Davids Blog

Happy new year

Posted by David on Monday, 08 January 2007 10:35:42

So, this is my first post of 2007 - sorry I haven’t posted anything for a while. Here are my answers to your latest questions.

 

1: Shameless dodging of Guido Fawkes question

I ’m sorry you feel I didn’t answer the question. These are the entities through which individuals – whom we have named – have chosen to lend us money.

Here is the link to the list of all our lenders and the amount they lent, as of March last year, which we published at the end of that month. This makes it quite clear who the individuals, the lenders, and the amounts are. Our lenders are also published on the Electoral Commission website.

You asked why the party accepted certain loans from particular sources. The answer is that we needed the money to fight the general election and rebuild the Party and we turned to well known long term party supporters. All these individuals were named in our March press release.

Although all of this meets the requirements of the current law, I believe the law needs to change and have set out the kind of changes I want to see.

*
It states:

“Our lenders, as of 31st March 2006, amount to £16million as follows:
Beneficial Interest Amount

Henry Angest Treasurer 550,000

Lord Ashcroft Deputy Chairman & former Treasurer 3,600,000

Dame Vivien Duffield 250,000

Johan Eliasch Deputy Treasurer 2,600,000

Alan Lewis CBE Former Treasurer 100,000

Cringle Corporation Ltd 450,000

Graham Facks-Martin Conservative Cllr 50,000

Michael Hintze 2,500,000

Lord Laidlaw 3,500,000

Victoria, Lady de Rothschild Former Treasurer 1,000,000

Raymond Richards (deceased) 1,000,000

Lord Steinberg Former Treasurer 250,000

Charles Wigoder 100,000

Total £15,950,000”

 

2: proposed legislation on ' violent pornography '

I think most people would agree that the pornography the Government wants to tackle is well beyond the pale. The kind of thing they say they are talking about is violence which is life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury.

[update: following responses to this post we have deleted a section of David's response]

At the moment, everyone is able to report to the Internet Watch Foundation computer pornography which is criminally obscene and which is hosted in the UK.

But as you say, the Government now wants to legislate to ban the possession of extreme pornography, for example off the internet on sites from overseas. The Bill has yet to be introduced to Parliament but, once it is published, we will obviously consider the proposals very carefully. The Government says it has looked at things like human rights considerations. But with any new legislation, we will need to make sure it is necessary and that it will work properly and fairly before we decide whether or not to back it.

 

3: PROSTITUTION - should it be legalised?

It’s tragic that it took the recent appalling events you mention to cast a spotlight on what has long been a very serious social problem. It’s right that we all think about what can be done about it. But the short answer to your question is that I’m not convinced legalising prostitution is the way forward.

Instead I think we need to pay more attention to the factors which drive people into prostitution in the first place. That includes combating drug misuse, family breakdown, child abuse and debt. Nine in ten prostitutes are on drugs. Hearing some of the life stories of the women drawn into prostitution in Ipswich was a poignant reminder of just how important it is that we break that link - for example through drug treatment for prostitutes.

Of course we also need to combat kerb crawlers and take a tough approach to those who take advantage of and perpetuate the vicious circle of prostitution, drug abuse and serious crime. But without tackling the serious underlying social problems which underpin prostitution, the situation will simply get worse and we will be letting down some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society.

There are other things we should do too. Thousands of women are victims of people trafficking and are being forced to work as prostitutes. We need to police our borders, prosecute traffickers, and protect victims, and David Davis announced proposals on this last week .

 

4:Question for David: Should the UK have new privacy laws to settle concerns about Big Brother?

I think there are two separate questions here.

Is the Government promoting too much intrusion into people’s private lives? Yes. From plans for a national ID cards database, through chips in wheelie bins to check your rubbish, to council tax inspectors knocking on your door, it’s clear that the liberties and privacy of honest law-abiding citizens are being eroded.

Of course that doesn’t mean people are against CCTV in their neighbourhoods where it helps tackle crime. But it does mean we should listen to the warning of the Government’s own Information Commissioner, who has said the country could “sleepwalk into a surveillance society”.

But the second question is whether a new law is necessarily the answer. I don’t think so. Simply bringing in another new law every time there is a problem is one of this Government’s failings. In fact often – like the legislation on ID cards – it is one of its laws which is the problem in the first place. What we need is a new approach, in which we emphasise the principle of liberty under the law and base our policies on that.

 

5: Political Correctness and British Pride

Well, Happy New Year!

You raise a lot of points.

We have to start by recognising that sometimes, what was labelled “political correctness” in the past was in fact simply a case of showing respect to other people. So in general I’m not one to jump up and down every day about “political correctness gone mad”. But we need to use common sense, and we shouldn’t go around looking for offence where none has been caused.

But you raise a more fundamental point about the nature of our society. Britain is rightly proud of its ethnically diverse society. That has long been an important aspect of our country which we are right to celebrate, and I’m sure the final paragraph of your question doesn’t imply otherwise. But maybe sometimes we need to focus a bit more on what unites us rather than what divides us all. There are no easy answers, but there are things we can do which can help bring people together – like citizenship ceremonies; teaching English to new arrivals; school exchanges; and a national school leaver programme that brings young people together from all parts of the country.

These are not really questions of being PC or non-PC, they are just ways to help us bring people and society together. I think that’s the best way to look at all this.

And please wish your Sociology teacher a Happy New Year too, on my behalf!

, , ,

You could comment if you logged in | Read comments


 

Posted by jez9999 on Monday, 08 January 2007 10:51:58

Awwww, no video blog of these answers? Come on David, get your webcam out!

Posted by webcameronator on Monday, 08 January 2007 11:46:56

There is no indication on the original posts that these questions have been addressed by David Cameron.
I have posted a link to this page, and quoted the response in the comments associated with each post. This is not ideal. A good solution would be a prominent banner / note in the post header stating that the particular post gained enough votes to receive a reply from DC and to link to the post. The response content could be added to the comments, and highlighted by a prominent position and/or distinctive styling.

Posted by webcameronator on Monday, 08 January 2007 12:14:45

On your answers:

1. Why can't you state the individuals, lenders and amounts clearly on the same page? Your answer is suggesting I have to go to one list where individuals and amounts are listed, and then use the lenders and amounts list in order to produce a table for myself by matching up the amounts?

It's hardly clear and transparent, and I don't think its complete, for example the question: "who is the individual (or individuals/company) behind the Medlina foundation?" goes unanswered.

2. Why aren't the police the appropriate people to report criminality to in this case?

4. "that doesn’t mean people are against CCTV in their neighbourhoods" I disagree. I don't mind CCTV in public areas but encroachment into residential areas where they are covering private homes and property is something I find generally intrusive. If there is a justification for potentially intrusive CCTV then I think it has to be very carefully regulated, and those running it need to be democratically accountable and working to published agreed protocols.

Posted by phantom on Monday, 08 January 2007 12:54:17

Regarding the response on 'violent pornography':

Well, let me say the initial comments worry me a little, as they indicate an agreement on principle with Labour baseless position. What exactly does 'beyond the pale' mean, when it comes to another person's sexual interest or curiosity?
I would have thought private sexuality well beyond the realm of politicians.
With child pornography I fully support the notion of prohibition, but with consensually produced adult pornography? I am yet to hear a sound reason for this.
Also the mention of the Longhurst petition inspires doubt in my mind. The petition in question was raised on the premise that Graham Coutts was guilty of the murder of Jane Longhurst. Currently however this case has been ordered for retrial, it being cast into doubt if it was in fact a murder. Aside from this, it is worth pointing out that the petition asked for sites promoting violence against women to be closed. It is unproven if the pornography the government seeks to prohibit does anything to promote violence against women (in fact soem statistical evidence suggests it might do the opposite), but the government is not at all addressing closure of websites but instead is attacking private ownership. Given therefore that the actual inspiration for the petition is now in question, that its assumption of 'promotion of violence' is being questioned and that the government is not addressing the petition's principle wish anyhow, one can but question the relevance of this petition to this proposal.

The below sentence, however, does give me hope that the Conservatives might yet see the light on this issue:
'But with any new legislation, we will need to make sure it is necessary and that it will work properly and fairly before we decide whether or not to back it.'
I can't argue strongly enough that a case for necessity of this law has not been made. Finding something 'beyond the pale' on matters of taste alone is not a sufficient necessity for legal prohibition. I have highlighted time and time again that the law will in fact not work properly and will be used arbitrarily. I stress our opposition is based on considerable force of legal opinion, having professors and doctors of law in the ranks of those who opposed it in consultation and having had a leading QC (and deputy high court judge) present detailed legal argument against this legislation to the Home Office.

If anyone in the high ranking echelons of the Conservative Party wishes to speak to me on this matter, I am well willing to communicate with them on this ('off the record' if they so desire) in order to provide them with the reasoned views of the opposition to this proposed law.

Posted by Mark23 on Monday, 08 January 2007 12:57:57

Well, again I think it's great to see the leader of the Conservatives addressing folk's questions in this way, because some of them are difficult for a politician to answer without shooting their own feet or being accused of not answering the question. I think he's achieved the right balance.

Happy New Year David and again great to see the interaction - I hope you can entrench this approach into politics.

Mark

Posted by budgie on Monday, 08 January 2007 13:17:18

David, with regard to the violent pornography question. You might like to edit your reply. Although a verdict of murder was originally brought against Mr Coutts, this decision has been quashed and he is awaiting a retrial.

It could well be that MsLonghurst's death was nothing more than an unfortunate accident and a statement from the leader of the Opposition that MsLonghurst has been murdered could prejudice Mr Coutts entitlement to a fair retrial.

I agree wholeheartedly with phantom, just because something is regarded as "beyond the pale" by one person, it does not necessarily follow that everyone sees it that way. There is no justification for imprisoning people on the grounds that they look at something which is not to the taste of others. Please bear in mind that we are not talking about pictures where death or serious injury has occurred, we are talking about images which merely give that appearance, as do hundreds of mainstream movies.

I am heartened to hear you say that you will need to look at the bill to see if this law is "necessary". To be necessary, surely the Government has to show that harm will be caused if people are allowed to look at these images. This is something they have spectacularly failed to do and have admitted themselves in their Consultation document that despite numerous studies, there is no conclusive evidence of harm caused by viewing pornography. This appears to be a law that the Government want to create based on taste, not necessity.

Please do not merely take the word of the Government that they have looked at the Human Rights considerations. It is the duty of the Opposition to challenge the Government rather than taking their word on these matters. I am sure you have eminent Human Rights Barristers within the Conservative Party and I would urge you to ask for their views on whether these proposals would be compatible with the HRA. If the Government says it has looked at the HR issue then presumably it has taken the legal advice of experts. Please press for this advice to be made public, as all attempts to do so, so far, have been blocked.



Posted by Geddes on Monday, 08 January 2007 17:36:08

Thank you Mr Cameron, you have truly answered all the posts (just a shame that it wasn't video :P). I realise what I may have said is very pessimistic, and I should have also focused on the positives of our society. Thank you again.

Posted by leshy on Monday, 08 January 2007 20:49:12

PC is not a democratic phenomenon - it is a name for the Communist practice of self-censorship, from fear of the dreadful consequences if one did not comply ( active persecution " unto destruction " .. the penalty for non-compliance with tyranny )

DC correctly intuits the things that unite are stronger by far, than any prescriptivism/drive to an ideological conformism. Yet he falls at the first post - which is that of changing the balance of the dire & worsening state of social relations which languish under mounting pressure through the undeclared psywar of an unregulated media constructing globality by inciting the nations to criminality

What then needs to be done ( to quote Vladimir Lenine ( Blank ) - arch-enemy of human freedom that he was ) ?

1. The promotion & advocacy of crime as the sole industry of the people needs to be discouraged by the Security Services as it once was.

2. Once this could be done through the law; but the law was subverted -

3. So other means will have to be found - discretionary ones, as were those used by the Services, perhaps ..

4. Make life safe again !

5. Reclaim the streets from thieves, vandals, disturbers of the peace, & murderers !

6. Return the mandate to our Special Forces that they once had - to pursue the enemies of the Crown, & to neutralize them.

The palliatives suggested by DC do not even begin to approach the centrality of the problem as it exists.

What is needed is to re-possess the PD, regain the initiative - take it all back from the forces of negativity, re-establish a climate of safety for all ( especially the weak, the old, the sick, the unemployed ), to secure the peace of the realm once again

Who but a monster would have set our security onto the wageless weak like dogs, to harry and to persecute them ?
Who but a loving heart could redress the balance, and establish Justice in the land on every side ?

David Cameron - are You the One ? Are you up to the Challenge ? Can you change the course of irreversible decline ?

L

Posted by Rustinmann on Tuesday, 09 January 2007 10:29:15

With regards to legalising prostitution, I find it interesting that Mr Cameron has quoted "Nine in ten prostitutes are on drugs". This is lifted directly from the Home Office consultation exercise, Paying the Price (2004). Unfortunately the Home Office has got it wrong yet again, it claims that 90% of UK sex workers are addicted to heroin and/or crack, or that 45% were abused as children.

The reality is somewhat different. The research carried out by Sophie Day (Goldsmiths College) and Helen Ward (Imperial College) from the mid-1980s to 2000 showed that Injecting drug use was uncommon (7%), crack use declined towards the end of the 1990s, alcohol use and "addiction" has become more common and violence is found throughout the industry.

However it is Government Policy that makes sex workers vulnerable, outdoors and indoors. In the last 10 years these policies have become more punitive through the use of Asbos, street "cleaning" purges, fines, imprisonment and deportation.

We find that the most significant health problems reported in their studies related to stigma and criminalisation and again it is Government Policy and the Media that is the cause.

Perhaps Mr Cameron should re-think his stance in light of a proper study and then base his Policy upon Evidence Based Burden of Proof instead of Home Office Propaganda?

Moving on to the Violent Pornography Legislation. This is an extremely ill thought out piece of nasty legislation.

Recently there was a man who was jailed for six months for 'commiting an act of bestiality' - it's a good job he didn't take a picture he would have got 3 years!!! I would really like to know how the punishment fits the crime.

The fact is we don't actually need this legislation, we already have the Obscene Publications Act and supporting legislation. The only difference between these systems is that one makes a case for material that is 'suitable for prosecution' and the other for 'prosecutable material', one is subjective the other is objective.

And once again we should have evidence based burden of proof legislation and not legislation on the grounds of personal morals.

Posted by shaunhw on Wednesday, 10 January 2007 12:28:37

RE Violent Pornography:

Beyond the pale ? Certainly so, if the pictures involved were PROVABLY recordings of REAL BRUTAL HARM. In such a case I would have no objection to them being criminal to possess, if their owner was aware of that.

But otherwise, it is the CRIMINALISING the expression of peoples' imagination, in FAKE or STAGED pictures which is "beyond the pale" in any (so called) FREE (?) country and it should be opposed.

Otherwise, soon such creeping repression will be coming to something which might interest YOU.

It's small wonder people don't trust politicians. Of any political persuasion. They are simply not to be trusted with ones freedom and rights are they ?

In this case they should remember that MOST INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE who responded, OPPOSED the suggestions in the relevant Home Office consultation.

Possession of FAKE pictures SHOULD NOT be made illegal, simply to make the job of law enforcement easier.