This is an unusual position. A Conservative parliamentary candidate advocating law breaking during a direct action trial. He’s a big Tory donor and friend of David Cameron. I would have thought that his statement would have been followed up, as presumably, this is not Conservative Party policy.
Update
Hurray, John Rentoul and Melanie Phillips have picked it up on their blogs. EU referendum blog wonders where the Tory bloggers are.
7 comments ↓
But it hasn’t been established that a crime was committed yet, has it? If their defence that they were seeking to prevent a crime is accepted, then they won’t have broken the law.
I do think, however, that they could’ve graffitied something more imaginative than the word “Gordon”.
Goldsmith is a supporter of the Countryside Alliance and chum of Kate Hoey (CA chair and Tory stooge), the description odious is far too tame…
Not commenting any deeper here than an analysis of the facts. What Goldsmith actually said was “direct action protests could be justified in the minds of many people to prevent “much larger crimes” being committed.”
That is significantly different from saying he agreed with it, and it is certainly a truthful statement.
I really dislike seeing quotes cut short or used out of context to make up a story or make it more serious. Naughty!!
Actually Martin there is a link to the main article allowing people to make up their own minds. This is a personal blog. Opinions are freely expressed and axes are ground. The comments section is open, allowing debate, rebuttal and a right to reply.
I read his cleverly crafted words and clearly understood them to mean that he supported direct action.
He used the words “much larger crimes” in a way that suggested to me that if an individual felt that the will of the people, codified in law by our democratically elected representatives, was wrong, then they had a right to take the law into their own hands. Don’t get me wrong, this is an age old debate but it is interesting because a character so close to David Cameron is saying it.
My final point is that we’ll never really know what his precise position is. The media chose not to ask him to clarify what he meant by this nor ask if David Cameron agreed with the statement of a close ally and donor.
Interesting. Where are the Tory blogs?
I generally agree with Martin. While Tom is correct that we will probably not really know what his precise position is, this kind of word play is the sort of thing that occurs everyday with politicians of all persuasions.
This tactic has since become the status quo for public statements from all sorts of people.
It’s unfair to say the media chose not to ask for clarification as the linked article (the only thing I have read on the subject) is reporting on court proceedings, it’s not an interview. I doubt the Judge would have taken to kindly if the Times’ reporter started to cross-examine Goldsmith.
I’m not sure if the media following up with Goldsmith before the outcome of the proceedings would be sub judice?
So, to sum up, speak your mind, one and all! Unless, of course, you get fired for it (Joan Ryan, Siobhain McDonagh). Then probably not. Seriously.
Of coursae direct action can be acceptable – pity that ‘new labour’ MP’s are reduced to seeking the support of Melanie Phillips rather than treating the issue seriously.
And then you wonder why some of us won’t be voting Labour next time?
Leave a Comment