The most unlikely by-election candidate suggestion so far
Written by Mark Pack on 15th June 2008 – 3:33 pmSo you’re thinking of running a candidate against David Davis because you support 42 days detention without trial. And you think it would be a good idea for that person to be the victim of an act of terrorism. Who do you think of? Umm … in this case, someone who has actually been a persistent and vocal opponent of 42 days detention without trial. Genius.
Posted in Haltemprice & Howden
15th June 2008 at 11:56 pm
“A very public sociologist” made a very good suggestion at the comments section:
“If Luke Akehurst is so keen on 42 days why doesn’t he volunteer himself to be Labour’s candidate?”
16th June 2008 at 2:13 pm
Because it is too far away,and thus impractical, apparently.
Well, thank you very much for the link. I am now asking readers to say whether they think I should go and campaign with DD, so would be interested to know what people think on that subject.
16th June 2008 at 2:47 pm
“Because it is too far away, and thus impractical, apparently.”
But he thought it wouldn’t have been too far away for you? Interesting.
16th June 2008 at 3:51 pm
He didn’t mention me specifically, he just wanted a survivor or family member affected by 7/7, as a symbolic DD battering ram. What that person thought or felt or where they lived was clearly far less important than what they could be spun as representing.
In other words, he wanted to wave other people’s wounds for his party’s own political purposes
16th June 2008 at 11:46 pm
My own opinion: DD is so dodgy on too many civil liberties issues to be supported. Admittedly, if his stance really creates a proper debate on 42 days, that may start something beyond his control. But I’d have thought the points, Rachel, you have to say don’t need the by-election to give them publicity. And, Mark, thanks for the link to such an impressive blog.
17th June 2008 at 1:25 am
“I am now asking readers to say whether they think I should go and campaign with DD, so would be interested to know what people think on that subject.”
As you asked, no.
I can’t see into David Davis’s mind, so I can’t really tell why he is doing this. But I can see that, logically, it can not be a principled stance, because he supports detention without charge for 28 days.
He feels it’s acceptable for people to be locked up without charge for 4 weeks, but not for 6 weeks. That’s something, I suppose, but it doesn’t seem to me like a reason for _positively_ supporting him.
In fact I wish somebody who was _really_ committed to civil liberties would stand against him and put the case for reducing the period of detention without charge below 28 days.
Because if no one is making that case, the authoritarians are really having it all their own way.