The ThunderDragon has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in a few seconds. If not, please visit
http://thethunderdragon.co.uk
and update your bookmarks/blogroll.

Showing posts with label David Davis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Davis. Show all posts

13 November 2007

Jacqui's Spinning

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, put spin before the safety of the public. Despite knowing about illegal immigrants being employed by the Home Office - as security staff, of all things - in July she did nothing. Well, nothing to protect us anyway. She was far too busy spinning to save herself. In August, a Home Office memo read:

The Home Secretary has seen your submission of today's date ... She agrees with you that this is not ready for public announcement yet.
So she knew, but did nothing about it.

How can they possibly justify knowing about it in July, yet doing nothing about it until November - five months later?

Can the first female Home Secretary survive much longer, or will David Davis claim yet another Home Secretary scalp for his collection?

05 September 2007

The Big Brother DNA Database

So now you just assume everyone's guilty of smething?

The whole population and every UK visitor should be added to the national DNA database, a senior judge has said.
The present database in England and Wales holds details of 4m people who are guilty or cleared of a crime.
Lord Justice Sedley said this was indefensible and biased against ethnic minorities, and it would be fairer to include everyone, guilty or innocent. (BBC)
It is indefensible and biased - but it would not be fairer to include everyone, guilty of innocent. Why not instead remove from the DNA database of everyone who hasn't been convicted - or at least not even prosecuted - for a crime? That would be fairer. They haven't committed a crime, or even been suspected of one enough to get to court, so why should their DNA be kept?

Since the number of DNA samples and kept in the database were taken from those who were not convicted of a crime amounts to around 10% of the total, the DNA database should be all rights be significantly smaller than it is now. Especially considering that they can't even seem to be able to keep up with the number they're taking already, how can they be able to get DNA from everyone else?

What they are trying to do is enact true Orwellian policies. Big Brother in action. They can see us, listen to us, and speak to us via CCTV cameras now. And they want to know our genetic make-up now! My DNA is my DNA, not theirs. And I don't want it in a national database.

What is worst thing about Lord Justice Sedley's outburst? The response from Tony McNulty, Minister of State for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing:
I think we are broadly sympathetic to the thrust of what he [the judge] has said.
I have said that myself in the past, that there is a real logic and cohesion to the point that says, 'Well, put everybody on'.
But I think he probably does underestimate the practicalities, logistics and huge civil liberties and ethics issue around that.
McNulty also suggested that in future DNA could be taken "as a matter of course" after any encounter with the criminal justice system. This is also joined by the PMS, who said:
The Prime Minister is very supportive of the DNA database which has been very successful in tackling crime, but there are no plans to introduce a universal compulsory or voluntary national database.
But what about the innocents whose DNA is already on the database? Surely that has to be morally wrong, if not illegal. Where's Brown's "moral compass" now? The only politician who has replied to this issue with integrity is David Davis:
The erratic nature of this database means that some criminals have escaped having their DNA recorded whilst a third of those people on the database - over a million people - have never been convicted of a crime...
It is long past time that the Government answered our calls for a Parliamentary debate about this database and to put it on a statutory basis.

The only acceptable thing to do with this sort of DNA database is to only permanently keep the DNA of those who have been convicted of a crime. A case could be made for keeping those who were prosecuted but acquitted by a jury for a limited period, depending on the severity of the charge. But for those who are not even charged with a crime, their DNA should not even be added to the DNA database. Once that investigation is over, their DNA should be removed from all records. Anything else is a perversion of justice.

UPDATE: Something I forgot to include in the original post, reminded to me by a post on this issue at Liberty's Requiem.
The Scottish Government [even if still officially the Scottish Executive] has dismissed a call by a senior judge in England for an expansion of the UK's DNA database.
In England and Wales, DNA is retained from anyone who is arrested but in Scotland DNA samples must be destroyed if there is no charge or conviction....
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said blanket retention was "unacceptable". (BBC)

For once, I can have nothing but admiration for the SNP. It's a very strange feeling for me to have, since normally they are just utterly stupid. Now I'm going to write words I never thought I'd type: Well done SNP!

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times

27 August 2007

The Leader Of The Conservative Party

In response to a post of mine yesterday, James Higham at Nourishing Obscurity has written this post:

Have I not consistently said and continue to do so and I think Iain Dale is right on the money with this one, that the very best talent the Tories have is sitting right beside the current shadow PM?

But no one listens to me.

The man can run rings round the opposition and most certainly the powers that be that I blog against [plus Labour] would not want Davis anywhere near the controls. Better to have a malleable puppet like Blair and Cameron...

David Davis for PM and Boris Johnson for London. That's all.
Certainly yes on Boris for London, but Cameron is the Leader of the Conservative Party, and should stay in that position. During the leadership election, I voted for David Davis, but since two thirds of the members disagreed and preferred David Cameron he is, and should be, leader.

The leader of the party deserves loyalty as a whole. It is fine - and beneficial - to disagree on bits and pieces, such as on particular policies, over political strategies etc. But by in-fighting we harm no-one but ourselves. We all have the same very basic core beliefs and ideas - that is why we are all members of the Conservative Party. There are always going to be differences of opinion within large political parties. It comes from the nature of having lots of opinionated people together. To win, and to be able to enact them, we have to cast aside, or at least not shout about, our differences but stress the things we do agree on and work together to achieve them.

I think Cameron's not doing a bad job overall. He's done good things and bad things, but he is currently still in the positive by my point scoring. No matter what, he is the leader, and deserves the support of all Conservatives. We could in-fight and end up with another four years of Labour (mis)government, or we can pull together properly and have a Conservative one. No matter what anyone can claim about "Cameron not being much better than Blair" or any other such crap, he is and will be a better PM than Brown.

David Cameron is the leader we have. He was elected by the members by a comfortable margin. Whether or not you supported him, we must get behind him now. The choice is simple - unite and have a strong fighting chance of ousting Labour and re-establishing good government in Britain, or fighting within and suffering a deserving defeat. Unite and win, in-fight and die.

26 August 2007

Gun Control

There is no doubt that David Davis has scored a significant goal against Home Secretary Jacqui Smith with this open letter [extract below]:

Dear Jacqui,

We are all concerned at the rising tide of violent crime that has manifested itself this week in a spate of shocking killings, including the tragic death of young Rhys Jones. You told GMTV this morning that “statistics aren’t a help but gun crime is down”. That is an extraordinary claim.

According to Home Office figures, gun crime (excluding air weapons) has almost doubled since Labour took office. The annual crime figures, released by the Home Office in July, suggest a 13% decrease on the previous year, which neglects the 18% increase in firearm homicides.

However, perhaps most telling is the massive increase in gun violence, disclosed on 25 January of this year (Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005-06, Home Office). Buried at page 36 . . . we find [that] . . . gun-related killings and injuries (excluding airguns) have increased by over fourfold since 1998.

In light of this information, your claim that gun crime is down is both inaccurate and misleading. One clear fact on gun-related violence is that if you don’t count it, you won’t be able to tackle it. Your predecessors opted for spin over substance. I hope that is a path you will avoid and would be grateful for an explanation of what action you plan.

Yours sincerely,

David Davis
There is just nothing I can add except to say go and read Dizzy's post on the issue and watch this amusing video: Labour: Tough on crime, tough on manipulating the statistics of crime.


Video hat-tip: Daily Referendum
Source: The Times

Template Designed by Douglas Bowman - Updated to New Blogger by: Blogger Team
Modified for 3-Column Layout by Hoctro
Extensively edited for this blog by ThunderDragon
eXTReMe Tracker