Davis calls for police to act against Muslim protestors

"Has any Tory spoken about the cartoon crisis yet?"

That was ConservativeHome's question of yesterday.

David Davis has answered the question in emphatic form for today's Sunday Telegraph.

This is what he said about the placards - photos of which we posted yesterday:

"Clearly some of these placards are incitement to violence and, indeed, incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.  Whatever your views on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder."

The police told The Sunday Telegraph that they made no arrests "because of public order fears".  Today's Sunday Express - right - carries a photograph of a Muslim protestor dressed up as a suicide bomber.  The police did not, apparently, challenge him.  The only two people arrested at Friday's protest were two people who had reproduced the offending Danish cartoons.

David Davis' call for assertive police action contrasts with Jack Straw's decision to point the finger of blame at foreign newspapers.

Comments

[Frank Young]

As a party member who was aghast at the prospect of David Davis becoming party leader let me say a few, well deserved, kind words.

Keeping Davis in his Home Affairs post was a very astute move. He is a man clearly on top of his brief, with a well honed instinct for his subject matter. David Davis is making the running on this issue. His heightened public profile has allowed him to speak with authority on a wide range of issues.

I hope in the months and years to come, one of our biggest strengths as a party is some continuity in personnel in key policy positions. Contrast this with Labour ministers changing jobs on Tony Blair’s Cabinet carousel and we begin to look like the party that is looking to the future with party spokespeople who are both expert and authoritative in their positions. Exactly a government in waiting.

David Davis is an excellent Shadow Home Secretary and in time will be a great Home Secretary. To my shame I was one of those who wanted him junked. I repent in leisure...

[Biodun]

Dominic Grieve (Biodun's favourite MP) has added his condemnation too, and not a moment too soon!

I think their views are more in touch with those of the country here and I hope to see this reflected in the opinion polls soon.

[Matthew]

David Davis is spot on. I would be nice to have someone come out in support of the Jordanian editor who said:

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

... and got arrested.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"The only two people arrested at Friday's protest were two people who had reproduced the offending Danish cartoons."

At the behest of our old friend Inspector Bodge-it, Sir Ian Blair, no doubt.

[Richard]

Well done to David Davis for having the guts to criticise Muslim extremists.

However, and I realise this is very much a minority view, I do not believe they should be arrested for incitement to murder. The reason being is that the person who chooses to commit murder does so on his own free will. Saying "but those signs told me to behead anyone who insults Islam" is no excuse in my opinion. I guess I'm just a free speech extremist.

[James Maskell]

Did anybody see that ridiculous article by the Sun yesterday about the toddler with the white hat saying "I love Al-Qaida"? Yeah, the toddler has decided that it loves Al-Qaeda and is going to protest about the cartoons. It was on the front-page.

In fact that article got more space than todays article about Iran looking for the H-bomb (!). If you look closely its on page 15 in todays NOTW right in the top left corner. God damn, why does this paper exist if its not going to actually report the proper news?

Had to get it out of my system, I feel much better now.

[Sean Fear]

David Davis and Dominic Grieve both deserve credit for this, unlike British dhimmis such as Jack Straw and Karen Armstrong.

[Sean fear]

"If you look closely its on page 15 in todays NOTW right in the top left corner"

Yeah, but it's obviously of much less importance than Danni Minogue simulating lesbian sex for her boyfriend.

[Ted]

Well done DD for a clear statement.
Shame Hague couldn't bring himself to agree with his colleague with same clarity - his woffling reply to question do you agree with David Davis on Andrew Marr left me unsure about whether he did.

Good also to hear some UK muslims coming straight out and condemning the violence. Also pointing out that it's tradition not law that bans portraits of Mohammed, and that tradition is the main amongst the Sunni.

[James Maskell]

Oh yes - How out of touch am I?!

[kingbongo]

I was disappointed by Hague on Andrew Marr this morning. I think Dominic Grieve and David Davis have both made a very clear position that should be supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Britain.

I've just heard Jack Straw on the radio and he made the preposterous claim that had the images been of Jesus the repsonse would have been similar!! needless to say this patent absurdity wasn't questioned on Radio 4. He also referred to Mohammed as 'the holy prophet'. Fine if he's a Muslim, Mohammed is the holy prophet. Nominally however Straw is a christian or maybe an agnostic/atheist. Either way, to him Mohammed is just some guy who said some stuff. No need for our Foreign Secretary to call him "THE holy prohet". I don't remember any government minister referring 'Our Lord Jesus Christ' or anything similar.

Based on Straw's (and thus NuLab's) reasoning I am committing blasphemies and insults to my fellow britons who happen to be muslims hindus, sikhs Calvinists, Greek Orthodox or anything else all the time by going to my local Anglican church every week and being friendly with my local female vicar. I should therefore cease and desist from this activity in order to stop needlessly and gratuitously offending people with a different view.

The nutters who run Iran must be thrilled to bits over all this; I have little doubt they are behind protests in Lebanon and Gaza as they pay for Hizbollah, Hamas etc (those natty green baseball caps and brand new assault rifles don't come cheap)

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

David Davis was absolutely correct to speak out against the 'protesters'. I was amazed that the police did not make any arrests. This is a result of the hapless and politically correct 'leadership' of Sir Ian Blair. Conservatives should keep up the pressure of Blair to quit. And it's high time that moderate Muslims speak out against extremism and stand up for democracy and free speech. I didn't see Hague on telly this morning, but, sadly, his returning to the Frontbench has been a disappointment. Maybe David Cameron should ask Sir Malcolm Rifkind back to on his old role?

[Ted]

If you look at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office website you can see refected there the views that Straw expresses.

On a theological note : The reasoning of those taking offense is that the cartoons are some sort of blasphemy. Mohammed states he is just a man, the Sunni position is that creating images of Mohammed is banned because this could lead to idolatory.

It seems to me that the protestors have crossed the line between hagiography and idolatory - treating the life of Mohammed as pattern to be followed and Mohammed as therefore the role model for muslims (as Catholic and Orthodox hagiography treats the lives of saints) is very different from viewing his image on the same basis as that of God. Idolatary extends to worship of an individual, raising that individual to the same basis as God.

Jack Straw accepts this equivalence by placing Mohammed, a prophet, on the same basis as Jesus, God. Presumably he takes the islamic view that Jesus is a prophet.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Isn't Jack Straw Jewish?

[Ted]

He is in Wikipedia's list of British Jews.

[Biodun]

It seems to me that the protestors have crossed the line between hagiography and idolatory - treating the life of Mohammed as pattern to be followed and Mohammed as therefore the role model for muslims (as Catholic and Orthodox hagiography treats the lives of saints) is very different from viewing his image on the same basis as that of God.

Ted, that was very well put.
Although i suspect it's a bit too clever-clever for some people.

Just as understanding that a government has no control over what a free press prints, however abhorrent it is, is something many seem to have trouble grasping.

I also saw a clip of Hague earlier today. Once again, those who gave him an 80% approval rating in the last poll - WHY?

[Ted]

I think Hague will sink to barely acceptable in next poll.

[Editor]

Here is the Andrew Marr - Hague exchange:

ANDREW MARR: The cartoon controversy, do you, do you agree with David Davis, you know what he's been saying about it?

WILLIAM HAGUE: Well let's get everything into proportion here, there have been some demonstrations and in the main those demonstrations have been peaceful in intent and exercised with responsibility and restraint and Muslims have every right to protest about something they disagree with and we should defend that right to protest.

It is very concerning that in a very small number of cases people have called for terrorist acts, have in effect done what amounts to incitement to murder - clearly that's not something we can have on a sustained basis, otherwise what would we say to people who paraded through the streets saying that Muslims ought to be killed. So we do have to be even-handed about that and I think people have to recognise that's how we have to conduct ourselves in our society. Equally, free speech has to be exercised responsibly.

And I think if we were going to die in a ditch for free speech, these cartoons are not particularly the things to fight on.

ANDREW MARR: Sure.

WILLIAM HAGUE: Newspapers have the right to publish them but they also have to recognise when they are going to cause great offence.

ANDREW MARR: Sure but you talk about we can't have these kind of demonstrations and comments on a sustained basis, an awful lot of people would say hold on a minute, these are clear incitements to murder, this is glorification of terrorism at its most extreme - people dressed up as suicide bombers - they should be collared, they should be arrested and they should be charged.

WILLIAM HAGUE: Well it - it's not acceptable, and I'm glad to see that the responsible leaders of the Muslim community have said that it's not acceptable.

The spokesman you had on your programme earlier said that it was not acceptable, and I've no doubt the police have the necessary film and records of what happened, it is up to them what to do in any individual case, but we cannot, in general, and us politicians can only frame the, the law and the way of dealing with these things in general, we cannot, in general, have people parading through the streets calling for terrorist acts in any direction - and that has to be an accepted part of our society.

My prediction, Ted, for what it's worth, is that Hague will still top the poll. One (allegedly) bad interview won't be enough to cause disenchantment amongst a membership who have come to love him over a number of years.

See here for full Marr-Hague exchange.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

"...I'm glad to see that the responsible leaders of the Muslim community have said that it's not acceptable." (Hague).

Which Muslim leaders have said that it's not acceptable, when did they say it and where?

[Biodun]

Asghar Bukhari, Chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said so in very clear terms,yesterday, branding those particular protestors thugs.

Go to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676524.stm
for the full story.
There's also a link to the video interview.

I don't know of anybody else who's been equally unequivocal.

[Ted]

Editor - it wasn't allegedly was it? It was a bad interview, with all the worst prevarications that politicians are prone to.

He couldn't say "yes I agree with David, its unacceptable for people to incite violence or murder. These people though are a tiny minority and I was pleased to see responsible muslims on here condemning them." and then go into his prepared guff about right to protest peacefully, responsible free speech etc.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

The failure of so-called 'moderate' Muslims to speak out against extremism will, inevitably, spark a backlash (which is what the extremists want (Jihad). It's a jolly good thing that Conservatives are commenting on recent events in a sensible and constructive fashion. Thankfully, so far, it has not been left to the hateful BNP to opine.

[Richard]

"Thankfully, so far, it has not been left to the hateful BNP to opine."

This is especially important bearing in mind the local elections coming up. I expect the BNP will be aiming to boost their vote by claiming that the main parties are too afraid to criticise Islamic extremists.

[Graham Wild]

Go Davis!

[Ted]

Justin makes a god point.

In a week when the BNP leaders on trial for incitement, the failure of moderate muslims and political leaders to condemn even handedly miliant islamic & BNP extremism, and for the police to only arrest those they thought intended to provoke the militants feeds into the hands of the BNP.

[Ted]

a good point even.

[Richard Allen]

Hague's interview was very disapointing. How much preparation is required to unreservedly condemn the deplorable events that we witnessed on Friday.

[Tory T]

"Asghar Bukhari, Chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said so in very clear terms,yesterday, branding those particular protestors thugs."

We're living in an Alice In Wonderland world where extreme maniacs are given credit for condemning even more extreme maniacs. You don't believe me? Check out some of the stuff on the MPAC website:

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/6/1344/105/

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/1336/103/

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/1320/105/

[Biodun]

Tory T,

Even within the Tory party, there are some elements that we all occasionally find offensive. I don't expect people to dismiss our entire party because of the views of some.

The second link you provided, shows that MPAC actually has a sensible approach to dealing with their issues, i.e. writing to MPs, to the danish newspaper and encouraging people to join in the political process.

We may not agree with their views on Zionists or Ariel Sharon like the other two links show, (and many non-muslims hold these views anyhow). They might be a bit extreme, but i didn't see them as maniacal.

But at least they are not advocating violence.

If we cannot give them credit when they do the right thing, then they will not be encouraged to do so again if and when the situation gets worse.

[Howard Stevenson]

Given the damage that Tony Blair did to the labour vote amongst Muslims with the invasion of Iraq, do you really think that Jack Straw or any other senior member of the Cabinet is going to critise a muslim for carrying a placard that says "Whoever insults a prophet kill him?"

Christians tolerate the ridicule they recieve in the British press, on TV, radio and at the theatre. When they organise themselves to protest they are protrayed as a lunatic fringe. Yet when Muslims are verging on incitement to murder, eft wing commentators are strangely mute.

Speaking as an atheist, I would like to see all religious groups treated equally.

[John Hustings]

I'd like to see what would have happened if a bunch of Neo-Nazis went on a march holding up placards saying, "Behead Muslims", or "Massacre Muslims".

Methinks that the Police wouldn't have let them get away with it.

[Howard Stevenson]

They would not let them march.

The BNP must be rubbing there hands with glee at a retrial for Nick Griffin and his cohort.

[Tory T]

"But at least they are not advocating violence" says Biodun.

Correction - they are not advocating violence in Britain. They're all for it in other countries.

The Nick Griffin doesn't advocate violence either. But the next time the BNP condemnes Combat 18 or some other group of nazi thugs I doubt you'll be praising them or saying "If we cannot give them credit when they do the right thing, then they will not be encouraged to do so again if and when the situation gets worse" as you do of MPAC.

Pure double standards from Biodun.

[Tory T]

Biodun also says of MPAC: "We may not agree with their views on Zionists or Ariel Sharon like the other two links show, (and many non-muslims hold these views anyhow). They might be a bit extreme, but i didn't see them as maniacal."

Sorry, wishing death upon the Prime Minister of Israel isn't maniacal enough for you, is it?

[Richard]

"Sorry, wishing death upon the Prime Minister of Israel isn't maniacal enough for you, is it?"

I suppose it's how you define maniacal. World domination is maniacal i.e a maniac would aim for it (which suggests it's pretty much impossible). Wishing death upon Sharon isn't maniacal, it's just hateful.

[John Hustings]

I also take exception to this comment by Biodun:

"Even within the Tory party, there are some elements that we all occasionally find offensive. I don't expect people to dismiss our entire party because of the views of some"

Whatever offensive elements you are refering to (I honestly do not know), I do not think they are in *any way* comparable to the extreme elements in the MPAC or indeed the MCB and MAB.

Indeed, I rather think that the so-called "moderate" elements of those organisations are extreme by our standards.

[Biodun]

Tory Thug said:
The Nick Griffin doesn't advocate violence either. But the next time the BNP condemnes Combat 18 or some other group of nazi thugs I doubt you'll be praising them or saying "If we cannot give them credit when they do the right thing, then they will not be encouraged to do so again if and when the situation gets worse" as you do of MPAC.

Pure double standards from Biodun.

Tory Thug I was unaware that you could see into the future!

I'm not sure if you're aware, but you do have to wait for me to commit a crime/offence before you accuse me of it.

You can't accuse me of double standards for actions you doubt i'll not be doing if and when the BNP choose to praise Combat 18 next.

To accuse me of double standards now, is being a very bad sport indeed (as well as being one the most shocking example of a fallacious argument i've ever seen on this site).

Your psychic abilities would probably be better appreciated on politicalbetting.com where you can advise punters.

...as an aside point, MPAC did not wish death on the Israeli PM. A random person, not an MPAC offical left a comment on their blog that the dying Sharon should not die until his project crumbles around him.

Unless of course, you were quoting a statement found in the Mystic Tory Thug Minority Report! In which case, I humbly concede defeat.

------------------------
@John Hustings, I wasn't talking about any group in particular, I was suggesting that people shouldn't dismiss all conservatives because of what someone who is a party member says.
------------------------

[William Norton]

On the BNP angle, I can add something.

I was one of the managers for a council by-election in Barking held one week after 7/7 (in fact activities on polling day were stopped for a minute's silence as a mark of respect for the victims). Labour were running an Asian candidate who did not, quite, live in the ward. The BNP were making strong running during the campaign, and brought out a last minute leaflet with a picture of the destroyed London bus and a headline saying 'BNP were right all along' (or words to that effect).

BNP did not win. They got 19%, which was actually slightly down on what I had predicted in advance. Labour took it with over 50% of the vote, which might have been inflated by the absence of a Lib Dem but was still pretty impressive.

If the BNP try to cash in on these events they will probably muff it - assuming that democratic parties make the democratic case for opposition.

From my experience BNP tends to flourish in traditional solid Labour areas where it is so easy for Labour to win that they start taking the voters for granted, and other opposition parties are demoralised and inactive. Aside from a very small hard core racist support they basically get a protest 'things are going wrong round here' vote. They only exist in a vacuum. In 2002 we stepped up a gear in Tower Hamlets and became more active at a local level, and since then the BNP have withered away. Hence the election of the first-ever Tory councillor in Tower Hamlets history in Sept 2004 in a by-election in Millwall where historically the BNP would have ridden any protest vote (but didn't run a candidate).

[Tory T]

OK Biodun - tell me I'm wrong then, instead of blustering. Would you 'give credit' to Nick Grifin in the same terms as you did MPAC? Answer please.

And as for your diversionary tactics on Sharon, my reference was not a posting on the comments section (itself heavily moderated) - it was the heading, written by MPAC itself, that said 'Fisk Exposes The Real Evil of Sharon - Pending His Hopeful Departure'. I think that's a pretty unambiguous expression of wishing for the death of the Israeli Prime Minister, don't you?

[Chris Palmer]

David Davis proves once again to be the voice of reason within the Conservative party. Jack Straw really needs a good kicking.

[Biodun]

OK Biodun - tell me I'm wrong then, instead of blustering.
You're Wrong!

Would you 'give credit' to Nick Grifin in the same terms as you did MPAC? Answer please.
Yes.
Provided that it was as unequivocal as what Bukhari said, i.e. calling them violent thugs and extremists.

I am not an unreasonable person, and my experience of being an 'ethnic minority' has only been for the last 10 years. Before that in Nigeria, I was a part of an 'ethnic majority' said by others to be oppressive.

I recognise a lot of the rhetoric of the BNP because of this. It's not exclusively a white thing.

It is the rhetoric of the poor, badly-educated, forgotten and maligned. They will always pick on a group they see as being different from them, be it culturally, linguistically or physically and blame them for all their problems.

You often find that there is a grain of truth surrounded by a pile of lies, and it is up to the rest of us to do something to change their minds, and not let them be taken advantage of by silver-tongued demagogues with hidden agendas.

[Double standards?]

"Even within the Tory party, there are some elements that we all occasionally find offensive."

Are they called Biodun?

[What are you on?]

Biodun said:

It is the rhetoric of the poor, badly-educated, forgotten and maligned. They will always pick on a group they see as being different from them, be it culturally, linguistically or physically

Discrimination is what humans do naturally, so I don't quite see where you're coming from Biodun, unless you are suggesting that instilling false beliefs about equality in humans is the way to go, and that all those who don't agree with that perspective are "badly-educated"...

[malcolm]

If the two posters above are going to attack Biodun why don't they have the guts to use their real names?

[Biodun]

Apart from poor, badly-educated, forgotten, maligned, I should have added AFRAID.

[Biodun]

If the two posters above are going to attack Biodun why don't they have the guts to use their real names?

Thanks Malcolm! I didn't see your comment when i made my last post.

To be honest, I'm not really bothered if people use their real names or emails or whatever.

I'm here because I like to hear other people's opinions, even if I find them disagreeable.

It would be nice however, to give examples of what I am doing that is so offensive, like Tory T or John Hustings did, rather than just attack me for the sake of it.

[James Hellyer]

Woukld be in the same way that you attacked elements of the Conservative party for being "offensive"?

Yes, how courageous of you.

[Biodun]

What elements did I attack, James?

[James Hellyer]

Bukhari's words are half-hearted at best. Rather than admit that there is something fundamentally amiss in the Muslim Community, he enies this is the case, saying that they "did not represent British Muslims."

It's painfully apparent that they do represent a segment of the Islamic community, and pretending that they don't will in no way amoleriate their behaviour - neither will Bukhari's idea of banning protests (I wonder what other elements of free speech would be subject to such a ban).

Rather than doing a PR job for Britain's Muslim community, the likes of Bukhari should be making sure that their mosques and community centres aren't bastions of hate. I don't see that disowning their own youth will do that.

[Chris Palmer]

For the past couple of weeks Nick Griffin and the British National Party have had extensive media coverage with various BBC soundbites and footage showing them denouncing Islam as a "wicked" and "vicious" faith. The next we know, the Danish cartoons whip up a storm round the world and they are seemingly proved correct. An extremely interesting change of events.

[James Hellyer]

What elements did I attack, James?

You lacked the courage to even name them, instead casting general innuendos. That was kind of the point...

[Chris Palmer]

It doesn't take a genius to guess who made the first comment.

[Chris Palmer]

That should read "an interesting chain of events" in my above post.

[Sean Fear]

It is grimly funny that quite large numbers of Muslims should have actually made the cartoonists' point far better than the cartoonists did themselves.

[Biodun]

You lacked the courage to even name them, instead casting general innuendos. That was kind of the point...

**sighs**

If you read my response to John Hustings at 19.30, you will see that I wasn't talking about a specific group.

My point was that no doubt, we all have people within the party that we find offensive. I don't see what is so contentious about this statement.

Instead of jumping to the conclusion that I was insinuating we find the same people within the party offensive, and rushing to sneer, James it might help to read through people's posts properly.

I wasn't talking about any specific group, and I don't see why this should be something hard for you to grasp

A little conscientiousness on your part would do a world of good.

[James Hellyer]

nstead of jumping to the conclusion that I was insinuating we find the same people within the party offensive, and rushing to sneer, James it might help to read through people's posts properly.

Another typically patronising post for Biodun.

You complained about other people's "cowardice" while displaying it yourself. Your claim was that there are elements in the party that we all find offensive - the clear implication being that you find people offensive. Yet you lack the courage to name them. You also presumed to judge how other people feel about fellow party members, precisely the sort of psychic abilities you criticised Tory T for.

But by all means continue trying to hide your double standards behind bluster.

[Richard]

"You lacked the courage to even name them, instead casting general innuendos. That was kind of the point..."

I expect he was referring to the Monday Club Powellites, many of whom hold views which would have been perfectly acceptable decades ago but are looked upon less tolerantly today.

[Biodun]

James, I didn't complain about other people's cowardice, Malcolm did.

If you are talking about the post where I mention people being "AFRAID" I was talking about the sorts of people who spout BNP rhetoric, as fear is really the first characteristic they have and not poverty as I listed.
I wasn't talking about the people who had posted anonymously before me. I don't know if they are cowards or not, and I'm not bothered.

I can see how the thread might read to someone who wasn't posting as and when the comments were being made. Things look differently to the people writing in real-time and those who come along afterwards.

However, I don't see how my listing people who I find offensive is going to add to this topic.

My point is that we all have people who offend us, which is directly relevant to the thread we are posting on.

Listing people in the party who I find offensive when nothing calls for it would be silly and childish, and I am disappointed that you are asking for it.

I think we have deviated enough for the topic of the thread. If you have any issues with my views that are unrelated to this thread, it would be better emailed or written on my blog, instead of making people who want to talk about the protests read through
"Biodun's list of people she Finds Offensive" so that James Hellyer can take it apart, surely even you have better things to do.

[Sean Fear]

"If the BNP try to cash in on these events they will probably muff it - assuming that democratic parties make the democratic case for opposition."

They may have learned from their mistakes then. They don't have to say very much to profit IMO, particularly in places like West Yorkshire, where there is a large Muslim population.

The CPS also did a lot to help the BNP - with their stupid prosecutions.

[Editor]

Dear Biodun, Tory T and James Hellyer,

Time to move on, methinks.

[Tory T]

OK, you're the boss!

[Richard Allen]

"The CPS also did a lot to help the BNP - with their stupid prosecutions."

As much as I hate to singing off the same hymn sheet as the BNP I have always had the horrible feeling that the decision to prosecute was a political one.

[William Norton]

Sean Fear: [The BNP] may have learned from their mistakes then. They don't have to say very much to profit IMO, particularly in places like West Yorkshire, where there is a large Muslim population.

The CPS also did a lot to help the BNP - with their stupid prosecutions.

Agree on the CPS issue - and I accept I may be setting myself up for an embarrassing fall here. But, I stand by my original remark: if the BNP couldn't win in a by-election in London - and specifically, in that particular part of it - one week after British-born suicide bombers killed 50 civilians, having run a campaign which tried to capitalise on it, then (all other things being equal) a few marches outside the Danish Embassy is rather small beer.

Things could change: the BNP could sharpen up their act in some way; they could play the CPS prosecution cannily; Bin Laden could assassinate the Queen etc. There is a real potential for BNP recovery, for example, if the CPS (having prosecuted Griffin) wimp out of prosecuting any of the Friday marchers.

But, as things stand, whenever they've won or come close to it, the BNP get more of a things-are-going-wrong protest vote (and "things" will include the whole spectrum of issues called the "multi-cultural society" as it is perceived to be run) than a send-them-all-back-home-they-don't-belong-here vote.

So an active democratic alternative grounded in principle will choke off the BNP, assuming anyone gets off their backsides and offers one. Certainly that's my experience where we've managed to establish active groups in London boroughs. As for West Yorkshire, I can't comment as I don't know the facts on the ground but I'd guess it fits the picture I outlined in my previous post: complacent entrenched Labour establishment etc. etc.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Where back to Sir Ian Blair and his politically correct ilk.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

In Biodun's own words (from her blog):

"Whilst I support the Tory party, I have never voted for them, preferring to support the liberal democrats. Many people find the position of being a Tory and a Lib-Dem to be mutually exclusive..."

[Biodun]

I've only ever voted in one election, in 2001 while at uni.
Too young to vote in the previous election, and not on the electoral register in the most recent one 'cos i moved house.

What's your point, Justin and what does it have to do with this thread?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

You're not a Conservative but a confused person and this is bourne out in your postings.

[Biodun]

I doubt that anybody decides their political stance as soon as they're "bourne".

I voted liberal democrat at uni, because the conservative candidate was not as good as the lib dem one.

I vote based on a mixture of reasons and a good local candidate for a party I don't support counts for a lot more than a bad one from my own party.

It's not confusion, it's common sense.

It's a political party, Justin. Not a cult, and I don't swear allegiance to any group for life irrespective of what they stand for, and neither should you.

[Biodun]

...and you didn't answer my question: What does this have to do with the thread?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Are you a party member?

[Editor]

Stop this guys. Now. You're ruining the thread (again). The next time either of you engage in this sort of stuff I'll ban you.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Sorry, Editor.

[Annabel Herriott]

I have just sent a letter to editor - Daily mail -p ointing out that Straw was elected in 1997 with 14,451 majority, re elected 2001 with reduced majority of 9,259, swing to Conservatives from Lab of 3.79%. I dont have the 2005 figures, but it would be an idiot not to draw the obvious conclusion. He is "concerned" in a constituency with an inner city concentration of e thnic minority electors, NOT to be running scared. It remains to be seen whether they print it!

[John Hustings]

David Davis just gave a good speech in parliament.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

BBCi are reporting that the bloke who was dressed as a suicide bomber has been sent back to prison. He's a convicted class A drug dealer who was released halfway through his sentence. Any thoughts?

[a-tracy]

Yes Daniel, Good

[Ted]

Thoughts - good to see the probation service acting so promptly (for once?) Will he have to serve all of his remaining sentence? Was he an islamic radical before he went to prison or was he influenced by a group in prison - in which case how are they going to monitor his involvement with radical groups in prison now?

[a-tracy]

That's a good point Ted, alarming even.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Should we be releasing smack pushers halfway through 5 year sentences in the first place?

[Ted]

I've always preferred the possibility of one third remission for good behaviour but with victims views presented to the panel doing the review, particularly for crimes of violence.
Also any breaking of parole licence should result in a return to jail for full term of sentence, exclusive of any sentence for further offences (if that's reason for parole violation).

[Ted]

Still I see he could be joined there by Abu Hamza.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4689556.stm

Now as long as there is some control over who either of them associate with, while at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Latest on Cartoongate...

The student newspaper at the university I work for has been withdrawn because it published one of the offending images.

[Rob Largan]

In manchester toady we've had a few protests in Rusholme, not heard much detail about how big the protest was or what was said.