminal investigation are victims, just as much as 'victims of crime, sexual crimes against women in particular'. And quite often they will find their reputations in tatters as the authorities seek to justify their behaviour. This is particularly the case in terrorism investigations. Such people deserve to have rather more consideration than they are given at the moment and I see no need to apologise for giving them that consideration without constant and distracting references back to other victims of crime in an attempt to diminish their plight.
I really don't care whether Jill Saward is 'sincere and hardworking'. I am pretty sincere in my commitment to civil liberties and I like to think I work quite hard also. I found her article to be offensive. Imagine how she'd like it if she were a victim of miscarriage of justice and to have her vindication diminished by comparison to 'real victims of crime'. If it had been her son shot to death like Jean Charles de Menezes would she have been content to have seen his reputation besmirched by leaks from the Metropolitan police and then be rebuked 'remember the true victims of 7/7' if she dared to complain about it. She may not be a 'political animal' but presumably she does possess some basic human empathy.
9:51 am, July 01, 2008
Dalston Dan says confidently:
"David Davis has focussed considerably on the rights of suspected terrorists but NEVER given so much as a passing thought to the victims of crime, sexual crimes against women in particular"
Evidently Dalston Dan is unaware that
"During my tenure as Shadow Home Secretary, we launched a review of rape sentencing and pledged additional funding for rape crisis centers. I pioneered a campaign, and secured changes in the law, to stamp out human trafficking, the horrific trade that leads to the rape and sexual abuse of young women and children."
Dalston Dan ought to get his facts right. Will he apologise for misleading readers? Or is this "just a blog" where commenters may abandon their ethics at the door?
11:19 am, July 01, 2008
Hoover ... OUCH! :-)
11:30 am, July 01, 2008
Hoover- yes - I apologise.
Stephen - you write: If it had been her son shot to death like Jean Charles de Menezes would she have been content to have seen his reputation besmirched by leaks from the Metropolitan police and then be rebuked 'remember the true victims of 7/7' if she dared to complain about it. She may not be a 'political animal' but presumably she does possess some basic human empathy."
yes - she does possess some basic human empathy - quite a lot in fact. The Met were wrong - but two wrongs don't make a right.
5:08 am, July 07, 2008
Just noticed that one of the candidates is half following your lead by having a 'terror victim' campaign for them. And the candidate, of course, is David Davis. Check it out on Iain Dale.
http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/
7:40 am, July 07, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home