Grieve responds
Peter Hoskin 12:54pm
Here are Dominic Grieve's answers to the questions put forward by Coffeehousers:
Alex R
"Do you understand that your views on the ECHR are in contradiction to those of the huge majority of conservative supporters and potential conservative supporters. Do you understand why many people believe this should disqualify you from ever being Home Secretary in the next conservative government?"
I disagree on both counts. I fully support the protections set out in the European Convention on Human Rights as does the Conservative Party. But, I also believe that the government’s approach to human rights – including the Human Rights Act – has created unnecessary uncertainty in Britain, whilst failing to protect key liberties. That’s why a Conservative government would replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights, which would offer a home-grown document tailored more closely to British traditions and values.
Nick Kaplan
"Dominic;
It is reasonably well know that you have been a ‘have a go hero’ in the past. Do you believe that there is a role for ordinary members of the public to take up your example in an effort to combat crime? Would this be something you would encourage as Home Secretary?"
I have to say that I don’t like the term ‘have a go hero’ much, and I have done nothing heroic. But I do believe that we all have a duty to help uphold the law of the land. The government’s approach has encouraged a ‘walk-on-by society’, with too many instances of citizens being apprehended - and sometimes prosecuted - for genuine attempts to intervene to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour. That has got to stop - a Conservative Government will promote both individual and social responsibility, which includes supporting those who try responsibly to stand up to those who break the law.
RGS Alumnus
"One of the best things about your constituency is the access it offers to excellent grammar schools in Beaconsfield and down the road in High Wycombe. Wouldn't it be a good thing if children throughout the country had the chance to go to similar grammar schools?"
Grammar schools provide excellent opportunities for those children that are accepted to them. But they are not – and can not be - the only answer to increasing educational opportunities and raising standards nationwide.
Alex
"Knife crime: What is the future Conservative Government going to do about it?"
The government is in denial about the state of violent crime in modern Britain. A Conservative government would take concerted and sustained action at every level. We need to free up police from unnecessary red-tape and targets, putting them back on the street. We need more honesty in sentencing – which means a presumption of custody for knife possession, not the slap on the wrist that offenders all too often get at present. And we need to tackle the causes of crime, neglected by Labour despite all of its rhetoric. That includes measures to curb binge-drinking related violence, a crystal clear message on the scourge of drugs and stronger support for teachers in upholding school discipline.
John C
"You were recently (wrongly in my view) criticised for saying that we need to understand the mindset of the 7/7 terrorists and what motivates them. How would the next Conservative government approach dialogue with the Muslim community in order to strengthen the moderate elements?"
If we want to stop terrorist violence, we need of course to appreciate the forces motivating it, so as to counter them. We also need to reach out to the overwhelmingly moderate majority in the Muslim community, as the Conservative Party has already done. There are a range of measures a government can take. But perhaps most important is not to try and hand pick groups to represent the views of diverse communities. That is patronising, short-sighted and counter-productive. We need to promote a far broader range of views and participation in our democracy – by all those of goodwill – whilst making it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate those who support or condone violence.
Previous
Rhoda Klapp
September 4th, 2008 1:22pm Report this commentWishy washy claptrap. Any casual observer could have predicted this rubbish. The only conservative thing about it is the party identifier stuffed in to make sure we know this isn't from the other lot.
Alex R
September 4th, 2008 2:24pm Report this commentPredictably didn't answer my question and seems not to understand the reality of the situation.
With the introduction of the Human Rights Act, UK judges had to take account of the ECHR when giving judgement.
Fine. There was logic in that move from Jack Straw. It stopped judges making rulings on the basis of case law which they knew would be struck down by ECHR Court in Strasbourg.
Abolishing the Human Rights Act doesn't stop the ECHR trumping UK law. All it would do is restrict those citizens who are either not rich enough (or more likely, not funded by legal aid) the right to have their case adjudicated with reference to the supreme rung of UK law, as their cases would have to pass through UK courts before appealing to Strasbourg.
The only reason for abolishing the HRA is if we also withdrew from the ECHR.
Grieve also displays muddled up thinking in his answer. Even if we could agree on a (new) British Bill of Rights (does anyone think that is possible? Can you imagine the demands special interests would make?), it would still be trumped by ECHR!
Moreover, if Grieve believes that it is possible to author such a document, why does he believe that – having then given us the protection of positive rights from the Bill – we should still cede the final say of what is legitimate or legal in our country to judges in Strasbourg? If he believes so much in the text of the ECHR, then let him use it as the basis for his British Bill of Rights. However, but make such a document sovereign, withdraw from the ECHR and let British judges have the final say on what is lawful in this country.
Finally, if he honestly believes that his views chime with the majority of people in the Conservative Party or their supporters, he only just demonstrates quite out of touch he really is and the arrogance of thinking that shows how the Conservatives can still lose the next election.
Polly's mum
September 4th, 2008 3:54pm Report this commentWhy do we never get the chance to put questions to Government ministers?
Are they all too frit?
Tim Carpenter
September 4th, 2008 4:02pm Report this commentMaybe Grieve has given up on Sovereignty and is content with administration?
Frank Pulley
September 4th, 2008 5:40pm Report this commentStill no reponse to the NBPA and the GLPA question? Despite the fact that the ramifications now threaten the very survival of the career of HM Commissioner of Police for the Metrollups and the morale of the force - sorry - service, which sinks further by the day. Nothing to do with the shadow Home Sec? And we still don't know whether our subby didn't want to ask it or Smith's shadow doesn't want to answer it. Oh God, how can anyone agree to stand obscured by that cretiness's shadow? But that's another question - which undoubtedly will not be answered either!
Marcus Cotswell
September 4th, 2008 5:52pm Report this commentI'm still waiting for my Coffee House T-shirt from when Chris Grayling answered questions :-(
Searcher
September 4th, 2008 5:54pm Report this comment"We need more honesty in sentencing – which means a presumption of custody for knife possession". Well yes - but if actually using a knife to cause serious wounds only merits a sentence of two years (actual case), then what length of sentence would be appropriate for just carrying? It's a soundbite but it's not thought through.
C Powell
September 4th, 2008 6:05pm Report this commentAgree with Rhoda. Look at the first sentence of his answer to John's question: "If we want to stop terrorist violence, we need of course to appreciate the forces motivating it, so as to counter them." But what he doesn't say is what he thinks those forces are, though there's plenty of evidence of what they are. Since he doesn't say this he doesn't say anything either about what measures he would propose to take to counter them (for instance, prosecuting those selling/preaching inflammatory material). And the rest is just guff. What precise steps is a Tory government going to take to show that they "will not tolerate those who support or condone violence"? Or will we just get words but no actions, as usual?
Pete Hoskin
September 4th, 2008 8:50pm Report this commentMarcus: apologies for that. I'll look into it and get back to you.
Marian C
September 4th, 2008 8:58pm Report this commentI agree with Rhoda it is 'Wishy washy claptrap'.
Hysteria
September 4th, 2008 10:26pm Report this commentQuestion for anyone in Government or Opposition.
Do you believe we are a sovereign nation?
If the answer is "yes" - explain why you believe this to be true?
Michael St George
September 4th, 2008 10:31pm Report this commentI've been appalled by the vacillation and timidity in Grieve's milksop replies.
The ECHR to which he seems so attached is the mechanism by which prisoners are allowed access to pornography and under which we are spending public money giving Muslim terrorists metal toolboxes in which to keep their food warm until sunset so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities during Ramadan. If they don't want to eat it in daylight, they can eat it after dark, and if it's cold, well that's tough.
Had Grieve been around on 2nd September 1939, presumably he would still have been counselling caution and saying "Well, we must establish beyond doubt what Herr Hitler's intentions actually are before taking any unduly precipitate action". Dave has done his party no favours by appointing this ineffectual patrician to an office which ought to be a key plank of combatting the left's cultural vandalism.
Chris Rose
September 5th, 2008 10:30am Report this commentGrieve's answer to the ECHR question is most disappointing. His solution is to introduce yet more rights which will then conflict the ECH Rights. Who will benefit from that? Only lawyers and nit-pickers.
The present government has removed many of our freedoms, but now the Conservatives propose to do nothing to restore them. It is freedom that we want, not rights. Rights are what bureaucrats condescendingly grant and are always limited. Freedom is only constrained by the need to protect the freedom of others.
Rights are death: freedom is life.
Rhoda Klapp
September 5th, 2008 7:47pm Report this commentDrag the useless bastard back here and make him answer properly, like a man not some weaselly politician. We deserve to be treated with respect.
Hysteria
September 5th, 2008 9:29pm Report this commentWhat Rhoda said............
Tim Hedges
September 6th, 2008 9:00am Report this commentWow, he's dreadful, isn't he? For me, this has done him and the Tory Party some damage.
Back to top