Huh??

thomas

It does seem that the most vigorous defender of our liberites has just resigned from the shadow cabinet and therefore won't be home secretary in the next government. I also find it hard to see a good side to that.

jb

I agree Melanie.David Davis looks as if he has just shot himself in the foot...and taken a step that can only help the government.

Rod Jones

It's all right for you commentators to swan round with your clever and subtle opinions about all this. Out on the street, at the lower levels of daily life, many of us (I put it no higher) are sick to death of this government's creeping authoritarianism, and have realised that Cameron and Osborne, when the chips are down, will not repeal or roll back what New Labour has done. On that basis, I found David Davis' statement electrifying and cheering: a politician with principle at long last. The torrent of abuse that will come his way from all quarters of the media propagandists for the Political Class is predictable. The dividing line is: authoritarian or not? Every libertarian will be on David Davis' side.

London Calling

As David Davies stated in his live speech today, if the 42 Days detention without charge were defeated at the House of Lords, it can be blocked using the Parliament act by the Government, therefore there is no
stopping the Government from extending the detention period further still to 56,70,90, days.

Every word David said in his speech ran a chill down my spine, because it was all true, a Brave Man indeed to speak out for our Liberties, One Man made me feel very proud to be British today, if only there were many more like him, sadly there are very little Men and far too many Mice in Westminster and I'm hoping the cheese in the store cupboard rots along with our Liberties.

Thinkster (I should be working!)

I think he has resigned because even the Conservative party have tasted the benefits of New Labor's self-serving policies and Mr. Davis (who is an excellent chap) probably believes he cannot get anywhere through the regular channels. Effectively, he is seeking revolution. And while my view on the 42 days issues is all over the place, I am right behind him on the other issues he has concerns with. Truth is, we do need a revolution, but before that, a sound, level headed person needs to put together a credible alternative - and Mr. D could be the man for the job. He's not a nutter with long hair living in a basement looking for black helicopters. It's now or never folks.

London Calling

As David Davies stated in his live speech today, if the 42 Days detention without charge were defeated at the House of Lords, it can be blocked using the Parliament act by the Government, therefore there is no
stopping the Government from extending the detention period further still to 56,70,90, days.

Every word David said in his speech ran a chill down my spine, because it was all true, a Brave Man indeed to speak out for our Liberties, One Man made me feel very proud to be British today, if only there were many more like him, sadly there are very little Men and far too many Mice in Westminster and I'm hoping the cheese in the store cupboard rots along with our Liberties.

Chris

He'll win back his seat with an increased majority. He'll then return to the shadow cabinet. Cameron can support him in words without throwing teh whole weight of the party behidn him - and thus provide a nice contrast to an authoritarian Brown.

And in doing so he will raise the profile of this issue - there is no illogic in his strategy, unless you are a so called conservative columnist who is determined to strip the British People of their rights under the Magna Carta.

David

Yeah, civil liberties- bunch of rubbish, eh, Melanie? Who needs them?

Yoyo

I'm very new to the Conservative Party (by that I don't mean I'm a member, I'm planning to switch to them from Labour - yes, I know) at the next election.

I'm astonished at this. For one of the most talented people on the Conservative front bench to behave like this is just weird.

David, I want 42 days, the bulk of Labour's vote wants 42 days. It's what the public want. What are you on about?

Cameron has no choice but to be ruthless with this man. What next? A showpiece by-election every six months? Do you watch The Apprentice, Mr Davis? It's called teamwork.

Peter A

I'm going out to seach all of the commuter trains out of London to find a clue as to what any of the major parties believe is the appropriate response to the Islamist threat to this country.I really camnnot remember a time when politics in this country was so shambolic,clueless and dishonest.

Peter A

I'm going out to seach all of the commuter trains out of London to find a clue as to what any of the major parties believe is the appropriate response to the Islamist threat to this country.I really cannot remember a time when politics in this country was so shambolic,clueless and dishonest.

London Calling

As David Davies stated in his live speech today, if the 42 Days detention without charge were defeated at the House of Lords, it can be blocked using the Parliament act by the Government, therefore there is no
stopping the Government from extending the detention period further still to 56,70,90, days.

Every word David said in his speech ran a chill down my spine, because it was all true, a Brave Man indeed to speak out for our Liberties, One Man made me feel very proud to be British today, if only there were many more like him, sadly there are very little Men and far too many Mice in Westminster and I'm hoping the cheese in the store cupboard rots along with our Liberties.

Ed Hummer

Resigns to fight bye-election when his party voted against measure and only lost because the government bribed some NI politicians.

Aye right.

I look forward to this weekend's News of the World with more than my usual anticipation.

Now, if he had resigned because he supported it and couldn't stand the lefty drift of the Cameron Tory party then that would be news.

steve

It was a very courageous and principled act by Mr Davis.

harsh measures for muslims

Ah something else Melanie doesn't like.

Possibly because her real commitment is not to liberty,to western values or to anything like that. It's all about harsh measures for muslims and Davis clearly doesn't "get it".

David Mason

MP: "surely one of the most egotistical, self-regarding examples of the genre"

HA! That's a bit rich coming from a journalist!!!

DD is concerned about more than the 42 days. He also spoke of his concerns about the growth of the database state, government snooping powers that expanded dramatically after RIPA, ID cards, the erosion of jury trials etc. etc. etc.

I think you need a holiday.

Robert

Well said, Mr Davis. The salami-slicing away of our hard won freedoms is relentless.
The abolition of Habeas Corpus and the usurping of our Common Law freedoms needs to be brought out into the open and the implications debated in the wider context of the undermining of our personal freedoms and liberty.
This current legislation has not been designed to target just one section of the population. That is spin. The legislation is framed to be used against anyone 'suspected' of terrorist behaviour. The Government will arbitrarily define what it considers to be 'terrorist behaviour' that is detrimental to 'national security'. The R.I.P.A. when it was first introduced, was also asserted to be 'terrorist focused' legislation. Nevertheless, it has been used to abuse the civil liberties and privacy of many law-abiding individuals. The policy of mass immigration, with the to be expected, concomitant increase in threat, from Islamic supremacist terrorism, whilst genuine, is being used as a pretext to achieve a more sinister political ambition.

JimBob

Does Melanie ever have a good word to say about anyone?

While I'm not DD's greatest fan, he has taken a principled stand and should be applauded for doing so.

Its also not often that I agree with Dianne Abott, but she hit the nail on the head with her speech yesterday - its just a shame that more senior figures in the government didn't have the bottle to stand up to Brown

Kevyn Bodman

Melanie,
I think, and have said, that you have been consistently wring on the 42 day detention issue.

This resignation is already being distorted and mis-reported, and you've fallen into the same error.
The 42 day matter is the final one in a series.David Davis has said today, on the pavement, 'insidious,surreptious and relentless erosion' of liberties and of 'the slow stangulation of British freedoms by this Government.'
He has referred to the DNA database and the ID card and the database state.It's not just 42 days for Mr. Davis

He is going to campaign against the repeated actions and policies of the government in the civil liberties area over the last 11 years as well as on 42 day detention without charge.He is going after them on a major area of their view of British society.Presumably the government hold their views both firmly and reasonably.They should get out in the constituency and defend and explain their views and point out why they think Mr. Davis is wrong.
These issues should be debated, interested parties should not slink away and cede the ground.
If Labour doesn't stand they will look like cowards, and they will be cowards.

And they'll be the ones to look ridiculous, not the man who has given up the chance to be Home Secretary because of his principled and passionately held views on this matter.

42 day detention WITHOUT CHARGE.
A database state with ID cards.
Peaceful demonstrations outlawed but demonstrators with placards inciting violence left alone.
Think again, Melanie. change your mind.

Ann

What utter nonsense, Melanie. At last a brave and honest politician, and you sneer at him? Disgraceful. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Ann

"It's all about harsh measures for muslims"

You are the one who isn't getting it. What a silly post.
Remind us of the exact dates that Jews and Buddhists bombed the Tube.

Paul

One of the most pernicious forms of parliamentary corruption is for a representative of the executive not only to declare shortly after losing a vote dealing with a well defined, specific area of proposed legislation an intention to reverse this all too rare defeat but to carry out this intention within the life of the same parliament, using the all too widely tolerated methods of political bribery and intimidation. This sets a new constitutional precedent (inasmuch that Britain can be said to have a constitution). If we rightly deplore the largely successful efforts of the Europesn Union's decision makers to reverse their defeats in the various referenda concerning further "integration" by means of a treaty which is substantially the same as the rejected constitution, how can we not condemn what has just happened? It does not happen even within two decades that a government measure gets defeated in the Commons, however extreme it is. It is less uncommon, but still rather rare, that the Commons forces the executive to accept substantive amendments.(The crucial amendments to the Religious Hatred, etc. Act were passed only by two and twenty votes. What is to stop Brown from using yesterday's precedent to "revisit" this law?)

Lance Grundy

Don't agree I'm afraid. Government's like New Labour - left-wing, politically correct, class warriors [or any other government for that matter, as they're all prone to control-freakery] should not be given powers to lock up people for 6 weeks without charge.
The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" are not absolutes. In true Humpty Dumpty style, words can mean whatever the government says they mean. Once this legislation is in place how long will it be before we see striking tanker drivers locked up for ‘economic terrorism’ for blocking refineries or householders locked up for ‘environmental terrorism’ while some Local Authority busy-body fumbles through their rubbish for 6 weeks trying to prove they put a brown bottle in a green glass only recycling bin? In fact, anyone who holds views or perpetrates actions contrary to the Leftist consensus that now seems to hold sway in this country could, in the future, find themselves accused of some sort of ‘terrorism.’ This may sound far-fetched but then who would have thought that local councils would be using the anti-terrorist legislation passed in 2003 to snoop and spy on their local residents over their choice of school or the type of rubbish they put out - or that the police would use it to arrest old men who heckle Tony Blair?

C Powell

Sorry: you're missing the point here. He's concerned about the growth of the over-mighty state and all the various ways in which that's manifesting itself. Only one of those issues has been debated and he's right that all these matters need a proper debate. When did Parliament debate allowing council officials to spy on my bin or on where I'm living? When did Parliament debate allowing 240 agencies to have access to my personal details? If Brown shies away from a contest it will show him as afraid of debate, afraid of elections - after all he was the one who made a great point of saying that people were in favour of this policy. Are they? Or do they want the Government to do something about terrorism and this is all that's on offer? Are they really in favour of all the other aspects of the surveillance state? These are questions you ought to be asking if you're really keen on fighting for traditional Western values. It seems to me that your (justified) concern about the Islamist threat to those values has blinded you to the threats coming from our own Government and the apologists for it who do not appear to value what makes British law, British democracy, British freedoms special. If Brown backs away, he's "frit" and Davis can make that point. It may all end up pointlessly but, judging by the comments here and on other blogs, a lot of people feel that it's time someone stood up against Labour's relentless erosion of our liberties, freedoms and values.

Chris

Melanie Phillips has sunk to new lows with her response to David Davis's impressive and principled stand. Her utter lack of respect for freedom is fully exposed for all to see.

field

Melanie -

I think you've confused "Put up for auction" with "debated".

This measure will make us not a drop more secure. But it will pave the way for further erosion of our most precious freedoms.

Do you seriously want to give, in effect, the West Midlands Police Chief the right to bang people up for 42 days on his say-so? We've seen what they do with other pieces of legislation and how they try to stifle free debate.

What about when they come to arrest you on suspicion of "Glorification of Zionist Terrorism" and put you away in windowless cell for 42 days without charge?

It might be a mad egotistical gesture, but in a way I am glad David Davis made it because we are sleep walking into tyranny at the moment. It's the equivalent of having a drunk stumble over you when you've fallen asleep on the train and were about to miss your stop.
You may not be impressed by the drunk, but you're glad he woke you up.

Nannette

David Davis didn't resign over the 42 days. He resigned over the erosion of OUR civil liberties and freedoms.

Of course this inept government will allow petty bureaucrats and Councillors to use the 42 day detention to lock up people who haven't paid their Council taxes, TV licences, drop an apple core on the streets, or overfill their wheelie bins.

The Nazis came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . .
And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

David Davis has acted on behalf of all free Britons. Who will speak for our freedoms now?

logdon

A man of principle and all Melanie can do is mock? 42 days is a blind by Brown to look tough. Meanwhile Britain adopts Shariah, if not in name but practice with fervent collusion from Labour. Google Alum Rock or try this
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/muslim-no-go-areas-in-britain-just-go-there/

Jack R

Will Davis show solidarity with those people who oppose the threats to freedom which come from certain Islamic ranks?

Jack R

Haven't most of the 'human rights' of the British people been given over to the European Union anyway, without much of a whimper.

Ann

"Its also not often that I agree with Dianne Abott, but she hit the nail on the head with her speech yesterday"

She is nothing but a silly troublemaker on principle, and a hypocrite at that (remember which school she sends her children to? Remember which schools she screeches about?).

Lance Grundy

Don't agree I'm afraid Melanie. Government's like New Labour - left-wing, politically correct, class warriors [or any other government for that matter, as they're all prone to control-freakery] should not be given powers to lock up people for 6 weeks without charge.
The terrms "terrorist" and "terrorism" are not absolutes. In true Humpty Dumpty style, words can mean whatever the government says they mean. Once this legislation is in place how long will it be before we see striking tanker drivers locked up for ‘economic terrorism’ for blocking refineries or householders locked up for ‘environmental terrorism’ while some Local Authority busy-body fumbles through their rubbish for 6 weeks trying to prove they put a brown bottle in a green glass only recycling bin? In fact, anyone who holds views or perpetrates actions contrary to the Leftist consensus that now seems to hold sway in this country could, at one time or another, find themselves accused of some sort of ‘terrorism.’ This may sound far-fetched but then who would have thought that local councils would be using the anti-terrorist legislation passed in 2003 to snoop and spy on their local residents over their choice of school or the type of rubbish they put out - or that the police would use it to arrest old men who heckle Tony Blair?

Dee Ranged

Since Labour are not putting a candidate forward, DD will return unopposed. His campaign to reignite the current debate will have failed.

More important, he will never ever get back into the shadow cabinet because he will now be seen as an uncontrolable maverick.

Ed Sligo

A powerplay to try to dethrone Cameron? That's what my money is on.

MD

There is nothing in David Davis' record to indicate that he is weak on law and order. Whatever his stance on 42 days, he has made a principled and grand gesture. It also touches on personal responsibility. It will stick in the minds of a public which has become sceptical and weary at the sight of so many ministers of the crown failing to fall on their swords. From his platform, Davis promises to take on the erosion of civil liberties generally under this government, and there are plenty of issues for him to get his teeth into, some of which you have taken a bite out of yourself, Melanie. The man stands a chance of changing the perception of politics. I'm surprised at the strength of your criticism.

jaytt

Melanie, the 42 day law is a confession by the government that the police haven't the slightest idea who may have done what or how to find out. These folk are held, and are then released without charge. It does not take 6 weeks to read a computer hard disk - that's just a pretext for the police's inability to detect and their poor recruitment skills. But in the meantime, if they have the power, they'll use it on anyone they take against. That could be me, or you.

YA

.."to speak out for our Liberties", inshallah..

David smith

You are wrong Melanie on this one.My son and I listened to Mr Davis and we knew that at last there was someone to speak for us, our ancient freedoms and our long and fine history in a way that we instinctively understood.My son was particularly elated.This is about far far more than 42 days.Mr Davis has our unconditional support.You are either with him or against him.None of us can see the future and to hand over to the state the powers all states have always sought is to take a terrible risk with our children's future.

Stan

We Brits must reject the view of neoconservative Brits like Melanie Phillips. Sorry Mel but you dont look out for the majority of us Brits.

Lee Jakeman

This man is full of himself. He's finished.

Marwan

Hello ; it's the tories fatal flaw again ; envious also-rans sticking the knife in the leader's back. Its the last days of Major and Thatcher all over again. This is'nt about ancient liberties ; it's about Davis having a pop at Cameron because he lost the leadership election. The arrogance of politicians is astonishing : The public are clear that two extra weeks custody for islamic terrorist suspects is just fine if it saves lives. The right to life is a somewhat more ancient liberty than Davis'posturing notions.Brown must be chuckling.

John

A strange chap Davis but his words on where our freedoms and liberties are going is true. We should all be out there defending them as well. This government is anti-freedom and living here is almost as bad as the old Soviet Union.

sebastian

Seldom stated, but the 42 day detention period is for muslims who might wish to help the Police with their enquiries isn't it?. Can't imagine who else - apart from the occassional, major drug cartel boss perhaps - who might get swept up in it and might require generous opportunities to see the error of their ways and sing like a canary.
Of course, this does prompt the shallow of thought to claim that mohammedans are being "targeted". Well, yes. And why? Because they target us. Tell me when Mormons, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, Bahais, or Methodists plotted or carried out mass murder on our strees or in our airports. Tell me which other creed actively promotes violence and militant intolerance against "non-believers".
Unhappy as I am about the erosion of civil liberties this decision appears to increase, I'd be a lot less happy dead or maimed. Not many civil liberties in a mortuary freezer; or in a rehabilitation unit for the badly disfigured or limbless. So, given proper safeguards, I can stomach it.
What truly irritates me though is the route we've been prodded or tempted along to reach this cliff-hanger. For years, NuLab has ignored the gathering muslim threat that's insidiously taken advantage of our freedoms and liberties in order to spread the real islam's message of global dominion: one way or another. The overthrow of the UK is their declared intention. Bellicose distain of all others is their badge of membership. And what do we have now? A near crisis; and panic measures that may never have been necessary had islam's true nature been noted and acted on much earlier. But of course it wasn't. It wasn't, for fear of upsetting the "community" and for fear (strange how often that word crops up in this) of seeming "racist" or insufficiently multicultural. So we had mosques, mosques and more mosques. We had mass demonstrations baying for blood and inciting violence, with absolute impunity. We had literature of the most questionable kind printed on our soil and distributed around our cities. We have a trend to ever more segregation. And NuLab did nothing about it.
Instead and at the last ditch now matters have become so brutally serious, we have had our liberties amended in order to help contain a deadly, minority dedication to violent, sanctified jihad that many - except Government - saw coming. Wilfully blind, NuLab blundered needlessly into it, dragging us along. This overindulged and highly questionable - even odious - creed is responsible; but NuLab is as culpable for its naive handling of it.
What next?

Norman

I have read the posts here with utter amazement. It is thought that giving the police up to 42 days which will be subject to strict judicial scrutiny is a threat to freedom and an erosion of our liberties whereas the very threat to freedom and erosion of those liberties which the measure is designed to thwart is not. The only people to fear an erosion of their freedom/liberty to act are the terrorists who now have a far greater chance of being successfully prosecuted. I for one am truly thankful that there are brave people in Parliament who do not buy the David Davis argument - I would hope there are similar people in the Lords. As law abiding citizens of this country no one need have any fear of the 42 day detention period, in much the same way as they have no fear of going to prison for murder. However the terrorists will now have their work cut out trying to hide their plans/secrets with the police having more time to discover them. Wake up Britain our freedoms which have been fought for over the centuries are now being further secured to meet a new and more sophisticated threat than we have ever encountered before, any action taken by the Government supported by Parliament to secure them must be applauded.

Charles Smith

@ Norman:

You've missed the point (as has Ms Philips). It is the government who will decide whether or not you are "law abiding," not you. It's the same as the "if you have nothing hide, you have nothing to fear" canard that's often wheeled out. You don't define "nothing to hide", government does.

David Davis is making a stand against the increasingly Orwellian nature of the surveillance that British citizens are permanently under. Sure, the government might be trustworthy at present (although I doubt it). But what will you do if a government that wants to abuse its powers gets in?

"It's for your own protection" is the oldest trick in the book if you're a politician trying to take power from the people. Don't fall for it.

Hereford

I don't disagree with you on much Melanie, but I do on this one. This may be an inept thing to do, but by god I wish more politicians had the courage of their convictions to the degree that this man has. I fundamentally disagree with his stance as I am a supporter of the 42 day limit. Or higher if necessary. But I wish more politicians had the guts to put their career on the line for the principles they hold.

Geoff Miller

The reason why the polls show support for 42 days is simple - people want something done.

This extenstion of power however isn't needed - we already can invoke special powers in the case of a national emergency and a Jihad certainy qualifies. The government however, in its cringe towards Islam, doesnt want to name names and take effective action.

The problem is not the 42 days alone, it is the constant extention of surveillance powers through CCTV's, phone tapping, proposals for ID cards etc. Its interesting that much of the use of these powers is aimed at the general population rather than the terrorists themselves.

This endangers our civil liberties, giving the impression of "action" whilst we see weak responses to Islamic activity all the time. E.g. any arrests at the Green Lane Mosque yet? No, of course not!

I dont trust this socialist/marxist government any further than I could throw it - neither should you Melanie.

What we need is controls over immigration, Islamic schools and mosques, student societies etc. Hard and swift action to squash these groups when they misbehave and legislation to smother them at birth where possible. A government that stands up for British culture and values and makes this country an unwelcoming place for people who want an Islamic state is what is needed - explicitly!

All the politically correct double speak doesnt help, neither will the 42 days if we are weak on message and legislation to make Islamic fundamentalist activities like race/religios hatred, honour crimes, genital mutilation, no-go areas etc etc a thing of the past.

This Government gives mixed messages so 142 or 242 days wouldnt help us!

At least someone has "asked " Gordon Brown outside! The whole situation, not just the 42 days, should be aired.

Its a great opportunity to expose this Government for what it is and how badly it has let us all down.

Stephen Fox

Mel: 'We Brits must reject the view of neoconservative Brits like Melanie Phillips. Sorry Mel but you dont look out for the majority of us Brits.'

In fact, a steady majority of Britons (2 to 1) do think precisely what Melanie thinks, so don't pretend to be their spokesman.
I think Davis has made a silly gesture full of egotism, and whilst we must always be concerned about our freedoms, they are by no means the only important aspect of our law. The more we seek to incorporate liberalism in our law, via Human Rights, the more we need to make sharp exceptions for those who seek to abuse and destroy our tolerance. I believe that if we have lost the balance between liberalism and authority, it is in a loss of authority. In areas from the family, school and the courts, to the defence of our borders, 'we Brits' actually feel that handwringing has been the default response for much too long. We have allowed too much liberty to people intent on doing damage, whether terrorist or criminal, and must toughen up.

field

Norman -

If your only concern is to secure more convictions for terrorism, I suggest you argue for withdrawal of legal aid from terrorist suspects. That would be a far more effective way of increasing the number of convictions. Deprived of their devious advice, most terrorist suspects would soon incriminate themselves.

David Raynes

I have met quite a few Conservative MPs, and been interviewed by Cameron when he was on the HASC. Of those I have met, Davis is quite the one with the most common sense and the only one I have met who I would trust absolutely to do what HE regards as the right thing. I do not always agree with him, he and his party are certainly wrong about the huge number of Constabularies in England & Wales and the gross waste and inefficiency they represent He is however absolutly right about 42 days. It always was an unnecessary gimmick, a not so slick attempt to outmanouvre the Tories on "Law & Order" started by Blair and continued by Brown, which Melanie has fallen for though she is no lawyer and can have no real experience of the criminal investigation process. Melanie and others sneer at their opposition as "hysterical" even when that opposition is from some of the most informed people in the country on that criminal process. Her own partner even disagrees with her, according to his published materiel. It remains to be seen if Davis has done the right thing in resigning. If the whole parliamentary Conservative party resigned were Labour to use the Parliament Act on this issue, they would not be wrong in my view. Would Labour then defend all those seats? Would they call an election? We have an unelected Prime Minister plainly incompetent to carry out the duties of the post and seemingly paralysed and terribly stressed by events, unable to get matters from his in to his out tray. A general election is needed now.

Frank Pulley

Once again David Raynes makes several very valid points. Melanie has a great deal of respect for Mr Raynes as she has indicated in her articles on illegal drugs use. I hope she heeds his comment above. She should knows that the Customs and Excise department is as much involved in detecting terrorist activiity as any other law enfocement agency, in some ways it has more powers than any other. I certainly found it the most efficient special investigation branch, particularly in the fight against organised crime when I was involved in public service 25 years ago.

As a grat fan of both Melanie and David Raynes, perhaps I should weigh in with my own opinion on the DD issue here. Or better still, I'll repeat a comment I posted on Pete Hoskin's thread captioned "Could Brown Offer a Referendum" (Friday 13th June 2008) in support of a comment made by Kevin Lohse who stated that he has been "involved in anti-terrorist activities for 19 years" and repudiates the need for longer detention without charge.

I commented thus:

>"Kevin Lohse

Yours is the voice of experience, reason and common sense. In fact can you envisage any scenario that would require anyone being banged up for more than a fortnight without being charged? Why arrest anyone without evidence? Surely if information is received or enquiries reveal that any person or persons are involved in a conspiracy to murder and maim anyone in this country, it is criminally irresponsible to strike before evidence is available (a) to nail the conspiracy before the act, or (b ) to catch them about to perpetrate it, in flagrante delicto. Fishing expeditions are not only unlawful for police officers; they are often unlawful for fisherman these days since our ancient rights were ceded to Yurrup.

'Intelligence' is useless unless it is professionally collected, evaluated, collated, analysed and then disseminated via executive consideration for action, arrest and prosecution. Carried out and coordinated if necessary with other international agencies, the question of detention without charge for excessive periods becomes unnecessary. This is what Davis, as Shadow Home Secretary, should have been shouting to the rooftops. He has hardly laid a finger on Smudger the Fudger, who is as thick as seventeen lavatory seats and merely parroting political expediency to save the Govan Gargoyle's ass. What makes anyone believe he will be any more effective or articulate as a Tory renegade? He would have been Home Secretary himself in about two years, had he played his hand right. What he has now done detracts from, rather than intensifies the War on Brown, which is a higher priority in my book than the War on Terror, because unless we get rid of this egregious band of ghastly Gramscian gurus, we will be subsumed into Eurabia in short order and Islamism will have won anyway, regardless of thwarted terror plots.

What I suspect is that he realised that, should the Tories win the next election, he may have been shit-canned from the cabinet anyway. His irrational action reeks of chagrin at losing to Cameron in the party leadership race last year, given Shado Home Sec. as a consolation prize, but being kept out of the loop de facto.

I think he was a decent man before bitterness set in; I wish he had had the equipment to win because in general I like him, but I'm afraid he's a loser because he lacks political smarts and the authority and presence required in a leader. Petulance masquerading as principle will soon lose its disguise. He is right to draw attention to the erosion of privacy and freedoms, but he is going about it in the wrong way and adding yet another political stunt to many that have been perpetrated by this appalling Administration, when gravitas and good governance has never been more necessary. What better soapbox could he have had than that of Shadow Home Secretary? He just didn’t know how to use it to best advantage.

It is a sad story really, because having heard Cameron’s speech in the City this morning, and also read Fraser Nelson’s piece in the Speccie today about the Blair advisers being invited into the Cameron camp, my blood runs cold. I’m even more certain that Davis should have remained in the cabinet to fight what appears to be nascent NuBlairism; the ghost of Gramsci in Tory disguise looms even larger."<

Having just listened to DD being interviewed by SKY today, I don't feel any more convinced that he has made the correct decision. However, I accept David Raynes assurance that David Davis is the best Tory MP he has dealt with. That does not, however, reassure me of the Tory Party's current abiity to implement a plan to undo the damage done during the past decade by this Administration.

p.mohamed rasool gani.

deaaar sir i need have to indused in stress in glass.