Harry's Place

You are so completely wrong about DD and his libertarian streak is laughable. You don’t know what you are talking about. I have chatted to the man and he is far more libertarian minded than the current Labour govt or even Cameron. However the gist of him having late chats with Shami is pretty amusing.

And last time I checked libertarians are constantly referred to as “right-wing” or even “far-right” by those on the left.

On 2nd October last year the Telegraph did a round up of the most influential people on the right. It contained the following curious paragraph re La Chakrabarti
“She, more than anyone, has influenced Conservative civil liberties policies. If there’s a Home Office you can be sure her advice will be sought by both David Davis and Nick Clegg. She is a huge influence on Davis in particular.”
I’m not a Telegraph Kremlinologist. Don’t know if it was code. But it is an unfortunate formulation and I can see why she might unjustifiably feel someone is casting aspersions.

“And last time I checked libertarians are constantly referred to as “right-wing” or even “far-right” by those on the left.”

Yes, but this is HP, libertarians/liberals here are defined as lefties, well I lied pretend liberal/libertarians are the true lefties since true liberal/libertarians (ie isolationists) like Ron Paul are kooky rightwingers.

Any who the best solution is simply to mock them, not follow into their rabbit hole of twisted logic.

Like Sunny, it looks like certain sections of the liberal-left are deserting New Labour for a Conservative Future. All in the name of liberty, naturally.

Could Shami be the Pat Hewitt of Cameron’s Britain (well, England by that point at any rate)?

She’s not seriously going to try and sue?

Blimey!

Can anyone point to the potentially actionable statement about Shami Chakrabarti in anything that Andy Burnham said? Because I can’t find it. At the very most it might be taken as a suggestion that David Davis liked her in a ‘heart-melting’ way but that is hardly likely to bring him into scandal.

Remind me, has Liberty said anything about English libel laws? I had a feeling they may have done, certainly in respect of foreign potentates using them to silence criticism.

Who is Andy Burnham? Another gutless two-bit lightweight Nu-Labour attack thug?

Oh look, he’s never held a proper job in his life. Labour Party Hack. Special Advisor to…the Labour Party. Union Big Cheese. What a surprise, eh?

Compared to him, Shami Chakrabarti is a giant amongst men (and women).

When will David T comment on Gordon Broon running away from yet another challenge. The gutless coward ran away from a Leadship Election. He ran away from a General Election. He ran away from the Lisbon Treaty. He’s now ran away from confronting David Davies, instead resorting to ridiculous smears from pathetic proxies.

I’m looking forward to 100x Enfield moments in the next election, when Broon is given the mother of all election defeats that will make 1983 look like a tea party.

The best point in David T’s post is the bit about Chakrabarti’s threatened use of Britain’s backwards libel laws.

Any leader of a group claiming to campaign in favour of civil liberties should be ashamed to even think such a thing. The libel laws in this country are horrendous. What on earth is she playing at?

He’s standing up to your bullying, authoritarian, stasi mates in the Labour Party. He may well be misguided etc. But your contstant attempts to portray him as a social rightist miss the point. He believes in habeas corpus and English law. His stance on gay adoption or even capital punishment doesn’t have anything to do with this at all. If you think he’s wrong on 42 days, and im undecided myself, then write about why 42 days is right.

I wonder if Liberty will get many clicks to their Google ad to the right of this column.

Hats off for this piece. Shabby Chakrabarti appears to have gone completely mental. Not even the Barclay Twins would threaten legal action over such a trivial matter. Can Harry’s Place make up some “FUCK OFF, SHAMI CHAKRABARTI” t-shirts please?

This post is a bit holier than thou, n’est ce pas? So even the lovely Shami has feet of clay, like the rest of us.

I find DD rather difficult to read, but Kelvin MacKenzie remarked on the This Week programme that Davis was a loner in the current Cameron regime. He seems to be a bored adrenaline junkie, and also a bit pissed off with his status in the Shadow Cabinet. None of which has anything to say about his sincerity or otherwise, which few but those near him can know.

The issue (liberty v security) is a genuine dilemma, and slagging off either side on the grounds of a deeper and shoddier agenda is unnecessarily cynical, and I confess to some indifference about any personal relationship between Davis and Chakrabarti. It is a pity that our judiciary cannot behave like that of France, who apply common sense to cases like Abu Qatada, and chuck them out.

Shami can have feet of clay on any issue she wants, and she’s ok by me.

Any issue that is, other than using libel law to suppress political debate, that is.

I don’t think she should be told to f-off at all: just saying “calm down” would have been sufficient.

I also don’t think that anyone has implied that Davis is a “liberal”: he is an old school right-wing self-made tory. None of which stops him from being more concerned with liberty than are the current government.

I disagree with him about hanging, sure, but regard that as a “sanctity of life” issue as much as I do as one of the state overstepping its illegitimate bounds. His views on abortion (which murders far more in this country than hanging ever did) are sound, moreover.

having late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti

This is “political debate”? On which planet?

Come on, Morgoth. Your level of “political debate” regularly makes that look like sugary sweetness.

Or would you say that what you engage in here isn’t actually political debate?

“Does anybody think that Burnham was suggesting that Davis is fucking Chakrabarti? Seriously?”

No, of course not. But after such a spectacular overreaction from La Chakrabarti, the idea does sort of insinuate itself into your head. Protesting too much, and all that.

Fuck me, I don’t even want to think about it.

It beats John Major and Edwina Currie anyway.

I mean, is that actually what people are saying?

She wouldn’t really go for somebody like Davis, surely?

“JUST IN: Shami’s office say that the expression of “regret” is certainly not enough. “That’s not an apology in her view, ” her spokeswoman says.”

http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2008/06/burnham-regrets.html

The allignments of politics are shifting and all sorts of people are ending up in bed together.

It is a shame that no-one on the anti-liberty wing, either from the Labour party or Kelvin McKenzie, are willing to put up a candidate. They would be able to raise whatever points they wanted about David Davis or their belief in detaining people without charge, etc. They don’t want a debate, it seems. Unless they put their points across when such opportunities present themselves then they can’t expect to retain public support.

Or would you say that what you engage in here isn’t actually political debate?

I do my best to limit the content of threads here to trivial ephemera and facile anecdotage, but people keep trying to have political debates, it’s very frustrating.

Anway, I’m sure David’s very happy with the lovely Doreen. Whilst of course revelling in all this attention.

Well I did say the other day that I left the National Council for Civil Liberties back in Patricia Hewitt’s day and had my doubts about Chakrabati – which is why I don’t belong to Liberty – but that in the light of recent events including the 42 days, I was thinking of joining again.

OK I was wrong, strike that out. She can’t seriously be threatening a libel action. Why doesn’t she just laugh it off? Maybe there is an agenda here with Burnham, who sounds to be a bit of a t–s p-t (I have no time at all for career politicians of any political hue at all).

I quite like the Lib Dems’ & Tories’ desperate attempts to make microscopic quantities of political capital out of this non-scandal:

Lynne Featherstone, Liberal Democrat Equalities spokeswoman, says: “Shami’s fight for civil liberties is unimpeachable. Any man who thinks that it is okay to speak like that and claim it is political knock-about clearly hasn’t understood the women’s movement.”

Shadow Justice minister Eleanor Laing says: “This sinks politics to a new low. If David Davis had had late-night talks with a man that would have been seen as part of the old-boys network but as soon as a woman is involved, there is this appalling innuendo.”

This is a new low.

This is clearly a non-story. Still its always amusing see the government taking a bit of a kicking one way or the other. If it goes to court, I can’t imagine Shami will come out well.

If she’s going to sue for libel, she needs really expert advice in case she makes a fool of herself. I’m sure Neil Clark will be glad to help. He’s very handsome too.

Surely it is obvious to everyone that David Davis and Shami Chakrabarti are fucking

idiots! I meant to say “fucking idiots” but pressed the button too soon!

Come on, Morgoth. Your level of “political debate” regularly makes that look like sugary sweetness.

I’m not the Culture Secretary though.

Or would you say that what you engage in here isn’t actually political debate?

Whilst I would credit my years of being here with actually changing my mind on various issues, let’s be honest – the Harry’s Place comments section is like a giant pub.

But what is the innuendo? Elanor Laing inadvertently gets it right. Burnham could have used precisely these words about two male politicians, and nobody would think for a moment that there was an implication of sexual impropriety.

Surely women have been active in politics for long enough, for people not to read a sexual subtext into any commentary on their dealings?

Effectively, what Shami is saying is ‘to say I’ve been conspiring with a right wing Tory implies that I’m fucking him’. Coz that’s the natural assumption to make about two politicians of opposite genders, having any dealings with each other.

Oh, dear, you really are rattled.

With MacKenzie out, who is it going to be? Any one of them is even more hilarious than the last. Pointless posh prettyboys like Oliver Kamm and Douglas Murray spring most obviously to mind.

Oh, imagine the pleasure of watching the defeat of such a creature, waving his tenth generation Oxbridge degree in the sincere belief that it proved that he was clever, rather than merely that he had stolen the place properly belonging to someone from a grammar school, if only such an institution still existed.

Imagine his speech after the count, cursing the provincial peasants for their insolence in failing to elect him.

But it would never happen, of course. Such people despise the electorate far too much ever to submit themselves to its judgement. Don’t they?

So who, then? And why?

Oh bugger, I’m David Lindsay and I forgot to sign off as my sock puppet again. Let’s try and get it right this time.

“having late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls”

Burnham could have used precisely these words about two male politicians

O RLY?

Oh, and David Lindsay is even more handsome than Neil Clark.

I’m not the Culture Secretary though.

Aye, but you were disputing whether what Burnham said constituted “political debate” at all. My point was that if it didn’t, then virtually nothing you say here does.

Just looked up their respective CVs – sounds like they deserve each other.

Andy Burnham
1992 Cambridge graduated with English degree
1992-4?
1994 – 1997 researcher to Tessa Jowell MP
1997 Aug-Dec parliamentary officer for the NHS Confederation
1997-8 administrator with the Football Task Force
1998 – 2001 special advisor to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith
2001- rewarded with safe Labour seat at the election
2001-6 various junior ministerial posts
2007 appointed Chief Secretary to the Treasury despite having no background in or experience of finance or economics
2008 Culture Secretary

(Ye Gods this is deeply underwhelming stuff- and MPs have the gall to tell us they should be rewarded on a scale comparable with Captains of Industry. On the basis of this CV he would be lucky to get a job as an English teacher or researcher in the real word – he must be a real lickspittle).

Shami Chakrabati –
1992 (circa) graduated London School of Economics with an LLb Law degree
1994 Public and Common Law Bar trained – qualified as a barrister
1994-6 believed to have practised as a barrister(where?)
1996 -2001 Home Office barrister
2001-3 Liberty barrister
2003 appointed director of Liberty.

Neither appears to have had any exposure at all to the real world outside the Westminster Village. At least you can say for David Davis that he is a self made man who has been through the school of hard knocks.

DavidT: ‘How pompous and absurd. I’m distinctly unimpressed.’

…

So, basically, fuck off Shami Chakrabarti.

Besides, more significant questions about free speech speech in this country have been raised by news of the quashing of the conviction of the ‘lyrical terrorist’. Thoughts, anyone?

No, Neil Clark is the most handsome blogger in the universe and he teaches at the most famous Oxford college.

My point was that if it didn’t, then virtually nothing you say here does.

I’m not claiming that what I say here is political debate tnough. No one is paying me out of the tax-payer’s hard-earned dosh to say what I’m saying. Andy Burham is. That’s the difference.

Suggesting she and he, a la John Major and Edwina Currie, played Hunt for Red October in the bath would have been suggestive. But he didn’t.

It all depends on your perspective I suppose. Ten years ago nobody would have believed Davis and Chakrabati would be at it but now Westminster and the lobbyists are percieved in many quarters to be so disconnected from everyday reality that anything could be happening.

I used to know a Martin Miller who wrote books about punks and fairies in Brixton – please say you are not him.

Are we not mixing up in some way the concepts of ’social liberal’ (as opposed to social conservative) and ‘liberty’? Opposing 42 days and seeking a debate about the gnawing away of liberties by the state does not necessarily make one a social liberal. I don’t think Davis is a liberal. I also think his actions are a stunt and a gimmick and points to internal dissessions amongst the Tories. – However, he does appear to have struck a nerve with the public.

Going back to the main thrust of david t’s article, is this not all small beer? If Shami Chakrabarti is really threatening the libel laws then that is just plain silly and disappointing, particularly after her extremely effective arguments against 42 days on Question Time the other week.

Why did it have to wait for this incident for someone to tell Shami Shami Shami where to go?

Good God I am agreeing with Mrs Ben (I need to sit down.)

She shouldn’t have any trouble with the legal advice, she is married to Martyn John Hopper, a litigation partner at City legal firm Herbert Smith. Its revenue was £334 million in 2007, making it the 9th largest firm by fee income in the UK. In 2008 revenues rose 25% to £422 million and profits-per-equity partner rose by a similar proportion to break the £1 million level for the first time.

Not short of a few bob for a libel case then.

Why doesn’t she just laugh it off?

Because this is typical of the Zanu-Labour smear-machine?

I’m not claiming that what I say here is political debate tnough.

I’ll bear that in mind. ;)

Sorry David T, but i think this is one of those “not much new news” days, for you to write this article. I think everyone including you is making a mountain out of a mole-hill. But i still luv ya :-)

Minoan:

Wouldn’t you agree that Chakrabarti’s most guilty of the molehill-mountain transfiguration, though?

I’ll bear that in mind. ;)

By all means, do so. Remember, unlike the Stasi-BBC, where you’re forced to pay for it on threat of imprisonment whither you watch it or not, you are perfectly at liberty to ignore or respond to my comments as you see fit. Its not as if I’m going to send round the Capita goons to demand you pay £140 a year for the privilege of using t’internet in case you happen to read my comments.

“Does anybody think that Burnham was suggesting that Davis is fucking Chakrabarti? Seriously?”

I can’t think that any reasonable person would think it; it’s just the knockabout of politics, as you say.

I know libel law (in fact, civil law in general) requires a lower degree of proof, but I can’t believe it’s that low…

“…this is typical of the Zanu-Labour smear-machine?”

Incompetent and oblique to the point of nonsense…? Yes, I suppose it is. They can’t even smear opponents properly at this stage…!

By all means, do so. Remember, unlike the Stasi-BBC, where you’re forced to pay for it on threat of imprisonment whither you watch it or not, you are perfectly at liberty to ignore or respond to my comments as you see fit. Its not as if I’m going to send round the Capita goons to demand you pay £140 a year for the privilege of using t’internet in case you happen to read my comments.

Erm, okay. Glad to hear that.

Don’t see what the BBC has to do with the price of fish, but you knock yourself out Morgoth.

The Stasi BBC is a tool of the Nut-allergic muslim paedophiles posing as hairdressers and I should know because I am Churchill.

Mephisto,

“Wouldn’t you agree that Chakrabarti’s most guilty of the molehill-mountain transfiguration, though”

Yes of course. Though i’ve always disliked her intensely because most of the time she talks complete bullshit anyway :-) I see this incident merely as a continuation of that predictable pattern.

But Burnham is a twat as well so its a loose/loose situation really..

Her letter is funny though. I love the legal threat at the end softened humanitarian style with the bit about giving the proceeds to Liberty causes. Folks this is the new brand of litigious behaviour with a smiley face :-)

Moaning, winging, hand-wringing crap from a self-important self-loving liberal. Fuck her. Fuck Davis. Fuck it all. I’m so pissed off with the self-righteous jerk-off fest that politics has become over 42 days. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think Chakrabarti isn’t just acting mypoic to get further press when she’s knows she’s talking bull-shit? No, of course not. And people complain politicians never speak like normal people. What a fucking surprise eh?

Folks this is the new brand of litigious behaviour with a smiley face

Liberal defamationism?

I used to know a Martin Miller who wrote books about punks and fairies in Brixton – please say you are not him.

That would be Martin Millar, Graham.

Isn’t ‘Citylightsgirl’ Neil Clark? Nice to see some incisive debate from that quarter.

Like I said, rattled.

Very rattled indeed.

Come on, then – who is it going to be? Surely you aren’t saying that Davis should have clear run?

That would be Martin Millar, Graham.

You are quite correct Andrew. A lovely man.

I have to say that much as I love Shami [legal note - in a totally innocent and never actually having met her kind of way]she is making an arse of herself here.

Mind you, didn’t DavidT seriously suggest that Nick Cohen should use the libel laws against someone he felt had misrepresented one of his articles quite recently?

Who is Davis Davis? The brother of Duran Duran?

You are quite correct Andrew. A lovely man.

I’m a huge fan of his books. I’ve never met him but I always imagined him to be a top bloke – it’s nice to have it confirmed.

I actually met him in the SWP ;-) Hadn’t seen him for years and then ran into him at the Duke Of Edinburgh pub in Brixton a few years ago.

David Lindsay’s comment earlier first appeared on his excellent blog, from where he copied and pasted it. Not the David Lindsay for Prime Minister blog, he stopped writing that 2 years ago.

Irony bypass?? The threat of libel is, obviously, a joke — in the spirit of the rest of the letter. The fact that Mr T thinks the whole thing is so terribly serious displays the precise grasp of humour for which Gordon brown is rightly renowned. And whoever said David Davis is a “totem” for civil liberties? He should be supported and the “campaign” used to highlight the other authoritarian measures taken by this, and the last, government.

It doesn’t matter whether DD is a liberal or not. He IS a conservative and so, naturally, opposes the unprecedented and sudden increase in the powers of the police force that New Labour wants.

P.S. It is perfectly possible to support the execution of convicted murders and oppose internment without trial. (Duh!)
P.P.S. It is perfectly possible to oppose the legitimisation of homosexuality in taxpayer funded schools and oppose internment without trial (Duh!)
P.P.P.S It is perfectly possible to oppose the termination of unborn babies (and the use of taxpayer money to pay for it) and oppose internment without trial (Duh!).
P.P.P.P.S Do you get it yet?

And I was so nice to Wardytron on the Kamm/Bush thread!

His guess is as good as mine about the long-discontinued other blog. But I make no apology for making this point as often as possible: who are you anti-liberty types going to put up now that MacKenzie is out? Don’t you have massive public support? Well, how about testing it? After all, there are very few troublesome lefties or darkies in the East Riding, so you should walk it. What’s stopping you?

David T, given your contempt for the libel laws, isn’t it fairly ironic how you reacted to David Edgar’s article in Decency?

‘Nick Cohen should sue’, for libel, was your reaction, as i recall.

and as far as ’slow news day’ goes, a truce following negotiations between Hamas and Israel is fairly big news isn’t it?

why hasn’t HP covered that?

The threat of libel is, obviously, a joke — in the spirit of the rest of the letter

That isn’t a joke but your comment is!

“Who is Davis Davis? The brother of Duran Duran?”

No, he was in Bros with Ian and Duncan Smith.

Oh, so you were David, I feel quite guilty now, but I expect it’ll pass. If it’s any consolation, if you stand a candidate in my constituency (Twickenham), I promise to vote for the BPA instead of for Vince Cable as I was planning to.

I fully endorse David T’s level of vexation here- she is exactly the last person in her position to threaten, and so spuriously, to resort to the contemptible laws on defamation. In the most po faced language possible. Public figures have gotten more up themselves since the demise of Spitting Image- I would so loved to have them do a puppet of her. There is a word the NY Times uses a lot in headlines which I have never seen here, but which comes to mind to describe her reaction: Roiled.

The allignments of politics are shifting and all sorts of people are ending up in bed together.

Yep, David Toube, Nick Cohen and Boris Johnson. Who got spit-roasted in that one?

I reckon you’re just sore about that internship we gave you David.

Buggeration, I keep forgetting to disguise my identity.

I was the author of the David 4 PM blog. And as you see, I am not David Lindsay.

Oh God — the humanity!! Can’t you see sh’e being ironic ?? Using the threat of deeply reactionary defamation laws to make a point about deeply reactionary “anti-terror” laws.

That’s the whole point about referring to the silly idea of them having an affair and asking for an “apology … to Mrs Davis” and — and the proceeds of any action being donated to Liberty!!

It’s no wonder conservatives say the left has no sense of humour.

‘So, basically, fuck off Shami Chakrabarti’.

And someone issue her with a sense of humour while they’re at it.

Talking of jokes, I see David Lindsay is here. How’s the plan to put up a BPA in every constituency in time for 2010 going, Dave?

Sorry, ‘BPA candidate’.

This post should be called When Lefties Attack!

They dish out all the time, but they can’t take it when it’s headed their way.

Shami is obviously angry and has made a rash decision to threaten with libel. What could possibly be more horrifying than ambiguous language regarding relations with a right-wing Tory? The shame, the shame…

That said, if she hadn’t of said, oi, stop it, I think certainly the bitching would have continued. Condescending innuendo about the pair was already on left wing blog sites before this.

The left seem to have a real penchant for bitching about women and others who they think ’should’ automatically support their point of view, but don’t.

There have been several very personal, vicious and quite scary threats on female bloggers, both left & right of centre – all coming from ‘the left’, Elle Seymour springs to mind, there was another which eludes me…

Liberty would never have been so crass and foolish, in my day!

David Lindsay’s plan to stand candidates in every constituency in time for 2010 is already complete. You’re just frit. David Lindsay is so handome and has such a sensible voice. He is already a big name in the media and has even been interviewed in the prestigious 4am slot on Radio Dudley.

Liberty would never have been so crass and foolish, in my day!

how’s the legal advice for nick cohen’s suing the guardian going, david toube? was david Edgar’s piece on Decency not part of a ‘political debate’? how is that different? wasn’t your advice to him easily desciribed thus:

using libel law to suppress political debate

“demonstrative”

You evidently haven’t remembered the piece correctly. You haven’t even read it recently. If you had, you’d be quoting it. And if you quoted it, you’ll see that I did not “advice Nick Cohen to sue the Guardian”.

I did call Edgar a deliberate, vicious and pathetic liar, which he is.

so you never wrote ‘nick cohen should sue’?

no you didn’t. you actually wrote:

In fact, Edgar misrepresents Cohen’s thesis to such a grand extent that Cohen should sue him.

And you think that constitutes giving Nick Cohen legal advice on suing the Guardian?

You’re clearly very new to the world of political blogs, aren’t you?

NuLab have a history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Purnell

‘In 1996 Purnell was one of three Islington councillors who were sued for libel by fellow Labour councillor Liz Davies.[3] Davies had previously been selected as the Labour Party prospective parliamentary candidate for Leeds North East, but the selection had been vetoed by the party’s National Executive Committee. Part of the evidence to the NEC had centred around Davies’ willingness to abide by the Labour Whip in Parliament, with reference to her time as a member of the Labour group in Islington. Liz Davies claimed that, in their evidence before the NEC, the three councillors had claimed she incited violence during a committee meeting. This led to an out-of-court settlement, under which the three apologised for the allegations they had made and made contributions to the general election campaign of the local MP, Jeremy Corbyn.’

Then there was the two-time libel from Oona King, which you idiots repeated, against The Gorgeous One.

From the gutter of the Crewe by-election, back into the sewer.

Can I just say how happy I am to be proved right again. She should be banned from the airways.
ps sorry about the in joke

Does anyone take Shami Chakrabarti seriously these days, other than that clown David Davis ?

GW

I think she is right to pull Andy Burnham up on it. I don’t have her wealth, I wish I did, so suing for libel would be out of the question for me. But I think he should be shown up for the tosspot he is. (Isn’t he being touted as the next Labour leader?).

ps David T is like the NuLab apparatchiks in ‘The Thick of It’ who think that repetitive use of the F-word makes them look big, macho and clever. It doesn’t.

Oooh I bet that last comment stung deep.

Wahay, ‘resistor’ (AKA ‘Harry’s Stalker’) is back. Our own pet anti-Semite and pan-Serb fantasist. The man whose opposition to American hegemony doesn’t extend to spelling his moniker in British-English.

Shami Chakrabarti is currently the most dangerous person living in Britain. A threat to society on par, or greater than any terrorist can offer. Shami Chakrabarti should be the first of many to be tried for treason.

God — if Chakrabati can draw such ire just for arguing against yet another extension of Fuck Habeas Corpus what would Mr T & Co say to those who want back: free speech, right to silence, no double jeopardy, reasonable doubt, freedom of assembly, right to demonstrate etc etc???

she opposed the war or upset a Jewish reporter or was a tankie years before Harry/Simon or summat, ergo she should be smeared by wealthy dilettantes and careerist nu-labniks.

Shami Chakrabarti is currently the most dangerous person living in Britain.

Er. I don’t think so.

What she is, is somebody who ought to be running an absolutely straight “civil liberties” campaign, which focuses on issues like freedom of expression, detention without trial, and so on.

Instead, she turns the 42 day campaign story away from principles and towards personalities – absurd ones at that – harnesses it to Davis Davis’ ideosyncratic conduct, and then delivers a letter before action to the Government, copied to the Daily Mail, threatening to sue a minor Minister over the wholly implausible suggestion that his scornful dismissal of Davis’ conversion to the cause of liberty was actually an insinuation that the two were having an affair.

The only danger she presents to Britain is that we need a strong independent civil liberties campaigning group: and Shami has weakened it by her actions.

David T is like the NuLab apparatchiks in ‘The Thick of It’ who think that repetitive use of the F-word makes them look big, macho and clever. It doesn’t.

Given that this post is the first time I think he’s used the word, that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny, does it?

If it’s any consolation, if you stand a candidate in my constituency (Twickenham), I promise to vote for the BPA instead

Ditto – (Rochford and Southend East) – a less ponsy bit of the Thamesside realm than Wardy’s joint.

Martin Millar’s novels are…ADOLESCENT. (I did enjoy “Lux The Poet”, and, I suppose “Milk Sulphate and Alby Starvation” or whatever it was called and I guess the one about the fairies in New YOrk too , I admit, but I don’t think that any of em would stand up to re-reading now that one is over the age of 18). Basically to literature what Carter USM are to music: a distant, if mildly entertaining, relative.

I’ve been agreeing a lot with Mrs Ben lately, too. La vita nuova.

Bwa ha ha!

Took the words right out of my mouth. I’ve often wanted to say “fuck off, Shami Chakrabarti”. Having tried it on for size, it sounds pretty damn good.

Contemptible hypocrite.

Excellent post.

“He’s standing up to your bullying, authoritarian, stasi mates in the Labour Party.”

Also, the phrase “fuck off, Tory” in response to the above has rarely sounded so apposite.

You know you’ve been reading Harry’s Place too long when you can immediately pick out a post that is almost 3 years old to disprove a commenter’s point

Mark T: David T is Alistair Campbell in disguise!!!!
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2005/09/14/fucking-fucking-wankers/

That’s 29 “fucking”s (not including the 2 in the title, and I guess the additional 2 in the new URL)

And a few “fuck”s and “wankers” as well for good measure. Plus calling someone a “cretin”, which is probably regarded as more offensive these days.

Do remember this (in Our Leader’s Favour) when you think it’s getting a bit Daily Mail around here…

That was over some guy who shut down John Band’s blog – and Band was pretty foul mouthed himself. Usually against me.

Do remember this (in Our Leader’s Favour) when you think it’s getting a bit Daily Mail around here…

You’re the main one channelling the Daily Mail around here at the moment, old bean.

Speaking of which, an utterly disgusting article in the Mail today by Cornelli Barnetfuckbollocks which he yet again, pace Stephen McKay, argues that brown people killing each other is none of our business, no matter how many brown people die. Its almost as if he was an isolatationist paleocon fuckwit or something….

You know you’ve been reading Harry’s Place too long when you can immediately pick out a post that is almost 3 years old to disprove a commenter’s point

Without wishing to get too pedantic, 3 years without a fuck hardly makes him an Alistair Campbell, does it?

Oh Moggy dear fellow my Ulster compatriot you just outed yerself as the Mail reader. Still, rather that than the News Letter, eh?

Flanders & Swann

Ma’s out, Pa’s out, Let’s talk rude!
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
Dance in the garden in the nude,
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.
Let’s write rude words all down our street,
Stick out our tongues at the people we meet,
Let’s have an intellectual treat
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers.

Oh Moggy dear fellow my Ulster compatriot you just outed yerself as the Mail reader. Still, rather that than the News Letter, eh?

Yeah, I made the mistake of buying the Mail on a non-Littlejohn day. Plus the Times looking boring as fuck today didn’t help.

As for the News Letter…what a piece of parochial shite. Its not as bad as the Ballymena Times. That makes me want to go all Varg Vikernes on the place. Especially the letters column. Maurice fucking Mills. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!! MORGOTH SMASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Resistor, whilst I think you are a terrible little shit, you very occasionally make me smile, #9.35

Martin Millar’s novels are…ADOLESCENT

Ah – a bit of a struggle if you are hooked on the toddler stories of religion then eh? I only ever read Alby Starvation and Lux the poet (in which I recognised episodes from the distant past which probably make me too involved to judge them objectively as literature.)

But he’s still a lovely guy.

Oh LOL oh LOL oh LOL oh LOL indeed ROTFLMAO

Well, let’s see if Mr M’s stories stand the test of time. (An author who is also a lovely guy. Hmm. Weird)

In the event that he turns out to to be the Dante or the St Thomas Aquinas of our times, or inspires artwork of the profundity and enduring nature as say, this (without even going into moral or societal things) I shall seek repentance at the altar of Our Lady of Skunkweed Sales outside Brixton Tube…in some future existence

Er, I wasn’t suggesting that he was Enid Blyton :-)

I think we have been invaded by both Leninist and religious elitists who think swearing is a big deal.

Silly cunts.

English libel law is an outrage. It is stacked in favour of the plaintiff. Britain has become a playground for the privileged and absurd who use our disgraceful libel to suppress debate. No civil libertarian should support English libel law. In fact, they should be campaigning to reform it. They should CERTAINLY not be using it themselves

Such pompous effusion from the man who advised Nick Cohen to sue. But then pomposity and hypocrisy are HP’s trademarks.

Spot on. Next thing we know ‘Liberty’ will be banning the term ’strange bedfellows’ or ‘lovey-dovey’. And she has the nerve to complain that Burnham demeans his position.

So, basically, fuck off Shami Chakrabarti.

I think such language says more about David T than anyone else. I suppose some people cannot tease the issues from the partisan morass.

Shock horror, David Davis is a right wing Tory who is not too keen on gays and likes foxhunting. However, that does not mean that there are no legitimate issues raised by his campaign. There are legitimate civil liberties issues that he has raised. HP won’t talk about them; that’s okay – it rarely does discuss such issues.

However, its own narrow partisan view obscures it from understanding that some people may find some of the issues David Davis raises worth discussing without insults and name-calling (yes, not likely this is HP), and no, that does not mean you support David Davis brand of Toryism. This is by-election that focuses on some far more important issues that need proper public debate.

My own view is that David T has probably got it in for Shami Chakrabarti anyway; this is just an opportunity to put the boot in typically unpleasant way. It does nothing for debate of course, and so its just been reduced to slagging off various individuals on either side. The curious thing about Decents is that, despite all their pontificating about democracy and freedom, they are quite statist and partisan at home, some of them truly and hopelessly tied top the Labour Party line on these issues. I bet folding money that when Labour are slung out of power and they start singing a different tune, they start saying something different too.

“So, basically, fuck off Shami Chakrabarti.”

After her mealy-mouthed, people should have the right to say stuff but they should never, ever actually say stuff, defence of free speech during the Motunes twat-fest, I couldn’t agree more with that sentiment.

Well we obviously made a mistake allowing you to intern with us!

When Will from the Drink-soaked Trots is backing you up on this (and they are splitting on the issue), you should realise that what you are saying is really, really stupid.

Chakrabarti is being silly with this threat of legal action, I agree. However being silly and over sensitive is one thing; Davis is still right to raise these important issues. By saying “Fuck off Chakrabarti” so vehemently, David T gives a poor impression of his stance on these issues. This is about much more than Chakrabarti, who at most times is an eloquent campaigner for the cause of civil liberties, a crucial cause.

Chakrabarti, incidentally, did NOT support Davis’ resignation as MP.

Will at Drink Soaked Trots is potty mouthed about most things and now has taken to editing the posts of his fellow contributors at Drink Soaked Trots. I agree that David T and Will both abusing Chakrabarti is pretty unedifying.

Benji – spot on. I’ve loads of time for Chakrabarti.

By saying “Fuck off Chakrabarti” so vehemently, David T gives a poor impression of his stance on these issues.

This is not the Guardian you ridiculous cunt.

When Will from the Drink-soaked Trots is backing you up on this (and they are splitting on the issue), you should realise that what you are saying is really, really stupid.

Ain’t *that* the truth. Could this be David T’s “Bernard Manning” moment? Or maybe his “Brown Person” moment.

I dunno what’s happened this week. The two bloggers I personally like and respect the most have exposed their reactionary underbellies.

Does DavidT actually back 42 days? I was under the impression he was not convinced (if only there were some way for the man himself to clarify his stance). Surely the ‘fuck off’ stuff is related to the use of the libel laws – he’s right about that, they are a disgrace. Burnham will probably have to settle out of court for using what no sensible person could fail to understand was an allegory.

As for those prissy milksops objecting to the use of the ‘f-word’ may I suggest you all take a trip to Ireland and lecture the locals about why they are wrong to call their new prime minister Biffo (that’s Big Ignorant Fucker From Offaly if you were wondering) as it shows the poverty of their minds, degrades political discourse and all the other guff. You might even learn some interesting new words into the bargain were you to do so.

Surely the ‘fuck off’ stuff is related to the use of the libel laws – he’s right about that, they are a disgrace.

Well, yes, old David T is right about Chakrabarti getting a bit silly about libel, it was an overreaction. But still, she’s a good egg, should be remembered.

She is basically a good egg.

But I do think that this whole business (I nearly wrote ‘affair’, but checked myself) is just utterly surreal. For a professional civil libertarian to go around issuing letters before action, threatening libel action, over this supposed innuendo, just makes me think that she has no judgement.

On 42 days: I remain to be convinced. I oppose it because the Government hasn’t put forward a compelling case. I also think that the reasons given – the time required to analyse evidence etc. – should be remedied by funding the investigation, not by paying for imprisonment without charge.

Is Shami Chakrabarti CBE a good egg?

Who knows, she is part of an establishment whose concerns and tiffs are a long way from anything ordinary people care about and she is part of a political class (like it or not) which has become increasingly removed from ordinary folk over the last few years.

Venichka: Martin Millar’s novels are…ADOLESCENT

His latest one is “young adult”. It contains the best depictions of anxiety and bipolar disorder (and living with someone who has them) that I’ve ever read. Disguised as part of a story about werewolves.

Graham: But he’s still a lovely guy.

That’s good to hear.

I must track down a copy of Lux & Alby and try to guess which bits are about HP contributors. ;-)

For a professional civil libertarian to go around issuing letters before action, threatening libel action, over this supposed innuendo, just makes me think that she has no judgement

It was certainly an over-reaction but it would only become a significant misjudgement if she were to take action, which of course she won’t. The best way of dealing with that worm Burnham would be to wear her pointyest boots and kick him in the nuts the next time she sees him.

Still, David, just as well Nick Cohen didn’t take your advice to sue David Edgar over his article in the Guardian. It would have made Cohen look even more of a fucktard than he usually appears.

Now Cameron is making a stupid “we’re going to sue the Lib Dems” mistake.

I dunno what’s happened this week. The two bloggers I personally like and respect the most have exposed their reactionary underbellies.

I’ve never heard it called that before.

Will Davis Davis be standing up for Abu Hamza, who has lost his attempt to avoid extradition to the US.

Oh come on, people, this isn’t one isolated instance of Chakrabarti displaying signs that she’s started to believe her own press. This was coming. It’s pointless coming out with guff like “this is about more than Chakrabarti” and “the reall issue is 42 days.” When I got to Warren St. tube yesterday the Standard’s west end final billboards read:

LIBERTY BOSS MAY SUE MINISTER

This is because she wrote a letter of indescribable pomposity alleging an imagined sexual slur and copied in a national newspaper.

She made it about her. Did you get that? SHE MADE IT ABOUT HER.

Its seems I may have read “dreams of sex and stagediving” as well.

I now know what the inhabitants who lived through the last days of Imperial Rome felt like.

Yeah, I read that too. Bit of a disappointment after the good fairies of new york (which is the one the name of which had escaped me) – he’d been picked up by the (NB, graham, *middle class*) critics at the Guardian by then.

Oh I think he always was quite a middle-class Glaswegian Catholic if I remember rightly.

Though quite what class has to do with it I don’t really know :-)

Here’s the bloggerati on it:

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/jah_wibble/june_2008/shami_on_you_.htm

However, silly old Shami has decided this represents a “smear” on her. God knows how she works that one out. Threatening to use the libel laws of this country, infamously weighted in favour of the plaintiff, is a decidedly odd thing for the leader of a civil liberties group to do.
Lining up behind her is serial rebel and hypocrite, Diane Abbott. Why this woman remains in the Labour party at all is beyond me, so much does she seem to despise it. Soon, I fully expect the usual suspects – failed ministers, bitter leftists – to join Shami in her boohoo-fest. Jeremy Corbyn, Glenda Jackson, Frank Dobson, Michael Meacher etc etc.
Chakrabarti would have done well to rise above all this as nothing more than a bit of knockabout banter. By her actions, she’s shown herself up to be a rather absurd, humourless creature.
http://tomcharris.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/it%E2%80%99s-the-way-you-tell-%E2%80%99em-shami/

Good to see that Shami Shakrabarti hasn’t lost her famous sense of humour. Apparently she’s laughed off Andy Burnham’s light-hearted teasing about her and David Davis’s friendship and has, rather cheekily, offered him some makeup tips. Absolutely the right way to handle this sort of thing: laugh it off and make sure no-one can accuse you of taking yourself too seriously.

http://merseymike.blogspot.com/2008/06/grow-up-shami.html

I’ve made it clear enough that I am not in favour of 42 days.

However, if Shami Chakrabati is really so naive as to believe that Davis isn’t both an opportunist and a right-winger who just happens to have got it right on this issue, then she is naive and perhaps a closet Tory?

And as for suing Andy Burnham – don’t be so utterly pathetic. Perhaps a little less eulogising of Davis might help, eh, Shami?? Or are we after a Tory seat?

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/06/shami_chakrabar.html

while I’m all for the stand David Davis is making, Shami Chakrabarti threatening to sue someone over an “innuendo” so mild that it wouldn’t have looked out of place in the mouth of Bertie Wooster, is petty and trivialises the issue.”

http://www.order-order.com/2008/06/love-that-dares-to-send-writ-threat.html

Guido says:

Shami is getting a bit up herself here, Guido is something of an expert in this area and can see that she does not have a leg to stand on. Any reasonable person can see Burnham was clearly teasing, not really suggesting they were having an actual affair. Shami should hit back with an attack on Andy’s mascara looks

http://e8voice.blogspot.com/2008/06/silly-season-comes-early.html

There is something surreal about Shami Chakrabati’s faux outrage at Andy Burnham’scomments regarding her dealings with David Davis. Some of the reaction is a tad over-the-top also. Alix Mortimer over at Liberal Conspiracy is one who is taking this all a bit seriously and the Tory and Lib Dem spokespeople are joining in with the faux outrage.

Of course, Shami Chakrabati is just using Andy Burnham’s rather unfunny comments (I’m amazed if people see them as anything other than that) to gain a few newspaper columns and airtime for herself and her cause. Fair enough, that’s the game.

Anyway, she has certainly given the comments a good airing. Everyone would have read this edition of Progress magazine eventually because everyone does. Good then that the comments were so powerfully rebutted or what might people have thought?

This is all rather silly.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/boanerges/june_2008/what_a_liberty_.htm

Has Liberty campaigner Shami Chakrabarti had a sense of humour transplant ? That can only explain her extraordinary taking of offence and threat of legal action against New Labour rising star Andy Burnham who tongue in cheek,spoke of Chakrabarti ‘canoodling over the phone’ with Tory rebel David Davis.

http://www.westmonster.com/2008/06/media_roundup_andy_burnham_fia.html

Liberty leader Shami Chakribarti has excelled herself in terms of self-righteousness by accusing Culture Secretary Andy Burnham of launching a smear campaign against her. Burnham made a couple of vaguely-sarcastic, fairly ill-advised remarks concerning the relationship between Chakribatri and MP David Davis – previously political polar opposites who had found a new kinship over the 42 days detention debacle. The overblown reaction is clearly, as Westmonster views it, a case of humourlessness overcoming common sense

http://britlib.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/liberty-director-threatens-to-sue-wrong-minister/

I can’t quite get my head round exactly what Shami Chakrabarti – who I am usually in total awe of for her constantly being on the right side of every argument – is trying to achieve in her latest campaign. Namely, her campaign to wring an apology out of a Labour minister this week (even if it takes a court case to force the issue)….
Perhaps fearing the battle is lost she’s returning whatever volleys she can. Who knows. But for once, I don’t think Shami Chakrabarti has her priorities straight.

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2008/06/is-the-labour-government-snooping-on-david-davis-and-shami-chakrabarti-phone-cal.html

Here’s a supportive one… from a loon who thinks that Labour is bugging Shami and Davis:

How does Andy Burnham appear to know that David Davis and Shami Chakrabarti are in telephonic contact at all ?
How does he know that such phone calls are “late night” ones ?

She is basically a good egg.

I glad you think that David, because she is, and we need more like Shami eloquently making the case for liberty.

I have to say I was a a bit harsh about Shami earlier on but I have changed my mind slightly. Apparently these kind of comments about Davis and her have been knocking around Westminster for a few days and although no-one is seriously suggesting anything untoward is happening between them I can understand her getting quite angry about it, even if sueing would be going too far. It’s insulting, patronising and sexist, as are some of the reactions to her letter. I’m half expecting to see someone say she “shouldn’t worry her pretty little head about it” or something similar.

David – are you really using the argument that you must be right because some people on the internet agree with you?

My favourite has to be Alby Starvation – it just makes me laugh out loud every time. Good Fairies and Lux are great as well but I like all of them really. The Lux/Alby graphic novel is great as well. I have the new one about the Werewolf but haven’t had a chance to read it yet. (note to self – spend less time arguing on the internet and more time reading books)

I must track down a copy of Lux & Alby and try to guess which bits are about HP contributors.

Maybe Graham has previously been pursued by a ruthless female assassin hired by the milk marketing board.

I think she may still be after me on these threads actually….

I do think that it could be an ‘honour’ thing. Indian women are very protective of their sexual honour, and although she is highly assimilated, and her husband is English (has an English name anyway), she must still have some residual cultural attitudes. Stupid thing to say on the part of Burnham. If she’d left it unchallenged and if there are rumours circulating it could have just grown. But as I said before, taking legal action is a bit steep, but then I ain’t rich and pompous.

No, I’m just having difficulty finding anybody who thinks that what she has done is a good idea (apart from a very few Tories, and some mate of Conor’s)

Still, if there is non serious but “laddy” snidery going on about her and Davis2, that warrants a “don’t be such a wanker” response: not a stupid threat to sue for defamation.

I’ve never seen such a spectacular loss of perspective!

I glad you think that David, because she is, and we need more like Shami eloquently making the case for liberty.

Yes. She doesn’t do it brilliantly, and not in this particular instance.

“Indian women are very protective of their sexual honour, and although she is highly assimilated, and her husband is English (has an English name anyway), she must still have some residual cultural attitudes.”

Ye gods, the racism flows just as easily off the tongue as the misogyny at this place. This is a bigots’ carnival.

Burnham: Crude, dishonourable and stupid attempt to smear Shami. David T: Crude, dishonourable and stupid attempt to smear Ms. Chakrabarti for pointing out that she was being smeared:

Instead, she turns the 42 day campaign story away from principles and towards personalities – absurd ones at that – harnesses it to Davis Davis’ ideosyncratic conduct, and then delivers a letter before action to the Government, copied to the Daily Mail, threatening to sue a minor Minister over the wholly implausible suggestion that his scornful dismissal of Davis’ conversion to the cause of liberty was actually an insinuation that the two were having an affair.

Garnished with a sweet piece of racist idiocy from Sue R.

Fuck off, David T.

Oh come off it Sue – there were Indian MP’s sitting in the commons in the 1890s! Chakrabati’s family could have been here for 150 years or more! She is quite probably more English than I am and possibly more English than most people whose Jewish families arrived here about 1900!

Certainly someone who volunatarily carries the ornamentalist letters “Commander of the British Empire” after their name is more of a Liberal Imperialist than anyone at HP! I await the surreal arrival of someone telling us that criticising such a high up Imperialist office-holder is “racist!”

Whoops too late they already arrived! Surrealism is let loose!

I agree with Udham Singh (shudder) and Graham (spasm) Shami Chakrabati is as English as David Davies, despite all her other legion of faults. This has as much to do with “Indian honour” (whatever the fuck that is) as a jar of lime pickle has.

P.S. where does S.C. belong to in Sunny Hundal’s “Brown People” Venn Diagram?

Careful Morgy. Andy Burnham is an Everton supporter.

Andy Burnham is an Everton supporter.

That explains a lot. A small mind for a small team.

Careful with the money though – won’t splash a hundred million grand on a load of old rubbish :-)

Oh come off it Sue – there were Indian MP’s sitting in the commons in the 1890s! Chakrabati’s family could have been here for 150 years or more! She is quite probably more English than I am and possibly more English than most people whose Jewish families arrived here about 1900!

Certainly someone who volunatarily carries the ornamentalist letters ‘Commander of the British Empire’ after their name is more of a Liberal Imperialist than anyone at HP! I await the surreal arrival of someone telling us that criticising such a high up Imperialist office-holder is “racist!”

There’ve been Jews in the UK since Cromwellian times. Rufus Isaacs and Herbert Samuel held Imperial gongs, and served in Imperial governments when there was an empire to hand them out, and an empire to serve.

Presumably, it follows that the anti-semitic ravings of Cecil Chesterton aren’t racist because they were addressed to ennobled members of an Imperial government.

Depends if he was criticising them for being Jews or for being Imperialists doesn’t it really?

But are you really saying that it is ok for people to hold high Imperialist offices just because they have slightly darker skin?

Right let me try and work this one out.

People holding the position of “Commanders of the British Empire” are NOT imperialists because Imperialism does not exist now there is not an empire to hand out the gongs which Shami accepted. However Imperialism does exist when we are talking about Iraq where it is carried out by a set of leftish bloggers.

What did I say about surrealism?

Oh and Cecil Chesterton was just mad – he even accused Lloyd George of being Jewish

My friend is a high caste Indian from a wealthy family. One of her brothers is married into one of the richest families in the Europe, if not the world. The other day we were talking about ‘honour’ and women as emblems of honour was a much bigger thing for her than me. I don’t know howd long Shami Chakrabhati’s family has been in this country, but I don’t think accepting an honour from the Queen shows anything but that you are in some ways Establishment. And rich. Haven’t seen many Indian girls down the pub recently, but then, that could be a class thing.

I don’t know howd long Shami Chakrabhati’s family has been in this country,

*groans*

Sue, drop the racist shite, please.

David T, judging by this piece writing you are the kind of person who has few moral standards and would stoop to any kind of bad language and mud-slinging if the price were right. You could make a good living working for as a deniable writer smearing and bullying opponents. Want a job?

Her family were Sixties immigrants from Kolkata. And why is acknowledging reality racist? Do you think cultural differences don’t count and disappear at the drop of a hat?

I have a friend who is a working class girl from a Muslim background made good, a Cambridge graduate, one of the top professionals in her very competitive field, with a large number of other strings to her bow.

Married an english guy. Has kids.

Her family lies about her “being too busy to get married” to relatives, to avoid the shame of it all.

Burnham: Crude, dishonourable and stupid attempt to smear Shami. David T: Crude, dishonourable and stupid attempt to smear Ms. Chakrabarti for pointing out that she was being smeared

Oh, I’m sure you’d like all that to be true, but unfortunately Burnham’s words are there for all to read.

As DavidT said earlier, Eleanor Laing revealed all when she gaffed:

“This sinks politics to a new low. If David Davis had had late-night talks with a man that would have been seen as part of the old-boys network but as soon as a woman is involved, there is this appalling innuendo.”

Or, as soon as a woman is involved, small children are trampled in the rush by the professionally offended and political opportunists to infer a non-existent sexual reference.

Burnham should be sueing if anyone is.

Burnham should be sueing if anyone is.

Next, Brownie will be advocating rapists sue rape victims.

Burnham should be sueing if anyone is

He has made himself enough of a wanker without your assistance!

some of my best friends are Indian. One of them said that they (Indians) are …

Morgoth, you think wearing a headscarf is the same as fucking children. I would jump off a bridge if you agreed with me.

Mentalist.

racist dipshit, you didn’t finish the quote …

yea sorry it was —–> insert credulous anecdote here

Next, Brownie will be advocating rapists sue rape victims.

Did Morgoth just suggest that Davis raped Shami?

Is their a lawyer in the house?

Morgoth, you think wearing a headscarf is the same as fucking children. I would jump off a bridge if you agreed with me.

This won’t come as a huge surprise, but I own four cravattes. They cover my neck. Is this equivalent to fondling kids?

Do you wear tweed as well?

I see Harriet Harman has now entered the fray……there seems to be some sort of general assumption among the New Labour nomenklatura that Liberty is a tame pet in their camp and generalised resentment that Chakrabati can make common cause with a TORY.

No, the problem is that Liberty is making common cause with a Tory who has a very superficial understanding of civil liberties issues and most certainly does not back the Liberty approach in general.

PS did you know that Liberty, under a previous name, supported indefinite internment on purely political grounds?

For fuck’s sake.

Do tell, David B.

Why do you think David Davis has a superficial understanding of civil liberties? Because his views and those he shares with Charkrabati, do not coincide with yours?

Maybe they have both studied the subject in depth but reached different conclusions to you? And that means they are both wrong and superficial?

There is an interesting piece by Marina Hyde in today’s CIF Guardian (Saturday 21st June) slagging off Burnham. full piece is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/21/daviddavis.byelections)

Here are some extracts

“The individual has no right to anonymity,” Andy Burnham once explained during a robotic defence of identity cards. “The state has a right to know who you are.” Yet despite his concerted efforts to draw attention to himself with dazzling feats of brown-nosery, the cloak of anonymity has hung heavy on the current Culture secretary, with very few citizens of this state having the first clue who he is.

This week, however, Burnham gave people a better of idea of who he is, when he broke his silence on David Davis’s endearingly misguided decision to trigger a byelection to campaign against the government’s plan to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge. Burnham found “something very curious”, he told Progress magazine, in Davis’s “late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti”.

…… this is not the first time he has been accused of slander. A couple of years ago, the London School of Economics published its Identity Project, a report on ID cards that was the collective work of 60 LSE academics and 40 external experts. Burnham was one of several ministers who repeatedly dismissed it as the work of one man – a man who was eventually forced to seek legal advice and write to Blair to stop what he called a “systematic and malicious deception”.

This time round, however, Burnham is not casting aspersions on the little guy, but on a former shadow minister and a civil liberties campaigner who is widely respected and admired by people across the political spectrum.

In his clumsy attempts to smear them, Burnham reveals both the size of his ambitions and the shortfall in his capabilities, and it is a classic piece of New Labour doublethink to defend his actions as “byelection knockabout”. That byelection being the one at which Labour is not even fielding a candidate.”

….The real legacy he seems to have shored up is New Labour’s rich tradition of ad hominem attacks, embodied in Alastair Campbell’s famous insistence on playing the man – and in this case the woman – not the ball.

When the history of this unedifying period comes to be written, it will be these vignettes of Campbellesque bullying that will crystallise the age, and speak of a ruling elite that never engaged in debate where character assassination would do. “

This time round, however, Burnham is not casting aspersions on the little guy, but on a former shadow minister and a civil liberties campaigner who is widely respected and admired by people across the political spectrum.

In his clumsy attempts to smear them…

I have always suspected that Marina Hyde was totally mad (and this kind of confrims it.)

“The individual has no right to anonymity,” Andy Burnham once explained during a robotic defence of identity cards. “The state has a right to know who you are.”

That sentence alone should be enough for the cunt to be hung, drawn and quartered on a yard-arm outside parliment square.

That sentence alone should be enough for the cunt to be hung, drawn and quartered on a yard-arm outside parliment square.

Surely that would require an enormous increase of state-power and some way of identifying that this was Andy Burnham who was about to be hung and not some anonymous type?

There’s an actual interview with DD in the “Yawning Star” today. I kid you not.

For some reason Ms Chakrabarti’s phrasing reminds me of Jane Austen and Ann Radcliffe.

This is possibly due to bad memory on my part – but I look forward to future instalments.

Could there be a small hint of irony here ?

Something along the lines of “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a director of liberty with a quite a healthy fortune must be in want of publicity” Alan?

The National Council for Civil Liberties was formed in 1934 in response to the Incitement to Disaffection Bill which increased the penalties for sedition. One of the “moving spirits” was the fellow-travelling lawyer D.N. Pritt; during the war he worked closely with the NCCL lawyer Kenelm Digby (who had moved the famous Oxford Union motion ‘King and Country’ motion).

Early in the war, the NCCL became a Communist front organisation. The most striking demonstration of this was when Sir Oswald Mosley, suffering from phlebitis, was released from internment under 18B. D.N. Pritt spoke and voted against release in Parliament, and the NCCL supported continued detention of Mosley and also detention of all active fascists.

See A.W.B. Simpson, “In the highest degree odious” (OUP 1992), pp. 36 and 391. Richard Thurlow, “Fascism in Britain” (I.B. Tauris, 1998), p. 199, asserts that the NCCL was “at the forefront of the demands to keep Mosley interned”. Thurlow’s “The Secret State” (Blackwell, 1994) discusses the origins and clandestine control of the organisation in more detail on pages 169-172.

Interesting Mr Boothroyd.

The neoDavisite “Liberty” outfit of Shameful Chakraborti is also mealy mouthed when it comes to defending certain liberties, witness this disgraceful document the Shameful one published at the time of the Danish Cartoons controversy.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/pdfs/freedom-of-expression-feb-06.PDF

“It is when people assert the rights of others, not just themselves, that the cause of fundamental rights and freedoms is best advanced.”

The “rights of others” here being the “right” not to be “offended” by the publishing in a paper of anything that “the other” thinks is offensive. Unless “the other” is a Christian fundamentalist offended by “Jerry Springer The Opera” of course.

It is difficult to conceive of a more dispicable and intellectually incoherent view from a “libertarian”.

Here are the thoughts of everyone’s favourite Tory (why, Sunny Hundal of course) on the matter:

Its a stunt to make a serious point. This is how you discredit people – through subtle innuendo and whispers and other rubbish.

Bloody hell, the madness of this cabinet knows no bounds. There’s a good article coming up on Liberal Conspiracy about this tomorrow morning.

Burnham should hang.

I’m sure David Davis thinks the same.

Oh and the “good article” on Liberal Conspiracy? Well I hope it’s as good as this one: tin foil hats at the ready folks – it’s a corker::

“Which, of course, brings me to the most sinister part, as outlined by Spyblog: how does Andy Burnham know what time of day David Davis and Shami Chakrabarti have been on the phone and what the emo-political tone of the conversation was? Is the government tapping the phone lines of known 42 days’ opponents?”

Hahahaha. As spotted at Sadie’s Tavern, where she makes the very good point that:

Once again the left have emerged from this one looking like a bunch of humourless, anorak-clad conspiracy theorists whose arguments can be easily dismissed as the work of a bunch of single-issue loons who think M15 have bugs in every third cressplant in Kettering and who spend their Sunday afternoons faxing the Commons Banqueting Department complaining that Moira Stewart is laughing at them out of the TV.

Had I been Chakrabati I would have taken the opportunity to ridicule Burnham who is plainly a brown noser of the first order – how else could he have risen to his present position there is nothing in his CV which denotes any particular political aptitude, intelligence, skill or experience. I suppose he must have an exceptional talent for ingratiation. But that can take you far in politics, sadly, maybe the same could have been said for a young Tony Blair.

There is a serious point here, and that is the Campbell technique of smear by association which Burnham appears to be using to attack Davis and Chakrabati. As Marina Hyde points out Burnham doesn’t appear to mind bending the truth a bit if it suits his political masters.

As for David Boothroyd, what point are you making? It is true that, according to MI5, there were a number of Communist sympathisers at the top of the NCCL in 1951 (see link http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jan/06/humanrights.world), actively campaigning against Mosley and fascism in general. I am not clear if you think this a good or a bad thing.

What does the leadership of National Council for Civil Liberties in 1951 have to do with the current row?

There is a serious point here, and that is the Campbell technique of smear by association which Burnham appears to be using to attack Davis and Chakrabati.

Which one is being smeared by association with which? Sunny has “sexist whispering campaigns”. It is all lunacy (and a silly season attempt by either Chakrabati, Davis or both to keep their names in the news while everybody is watching football or tennis.

What I am saying is that Liberty as an organization is not and never has been the non-partisan campaigning group many presume it to be. It has in the past been the plaything of a political party which has no genuine commitment to civil liberty.

I have also personally seen an officer of Liberty say that they would not highlight a legal case they were supporting because it wasn’t popular with the general public.

There is a role for a non-partisan group which takes up restrictions of civil liberty regardless of politics. However it would have to have a fundamental founding philosophy, which it applied irrespective of how popular the case was. It would need to have safeguards against its own annexation as a front organisation. Liberty has neither.

Much more Media: Thanks for reminding me of Shami’s stance around the cartoons. It faintly jogged a memory of her equally shoddy performance in a TV debate around the hijab. Mindful of litigiousness, I tried to check more precisely what she said, and this spooky juxtapostion of comments on a BBC blog on the 2005 QuestionTime debate came up:Conspiracy theorists, go for it:

My compliments to Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, and outstanding dialectician. Every word she spoke tonight made sense and won conviction. Instead of supporting my political party I’ll shift my allegiance to Liberty forthwith.
Hal Kearsley, Norwich

Text: Isn’t David Davis gorgeous?
Mags. Brigg, N. Lincs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/4316367.stm#4

OT

Could we have another post about the 42 days please ? I’d like to know where David T stands on this, as its still not entirely clear to me.

Does Andy Burnham wear mascara?

This seems to be a turf war. I imagine Burnham was trying to smear both at the same time – Davis – for the effrontery to even claim any interest in human rights – impossible as he is a Tory and everyone knows New Labour owns the UK Human Rights Franchise in the UK. And so by extension Chakrabati for associating with Davis.

For fuck’s sake.

This whole thread has been extraordinary. Few instances of rationality asking people to step back and do a bit of textual analysis, lots of petty ranting stored up and waiting to be let out.

SueR engages in the classic colonialist mindset.

The “liberal left” go batshit about a govt minster making a perfectly reasonable – and accurate – point.

The rush to defend a prim and libertarian young(ish) woman who has made a career stoking artificial outrage and being obtuse and obstructive continues.

The rush to defend a man who has not a liberal bone in his body (which is far fewer than the quite large number of liberal bones in the govt’s body re gay rights, the death penalty and managed and appropriate immigration) continues.

Pathetic.

There is a real world out there.

I have to say that I have experienced almost universal revulsion from the types I meet and hang out with casually regarding 42 days – over and over and over again. But that’s because they are totally out of it. And it is a function of the pack I run with. Extremely frustrating.

I must admit though, that, despite the fucking menagerie squawking about this, I rather chuckled at Sue R’s comment about Imperial Rome. It is indeed all over, for now, for new Labour. Good things can be achieved in the twilight chaos, however. One of those is the protection of the state and the people of the United Kingdom.

At heart, for all the numerous desultory, impassioned, serious, comical, cynical, heartfelt, arguments I have had regarding this matter, there is one basic fact.

The security of the liberal democratic state and the protection of civil society and its members is paramount. The government is not going to shirk from this task, and it isn’t going to back down. The majority popular view is with it, and in my experience it does have the support of a majority of its base, and entrenched liberal establishment views will be faced down.

No doubt all this sounds terribly and overly combative. It is. Because the right-libertarian and liberal enemy have chosen to attack the very heart and credibility of the administration and its claim to administer the state in the interests of the populace. Expect some harsh words in response. What is it with Chakrabarti? This isn’t fucking kindergarden. She attacks the government in the most wonton and vicious manner. She can expect a good deal of flack. There are plenty of us who value the advances of the last decade too much to let this sort of crap go.

So, to all you outraged liberals – outraged at both the passing of 42 days, and outraged at the “treatment” of Shami:

Eat it.

There is a real world out there – and it ain’t on your side.

But this isn’t really just about 42 days. This is about those who never wanted us to modernise. Who wanted us to stay in an outdated and irrelevant comfort zone.

And what you really, really, at heart, have to understand, is that we’ll be back. I am nobody, but people of this outlook run the Labour Party. From wards, to councils, to the national party, we’re not going anywhere – the party is chock full of us. Many of us are young. We’re not going back to extremism, or to middle class liberalism. This is about delivering serious politics of the left for people who really need it. Who don’t need fair-weather friends or liberals who decry a redistributive government.

And then, sometime, we’ll win office again. And then you can start ineffectually shrieking all over again. If you have the staying power. We do. The question, rather, is whether you do.

Good stuff , Ben!

The best Libel lawyers advise people not to sue. Arnold Goodman always did. Doesn’t Shami Chakrabarti know such lawyers? Michael Meacher embarrased himself by not taking that kind of advice. Doesn’t Shami Chakrabarti know such lawyers?

Meanwhile, hidden away is this storm in a teacup is that Shami Chakrabarti reades “Progress”. Now, that’s interesting.

Here’s another “smear” mrs B:

Veteran left-wing politician Tony Benn said people will one day look back at David Davis’ decision to force a by-election on the issue of civil liberties and say “thank God”. The controversial former Labour cabinet minister was speaking alongside Mr Davis as the pair shared a stage in Hull as part of the former shadow home secretary’s bid for re-election. Mr Benn said he supported the leading Tory’s stand adding: “David’s courage in fighting it – people will look back in the future and say ‘thank God’.”
Mr Davis introduced the meeting. He said the two men had been friends for about 10 years, but added: “You couldn’t probably, in some sense, get two people further apart than Tony and myself. The truth is that on this issue we are as one.”

Ben,

What about those of us who are against the 42 days and also think that Liberty’s stance on other matters has been pusillanimous.

Not everyone fits into your political categories.

You say:-

“The security of the liberal democratic state and the protection of civil society and its members is paramount. The government is not going to shirk from this task, and it isn’t going to back down. The majority popular view is with it, and in my experience it does have the support of a majority of its base, and entrenched liberal establishment views will be faced down.”

Chilling, ignorant and arrogant. You presume to know what security and protection consists of but have no idea of how its has been historically formed, and have no idea of the consequences of present legislative activism. The waving of “majority popular view” is selective when compared to your party’s stance over Europe.

We need a mature debate about the relationship between the citizen and the state and we are not getting it.

Actually, in the spirit of civilised political discourse that animates this thread, viz. David Toube’s injunction to Shami Chakrabarti to ‘fuck off’, I would like to add my tuppenyworth to David T in the form of a song:

(to the tune of ‘She’ll be coming round the mountains when she comes”)

“You can go and fuck your mother up the arse.
You can go and fuck your mother up the arse.
You can go and fuck your mother, go and fuck your mother, go and fuck your mother up the arse.

Oy veh..”

(Repeat ad nauseum.)

That’s what happens when political discourse is reduced to blog threads demanding ‘fuck off’. Tourettes’ -style discourse spawns many imitators. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore were much better at this kind of thing than Toube will ever be.

I can understand how someone feels like Udham Singh does if they are used to less lively forums where spurious rules of debating etiquette apply.

I just don’t understand why anyone would need to add the “Oy Veh” unless they were desperate for a reaction and thought such racism would get one.

“The “liberal left” go batshit about a govt minster making a perfectly reasonable – and accurate – point.” Ben

How do you know this Ben, are you party to Davis and Chakrabati’s conversations?

The “liberal left” go batshit about a govt minster making a perfectly reasonable – and accurate – point

OK, Ben, is English your first language? I ask because even his most partisan supporters would concede that Burnham was being sarcastic and not fucking ‘accurate’. Jeez, Labour truly is the stupid party.

Are there any experts in body language out there? I have just watched Chakrabarti doing a TV interview. Is it not true that too much blinking suggests deception? Have you seen how much this woman blinks? She is like a blinking machine gun! Watch her next she is on TV.

How dare you assume that ‘Oy veh’ is not part of *my* heritage, arse wipe!

http://ollysonions.blogspot.com/2008/06/shami-chakrabarti-publicity-is.html

Basically, David T, fuck off yourself. You can be pro-hanging and pro civil liberties.
I am.
You have bought the ZanuLab crapola. What a dweeb.

“Shami can have feet of clay on any issue she wants, and she’s ok by me”

She is a despicable little self-promoting nonentity, who picks and chooses which issues she’ll bother with.

“The rush to defend a man who has not a liberal bone in his body”

Stupid lie.

“(which is far fewer than the quite large number of liberal bones in the govt’s body re gay rights, the death penalty and managed and appropriate immigration)”

Another stupid lie. The government is full of posturing assholes who pretend to be liberal, but their instincts and policies are classic repression and totalitarianism.
Managed immigration? LOL. Do you yourself believe this crap? They themselves have been forced to admit they have no clue about the level of immigration. And they have never asked the indigenous population for their views, since they are totalitarian scum.

“Pathetic”

You sure are.

Something not many of you may know, women of Bengali descent are quick to anger.

The Pakistani/ Bengali turd world reality!
Please no more: Bad language. Leave coprolagnia to the well versed jew. Much of Asia stinks badly; this is why Japativatfree Cashchequerapidly does not live there. She will never return, to her non christian paradise. British passport holding Pakistani/Bengalis, aspire desparately, to live in a white European sewer. Does this mean our pre-war smegma free sewers smelt sweeter! Ask them?

I have long wished that Shami Chakrabati would fuck off. The minute some scumbag gets the hiding they deserve, or some dangerous religious fanatic has their feelings hurt, her irritating face pops up yet again, on another self-righteous crusade against the common good. Please, Shami Chakrabarti, just fuck off.