« Cameron "delighted" at Irish "no" | Main | The Telegraph makes mischief »


Unless it wants to be associated with a big time loser the Sun needs to think carefully before supporting Mackenzie. Speaking as an East Yorkshireman I do not expect the constituency's good citizens will be impressed by a southern ex tabloid editor standing as their potential MP. That truly is a gimmick.

Second, Davis is extremely popular in his constituency and his principled stance over liberty has undoubtedly struck a chord with the public. He will get a big personal vote.

Third, I don't think we as a party should worry too much about individual newspapers, especially red tops. 20 years ago they may have moved voters but in the world of 24 hour news and the internet their sway is much reduced.

The Sun might want to stick with Brown but the public are no longer fooled by NuLab. If the Sun wants to support a government that's presided over the mess this country's in then let it. The Sun has for 3 elections in a row told its readers to vote for a party that is now despised because it's failed badly in virtually every policy area. The public have now seen through NuLab and the Sun and it's childish gimmicks won't change that.

Bring Mackenzie on!

Yesterday, I criticised the appointment of Grieve. I would have preferred someone like Gove or Fox -- but I thought Grieve was entirely the wrong man.
That was before I learned of his 7/7 comments. Those comments are appalling. If he really said those things and stands by then, Grieve is about the last man who should be the next Conservative Home Secretary. Cameron really blundered here.

I too live in East Yorkshire. Mr Garner should look at the local press coverage and see that quite a few of Mr Davis' constituents are unhappy at having to vote, not least because the whole thing is going to cost £85000. Those thrifty farmers to the West of the county are not happy. Also, it would seem that word on the street is that many in the area support 42 days. On top of that - who knows what will happen in a by-election. Mr Davis must be a little worried.

As an aside, I was most amused by Iain Dales's suggestion that Mackenzie was finished because he had made fun of Hull - most people in the Riding will quite agree with him, he should make it a campaign slogan: "Have you ever been to Hull? It's a shocker, an absolute shocker." Remember how much we hated being in Humberside!

Dominic Grieve has been misprepresented in his comments about 28 daysand I don'tthink we should join in eith it.

Of course we don't WANT to hold people for 28 days with enthusiasm. It just may be a neccessary evil.
He accknowlegded 14 days might not be enough and thats why they went for 28, a decision he remained comfortable with.
His attitude seems to be that the whole thing will be kept iunder review and based on the evidence.

The q2uestion I would raise is that with rhe Government being the lowest of the low and the papaers so senistive on this issue right now, he needs to be very careful not to be niave.
Be sparing in some comments and make sure you mak4e your tough on the real measues that stop terrorism clear.
I think thats what he needs to do now.
Point out all the measures the Government are nottaking and should.

What a pathetic hypocritical rag the Sun is, and what a snivelling little turd Kelvin Mackenzie is. They both claim to speak for traditional British values and slag off the state Britain has come to under Labour but they are now taking on the one man, Davis, who is ready to fight back against all that has gone wrong in our country.

The Sun and it's stooge Mackenzie are slimy hypocrites who are doing Bottler Brown's dirty work for them.

I hope all Sun readers realise this and boycott the paper until it changes it's stance.

In the quote above The Sun completely twisted Grieve's comments around. It was not the terrorists' anger that he found 'totally explicable', but the bombings themselves in view of the level of anger in the Muslim community. He was absolutely right to focus on the mindset of the bombers in order to try and understand what motivated them.

Grieve was right on 7/7. Blair (supported by IDS, Fox and Hague) lied to the British public to justify the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign country that posed no threat to us. We are less safe after the invasion than before.

No John, I'm ashamed at Grieve's comments. The bombers of 7/7 deserve no understanding. This sort of thinking only adds to the cults that surround suicide bombing; making them glorious in the twisted minds of those who prepare suicide bombers.. These outrages weren't committed with any justification but against innocent men and women.

I shall certainly be boycotting the Murdoch media for the foreseeable future (which is a wrench as I'm quite attached to the Times). Furthermore, if the Conservative Party don't give their full and enthusiastic backing to David Davis and his principled stand on what is a tremedously important issue, I will take extreme delight in shredding my Party Membership card. On Grieve, I think he's a good guy, I'd probably have picked someone like Chris Grayling myself though, Grieve seems somewhat too reminiscent of the Major years, which is unfair I know as he wasn't a member of that government! But there we are!

When our enemies see weak men like Dominic Grieve they think they can beat us. They only respect strength. Terrorists need to be broken. Not appeased with "we understand you".

Because Dominic Grieve understands the reasons that motivated the 7/7 attack it does not make him weak on terrorism. Everything is caused by something and four men don't sacrifice their lives without something motivating them. Even the video the leader of the bombers Sidique Khan, made this crystal clear. Yet people still refuse to believe that the bombings were motivated by British foreign policy?

The NeoCon's and their fellow-travellers who supported the war are now in complete denial as to cause and effect. Dominic Grieve knows what caused the London bombings and I suspect all other senior politicians know it too, even if most won't admit it openly because they voted for the war after being duped by the Labour government. People don't readily like to admit that they have been on the wrong side of a confidence trick.

British foreign policy has to change direction. Currently we are like a man trying to knock down a wall by headbutting it, we are getting nowhere and are only injuring ourselves. Time to change tack. British foreign policy isn't working.

When suicide bombers read comments like yours Mr Makara they know that western opinion is soft. Kill enough people and they know that foreign or other policies can be changed.

George Pascoe- Watson will be looking for another job if McKenzie stands. idiots one and all

Al Qaeda bombed Denmark's embassies because of the cartoons. They will only be emboldened if we quit Iraq. We can keep trying to understand them or we can defeat and humiliate them. We must do the latter.

Tony Makara, whilst I share your concern about the injustices of guantanamo and 42 days, I think you are wrong to excuse the 7/7 bombers.

In a democracy, you make your voice heard via the ballot box. You don't blow people up because they don't share your point of view.

Tony Makara, your comments are disgraceful.

You need to check your diary - 9/11 happened BEFORE Afghanistan and BEFORE Iraq. 9/11 caused Iraq: Iraq did not cause 9/11.

When our closest ally is attacked in such a heinous manner, we have a duty to stand with them.

Doubtless if you had been around in 1939 you would have been bleating about Versailles being the cause of Nazi Germany's actions.

We need to diferentiate between understanding and excusing. A neessary part of countering the terrorist threat is to understand where it come from and why - that way we might (if appropriate) be able to tackle it in a variety of ways. DG was simply pointing out that we are capable of understanding and explaining where these attacks came from - ie anger at Iraq, policy in the Middle East. It does not make terrorism justified.

This is completely different to excusing any terrorist action.

Grieve was not talking about BEING undestanding TO bombers, he was trying to say we have to underdstand how it COMES to this and how it WORKS to stop it.

Please remember that Fox news in the US attacks US war veterans from the safety on their newsdesks if they vote Democrate or complain about aspects of the Iraq war!

Murdoch's complained to the Lords committee recently that he didn't seem to be able to exercise the level of control over Sky News that he successfully exercised over Fox.

That is the nature of Mr Murdoch's support of the armed forces. It crumbles away if they don't support his views.

He does control the Sun absolutey.

He is a very dangerous enemy but we need to know and understand what the score is if we are not to be beated by him. Which rather brings us back to Mr Grieve's comments.

Umbrella man,

You do not change your behaviour because you believe other's will consider you weak. You only change your behaviour if you believe it is the RIGHT thing to do.

You have attacked Tony Makara for appeasing terrorists. But by disregarding your own human rights laws, you are equally appeasing the terrorists.

You say they want to take over our way of life. They wouldn't have to, since you are offering to do it for them.

“I find the suicide bombing totally explicable in terms of the level of anger many members of the Muslim community seem to have about a large number of things.

“I don’t know quite how we’re going to tackle that.”

He said Muslims felt angry because of “tension between their world view and the world they live in”.

Mr Grieve said the Iraq war contributed to fury – as the conflict was “about the intervention of Western countries in a state that is seen as being essentially Muslim”.

No one can possibly argue that anything he said was wrong or giving succor to terrorists.

A few months ago he was the guy most tories would like to see in the shadow cabinet.

Alexander King, go back and read my piece again. I'm talking about the cause of the London bombings not the cause of the 9/11 attacks. The 7/7 bombers even made a video stating that their bombing was motivated by the re-election of a labour government. Why can't people understand this? I'd like to ask all those who support the illegal war in Iraq why they are supporting an illegal occupation? Why are you doing Tony Blair's bidding?

British troops are dying out there because of dreadful foreign policy. What if there is conflict with Iran? Where will this end? The current policy does not work and won't work. I wonder how many of you who were baying for the war in Iraq are prepared to go out to that country and support British troops in an auxilliary role? Or perhaps your voyeuristic support for this bloodshed is limited to the confines of your living-room.

The Sun of course is the paper who used a picture of a 7/7 provider to back its stance on civil liberty issues, only to find out that the chap in question totally disagreed with them.

Er, survivor, not provider.

[Brain fade]

His attitude seems to be that the whole thing will be kept under review and based on the evidence.

But policy on firearms law is not based on evidence. Why one and not the other?

The 7/7 bombers even made a video stating that their bombing was motivated by the re-election of a labour government. Why can't people understand this?

What are you suggesting? That anyone who manages to make themselves some explosives should have a veto on who the government is?

I wonder how many of you who were baying for the war in Iraq are prepared to go out to that country and support British troops in an auxilliary role

Well I personally spent five years in the TA during the Cold War at a time when the Soviets could have come across the inner German border at any time without warning. So I really don't need accusations of hypocrisy from you, thanks.

"What are you suggesting? That anyone who manages to make themselves some explosives should have a veto on who the government is?"

Alex Swanson, perhaps that might even apply to nations seeking regime change? There was no evidence that Iraq had WDMs and evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Still, Bush and Blair decided to have a 'veto' on the Iraqi government and invade anyway.

I am not saying and never had said that terrorism is right. When it occurs in our country it should be treated as the mudererous act that it is. What I am saying however is that Dominic Grieve understands what drives terrorism in our country and he is not weak on terrorism.

Tony Makara, I find it remarkable that you prefer to accept the Islamist perspective on Iraq - that we are there to "kill Muslims" - rather than that of your own government and army.

The horrible irony is that the people who set off the bombs on 7/7 are the allies of precisely those people who have instigated sectarian warfare in Iraq - al-Qaeda.

If someone has an irrational point of view, then it is pointless trying to "understand" them.

You remind me of the beaten wife who goes out of her way not to make her husband angry and blames herself every time he beats her up.

To give barmy jihadis an implicit veto over our foreign policy would be utterly shameful.

"To give barmy jihadis an implicit veto over our foreign policy would be utterly shameful. "

True, and equally shameful, not to say idiotic, is to just therefore take the opposite view based on what they say.

Further, to point out that the motivation for a particular act does not justify it. The statement that the IRA killed people in furtherance of Irish independence and then unification does not imply support for that view or the action. Quite why it appears to do so when referring to islamic terrorists appears rather odd and nothing more than a politically expedient way to shout down opponents.

As we noted yesterday, "one of the first things that Mr Grieve needs to do is rebut Labour suggestions that the party is soft on terrorism".

Which makes me wonder why his first pronouncement as SHS is now to say that 28days might be too long!!?!?!!

British foreign policy has to change direction. Currently we are like a man trying to knock down a wall by headbutting it, we are getting nowhere and are only injuring ourselves. Time to change tack. British foreign policy isn't working.

Posted by: Tony Makara | June 14, 2008 at 10:25

I agree we are headbangers. It is only sensible to do what terrorists want. We should have one as Foreign Secretary dictating policies and another as Shadow Home Secretary. That way no-one would get blown up - apart form those that disagreed with the Foreign Secretary and the Shadow Home Secretary.

So, you are saying that we should always do the opposite of what terrorists want?

"you prefer to accept the Islamist perspective on Iraq - that we are there to "kill Muslims" - rather than that of your own government and army."

This isn't my government, I didn't vote for it. The army is placed in an impossible situation. As professionals they carry out orders to the best of their ability. They did not ask to be sent to Iraq. Nontheless they were an invading army and have become an army of occupation. However I wonder how many would be happy to leave Iraq?

To return to the point in hand, Dominic Grieve, he merely pointed out what was going on in the heads of the London bombers. That isn't appeasement but a statement of fact.

The war in Iraq is wrong and those who try to justify it can never win the debate because they are on the wrong side of the arguement.

Alexander King, why did Britain invade and occupy Iraq? What was the reason?

The liberal/softie posters on these pages should not forget that The Sun has great influence on its readers when it comes to the General Election - they are the people we need to get a majority.

The person we need to blame for all the kerfuffle is Davis who has shifted all the attention from Brown to us. It will be interesting to see what the Sunday's make of it - no doubt most will be saying what a splendid chap Davis is and a man of principle etc.

Quite frankly I couldn't care a monkeys - all I want is to see us win the next election and this certainly has not helped us at all.

If a few suspected terrorists get detained for more than 28 or 42 days the silent majority of voters don't really care if it prevents further bomb outrages. All 'pink' tories and by that I mean liberal as opposed to other leanings should remember that bombings normally take place in London -their abodes.

David | June 14, 2008 at 12:07: "True, and equally shameful, not to say idiotic, is to just therefore take the opposite view based on what they say".

But neither I nor any other poster is advocating that, so your contribution is without merit.

Tony Makara | June 14, 2008 at 12:39

Tony, we certainly didn't invade Iraq to murder Iraqis, as the jihadis claim. Our invasion was a misguided endeavour, to be sure, but it was in many ways a noble pursuit. Blair and Bush were not too cynical but too naive and utopian.

I say again: your willingness to accept jihadi propaganda is a disgrace.

Alexander King, it seems this war has dragged on so long that people have forgotten why Iraq was invaded in the first place. History is being re-written everyday.

What was noble about invading a country based on a lie? There were no WMDs and Tony Blair knew that. What particularly angers me is the way the house was lied to and how many MPs were misled into voting for invasion and occupation. We really need a full inquiry into the invasion of a Iraq. A chronological breakdown of how this foreign policy disaster could happen. We need to know this so that safeguards can be put in place to ensure that no-one can dupe the house again.

My abiding memory of this awful war is of a live TV broadcast coming from Baghdad at the time of the first coalition bombing raids. One could hear prayers in the background and the TV anchor asked what was being said in the prayers, the reporter on the ground said, "They are praying for the lives of their children" I don't forget moments like that. You may claim that we didn't murder Iraqi's but I beg to differ. Iraqi's were killed for no reason, on the back of a lie, on the back of a conscious deception. It wasn't just Iraqi's that died once hostilities began, it was also the repuation of Britain that also died.

I don't think Dominic Grieves' comments are offensive at all. Surely it's a good thing to be able to see more that just one point of view?

Tony Makara | June 14, 2008 at 13:41

"There were no WMDs and Tony Blair knew that".

I am afraid, Tony, that it is you who is lying - or, being charitable, perhaps you are poorly informed.

Blair, unforgivably, skewed the presentation of intelligence but he, like every intelligence agency in the West, was truly convinced that Iraq had WMDs. EVERYBODY believed this - the CIA, MI6, German intelligence, everybody.

They got it wrong. They did not lie. There is a difference.

Why does the Sun get more upset over 42 days than over the lack of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

There seems to be a determination on this site to discredit Grieve. I'm sure Gordon will be happy with a few handy quotes for PMQs.

So Tony Blair didn't lie over Iraq? Well, lets have a full inquiry and try to find out the truth? You have to see beyond Iraq to see that there is a wider strategy here. The NeoCon's have always made their intentions clear as regards the middle-east and Iraq was but a part of their wider plans for the region which include Iran. Tony Blair allowed his ego to pull him into the orbit of George Bush, the hand of history leading to the hand that receives the congressional gold medal. Gold paid for in British blood.

look the iraq war was stupid but that is not where islamic extremism started -read the islamist by ed hussain 7/7 happened because under a conservative government we invited preachers of hate such as Abu Hamza and yusuf al quawadari and at the same time propped up the muslim council of britain as the supposed voice of moderate muslims -when in fact that couldn't have been further from the case due to them being affiliated with the muslim brotherhood. all this created the grounds for islamic extremism.

"Totally explicable" is not the same thing as "remotely excusable".

We in Scotland remember the stand the Scottish Sun took last year during the elections.
The front page on polling day putting the SNP inside a hang man's noose appears to have had the opposite effect to what was intended.
Its one thing to go hell for leather after a particular political party, but if you make it a very unappetising spectacle it will backfire badly.
And IMHO, more so if you do it to an individual who has taken a real risk with their career over a strong and long held opinion.
Remember how Labour's toff campaign backfired, more so because they made it so personal to Timpson? If you are going to go negative with a campaign tactic, its risky, but its got to have some basis of fact for it to even start to resonate.....

Chips of Brookfield @ 09.46 - 'Also, it would seem that word on the street is that many in the area support 42 days.'

Andrew Bradley @ 12.47 - 'If a few suspected terrorists get detained for more than 28 or 42 days the silent majority of voters don't really care...'

The reason that the majority of the 'silent voters' think that way is that they take the statement about 42days at face value, and automatically think that it only applies to suspected terrorists. In fact, it never occurs to them that it could occur otherwise - yet!

That is because they have been used to 'freedom' as an automatic right - THOSE FREEDOMS THAT ARE THE ONES THAT DAVID DAVIS IS REFERRING TO.

The 42day legislation - like most of the other legislation that this government has formulated, is fairly loosely 'set-up', which means that it is not very specific as to WHO is a suspected terrorist. IF Jo Public had that 'small' point pointed out to them, over 90% would instantly change their mind and vote AGAINST 42days detention.

People in governments like this one, employ whole bureaus to formulate questionnaires so that there can only be one answer to the question asked, it is a fact! And perhaps the main reason for no referendum was that they could NOT devise a questionnaire which could only produce a 'NO' answer!

a caller to 'Any Answers' said that Gorden Brown was at the Murdoch party at which Mackenzie was asked to stand at the Bye-election - interesting.....

So Tony, why did Blair and Bush invade Iraq then?

"I'd like to ask all those who support the illegal war in Iraq why they are supporting an illegal occupation?"

Illegal under which law? Is there a British statute or common law case that forbids invasion of Iraq?

Or are you referring to the illegitimate jokeshop that is the United Nations?

"why did Blair and Bush invade Iraq then?"

Ulster Tory, I believe this was part of Bush and the NeoCon's wider ideological war in the region, aimed at establishing Washington friendly regimes, to guarantee energy supplies. Tony Blair's motivies were somewhat different however, a man pretentious enough to claim he feels the hand of history on his shoulder was more than happy to play his part in what I'm sure he thought would be a quick, clean, media positive war. He perhaps hoped to be seen as a great international statesman globally and at home no doubt he hoped to be portrayed as a domestic war hero ala Thatcher or Churchill.

So Bush had his ideological/strategic reasons and Blair had his personal reasons. How shameful that the British government and a largely compliant media trailed behind in support of Blair. A million people who marched on London knew better.

Knew better? The mistake was not being honest about WMD and merely pointing out the strategic energy issue. Fine by me to invade somewhere if it keeps oil supplies flowing.

RichardJ, the rulings of the United Nations are respected by most of the world. I don't know how old you are but you need to study the vital diplomatic work undertaken by the United Nations since its formation. The world would be a far more dangerous place without the UN. We get a glimpse of such a dangerous world whenever nations try to act autonomously. The UN may not always be the panacea that we hope it will be but it is the best hope we have for international security.

Mark Hudson, surely the best way to guarantee energy supplies is to have friendly relations with oil producing states and not invading to set up glove puppet governments? This could have been played so differently. The west could have supplied large scale investment in return for access to energy. The art of diplomacy has been replaced by acts of barbarianism. Humanity has taken a step backwards in the 21st century.

m.wood @ 16.11 - 'Gordon Brown was at the Murdoch Party at which MacKenzie was asked to stand at the Bye-election - interesting.'

But not the least bit surprising! Perhaps Mr. Murdoch is playing with the idea of being the puppet leader of GB inc:, Brown would undoubtedly love to return to the role (as he would see it) of someone else taking the responsibility while he just performed. Of course, as he is hopeless at understanding and or reading how other people's minds work (he is not interested anyway), it would not occur to him that it might be more tiresome to be Mr. Murdoch's puppet than not to be!

As for windbag MacKenzie - '42days, whats wrong with that, ID cards - nothing wrong with them, DNA data-base - nothing wrong with that.' He needs to take the money, to fill up the space between his ears!

I forgot to say in my previous comment, that Mr. Brown seems to have got so used to wheeler-dealing, that he is probably trying to work out how he can wheeler-deal in the HoL's to get the result he wants - and maybe Murdoch ......

Blimey, I find myself in total agreement with Mark Hudson at 17.11. Protecting energy supplies is a very valid reason to go to war. That wasn't the case in 2003 though was it?
Back to the thread, Grieve's remarks seem to me to just be a statement of fact. To believe that they give succour to terrorists .To read into them any other meaning seems rather peculiar. Although looking at some of the posters who have done so, not suprising.

If Murdoch does cause Mckenzie to stand, bankroll him and cheerlead for him from the Sun then DC's hopes of getting him onside for the GE are gone. Knowing this in advance of the GE is very useful.

That being the case we should bring Murdoch down to size. He is unfinished business since his hysterical support for Princess Di and his attempts to destroy the monarchy. This gives us an excuse and no reasoin not to do it. Opinion polls are strong enough at present that we do not need the un at this election and we need for there to be no Sun at the next.

Some suggestions - A Press Act
1) preventing the dual ownership of media - press and tv, press and radio, terrestrial and digital TV
2) preventing the ownership of UK press or TV by a foreigner or by a company whose ultimate ownership is outside the UK
3) vesting of 51% of the ownership in any photograph or film/tv picture in the subject of the photograph unless they have waived or sold that right, which will make paparazzi unemployed overnight.
4) a tort of negligent reporting, whereby a reporter who publishes something he knows not to be true or which a reasonable reporter could reasonably have found out not to be true can be sued for damages (akin to libel) on his personal liability and/or that of his company.

That should do for the Sun and Sky, which are the Dirty Digger's milch cows.

In defeat malice, in victory revenge.

Understanding terrorists = knowing your enemy.

Jonathan, you raise some very interesting ideas. The media has had a licence to abuse for too long. How much of the vile garbage printed can really be said to be in the public interest as a news story? David Cameron made a great speech last year when he talked about the media being responsible for creating certain attitudes to drink, drugs etc. I really hope a Conservative government will work to improve standards in publishing and broadcasting.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker