So 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.
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
“Build, baby, build” but don’t lower our ambitions on affordability (Victor Chamberlain)
-
Twenty-six years of evidence on drugs. Twenty-six years of cowardice. (Tanya Park)
-
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
-
Observations of an Expat: Gaza (Tom Arms)
-
The Lib Dem strategy review (Rob Blackie)
Don't mention the Isle of Wight Separatists' 1950s terror campaign
Brexit: The Uncivil War - the TV drama with Benedict Cumberbatch
A power vacuum?
Recent Comments
Margaret
It's a few years ago now, but I remember having a problem with a car we had hired in Alaska, and having a long argument with a call-handler somewhere in the 'lo...
Caracatus
The thing is we can have lower taxes (for most) and better public services. The madness of the lost war on drugs which cost billions. Sorting social care, th...
paul barker
Can London build its way out of this crisis ? Londons population has gone up by more than half since the 90s & all the "Plans" are for it to go up more. Lo...
Steve Nash
I agree with KP that the International Aid and diplomatic Budget should increased, to challenge both Immigration and the need for Defence. It may not be the ch...
Tom Arms
@ John Kelly: I certainly didn't mean to imply that Gaza is peaceful. Sadly, civilians continue to die, humanitarian conditions remain appalling and Israel cont...
6 Comments
“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?”
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.
“Because it is too far away, and thus impractical, apparently.”
But he thought it wouldn’t have been too far away for you? Interesting.
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
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.
“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.