David Davis launches his website

David Boothroyd

How does David Davis reconcile his criticism of the law preventing demonstrations in Parliament Square, with the fact that he supported it on a free vote? (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/vo050207/debtext/50207-41.htm#50207-41_div74)

Tom

How can he be against government interference yet support the death penalty? I'd say that's a pretty huge interference! If he thinks it's ok for a government to kill its own people I can't understand how them doing anything else wouldn't seem ok too.

Verity

Tom, you have missed a vital component here, I am afraid. I can't speak for Mr Davis, but I support the death penalty because the person being executed committed a "pretty huge" interference in someone else's life. As in, he terminated it. Plus, he stole that person from his family. That again is, in your strange terminology, another huge interference.

He did not have a legal right to "interfere" thusly.

These outrageous "interferences" against other human beings are best dealt with by eliminating the perpetrator. He is the problem.

Think of it as mosquito spray and your tender feelings for violent thugs may not be so assaulted.

The British public as a whole wants the death penalty back. Politicians, who apparently think they are the boss of the electorate and have, by some divine intervention, better judgement than the electorate, have decreed otherwise. Except for some of the more intelligent ones, like David Davis.

Bishop Hill

Tom

The Government could only kill its own people if the people (in the shape of a jury) gave them the OK.

Verity

Oh, and Tom, dear, if you don't want the government "to kill its own people", we could always arrange an exchange programme. Perhaps we could twin with some sensible American state, for example. New Hampshire would be good. Texas would be good. They do death by lethal injection. So does Colorado. Or we could expand the condemned's horizons by send them to Utah, where the deathee gets a choice du jour: lethal injection, or firing squad for the more theatrically inclined.

Michael Hargrave

Tom

Government interference and support, if that is what it is, for a judicial penalty on the most serious and heinous crimes are two totally different issues and need to be considered separately. Government controls on freedoms for innocent subjects are vastly different from penalties for criminals found guilty of the most serious crimes.

Anan

Is this nutter trying to form some sort of new party or something? What a joke.

P.S. Tom your argument is ridiculous. Unless you are a moron, you would realise that the death penalty would be a penalty for crime from a judge, not from the government. By your logic putting murderers in prison is also government interference and therefore they should be allowed to roam free, as should paedophiles and rapists. Stupid socialists - build your savage, lawless "utopia" elsewhere.

Hysteria

I see he wants donations sent by cheque - how terribly quaint!

Sean

Hysteria - At least it's not cash in brown envelopes..