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, basic