July 23rd, 2014

Coalition Rift: Tories Ratchet Up Ward Rocket Row

This one is a kite, but the story is not going away. The Tories have grassed Ward to the old bill for “encouragement of terrorism as defined by Section 1 (2) of the Terrorism Act 2006.” In a letter to Bernard Hogan Howe, Nadhim Zahawi writes:

“I am writing in respect of a number of statements made by Mr David Ward, the Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Bradford East, on Twitter on the evening of the 22 July 2014. Mr Ward made a number of comments about the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Tragically the most recent flare up has caused deaths on both sides. However, Mr Ward went on to suggest that if he lived in the region he would wish to contribute to the violence saying he would ‘probably’ ‘fire a rocket’. I attach copies of the Tweets in question (Annex 1).

Freedom of speech is an important right, but it is not an unqualified one. This is especially true for public figures who have the capacity to influence the actions of others. Mr Ward’s tweets would appear to be prima facie evidence that he has committed the offence of encouragement of terrorism as defined by Section 1 (2) of the Terrorism Act 2006. Mr Ward may or may not have intended this statement to encourage others to fire rockets from Gaza into Israel, but regrettably he would appear to at least have been reckless as to whether others would be encouraged to commit such acts.

Of course Mr Ward must apologise for these statements, but this alone may not be enough. Mr Ward has encouraged the use of violence and may have put further lives at risk. I hope that you will begin investigating Mr Ward’s actions as a matter of urgency.”

While the letter is unlikely to come to anything, it’s interesting to see the coalition partners finally putting the boot into each other.


99 Comments

  1. 1
    ... says:

    Ultimate proof that British Politics is controlled by the Izzy fanatics.

    Like

    • 2
      Anon says:

      It is now pretty obvious.

      Like

    • 7
      Whippersnapper2 says:

      Ward is a CNUT what more is there to say?

      Like

      • 16
        Tony E says:

        Yes, the man is an ass, and holds some deeply unpleasant views. But he should not be punished for expressing them.

        Freedom of speech is more important than the feelings of those who might be offended. In fact, however unpleasant, the right to offend should be protected at all costs.

        What political parties do for their own gain (the Tories especially here trying to kick him as a proxy for the dishonourable backstabbing Clegg), is their business. However, the electors will be soon be asked to pass judgement on this man, and that is the time for Tories and others to make their voices heard in his constituency. If the Liberal Democrats think that he is incompatible with their general views, then it is for them to deselect him locally, or withdraw the whip. I wouldn’t vote for him any more than I would vote for the other current ass in the firing line, Ruffley – but that’s my business as a voter.

        But the faux outrage from Labour and the Tories is just posturing, an opportunist attack on free thought and expression for short term political gain and should be viewed in an equally poor light to the comments made.

        Liked by 2 people

        • 32
          Meds in Ward 1 says:

          Liberals always support free speech unless you disagree with them.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Dangerous Brian says:

            I think that needs widening out a bit, don’t you?

            Like

          • Hugh Janus says:

            Sounds a bit fascist to me. A bit like the Green Party saying anyone that doesn’t agree with their views on climate change should be sacked and disbarred from any future employment.

            Authoritarianism and suppressing all opposing viewpoints regardless of validity are right up there near the top of the list of the principal tenets of fascism, after all. The UAF have the same mindset – the irony!

            Like

        • 57
          Nuland & Applebaum says:

          Bravo.

          Like

      • 89
        GnosticBrian says:

        That Israel is a State founded by terrorists like the Stern Gang and Irgun and exists on land stolen from Palestinians. Guido takes easy offence at any anti-Israeli sentiment but where was the outraged condemnation of the murder of small boys playing football on a beach? By all means hold Mr Ward to account for his rhetoric but please also apply the same standards to Israel for their actions. Oh, and don’t simply respond, in Gordon Brown fashion, by listing the number of rockets fired by Hamas without mentioning the number of bombs, rockets and shells that Israel has sent in the opposite direction; how many “targetted killings”; how many illegal settlements….

        Like

        • 92
          Mr Growser says:

          Israel’s foundation was approved by a vote of the United Nations, so it probably has greater legitimacy than any other modern state, all of whom were formed through conquest at one time or another.

          Since its foundation, Israel has been under almost continuous military and political attack. International law gives the country the right to defend itself against enemies who on many occasions have said that they aim to overrun the territory and drive out or kill all Jews. You don’t have to be Jewish to remember that others made the same promise over seventy years ago and did their lunatic best to carry it out.

          If anyone thinks that Israel has no right to exist and what happens to its people is unimportant, then I cannot argue with him, only disagree, but if Israel is a legitimate state (which in my view it is), then it has a right to defend itself. This may involve dreadful suffering, more’s the pity, but that is what modern weapons do.

          I don’t like the present government of Israel (or the UK or Russia or North Korea etc etc) but I don’t challenge the state’s existence. Therefore Israel’s critics should either make a realistic suggestion towards peace or belt up. Assume that Israel wants to survive and make peace. Who should it phone?

          Like

        • 95
          Mrs Crewe says:

          I notice you are not complaining about Hamas for using children as shields. As to your historical or rather hysterical inaccurate statement of land stolen from the Palastinians, if we are going to use school yard rules of I had it first, the Jewish people had settled that land before Adam was a lad.
          But then we wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of your obvious bias.

          Like

          • Yawn says:

            No dice,Shlomo
            Problem is that the vast majority of JChews are not descended from the Israelites at all. DNA evidence proves that most Chews descend from Kazakh converts and have no lineage to Palestine at all.
            …Not that that would be relevant anyway since everybody has ancestors from somewhere.
            As it happens the Romans spent the longest in control of that region so, if anything, Palestine belongs to ITALY.

            Like

    • 78

      Freedom of Speech is either absolute, in that we can all say what we like, or else it’s not. If there are !qualifications”, then speech is not free but regulated. Guido as a good libertarian knows this.

      If cretinous LibDem Morons who happen to get elected by constituencies full of “people of ethno-religious origin”, and feel that they have to say utterly gamma-minus-semi-moronic things in order to seem like a more submissive sort of Dhimmi than the usual kinds, then that’s their affair. The cretinousness bit trips in here of course, because there’s no such thing as a “Palestinian”. There are Marxist-Leninist/vaguely-Arab/Greek/Middle-Eastern terrorist hoodlums who simply love firing rockets at people that the Western-“liberal” Media tells them to, and who hate Jews because their Nazi progenitors in WW2 told them to, and indeed tried to snuggle up to them to make trouble for us in the Eastern med. Look it up.

      Like

  2. 3
    still walking into darkness says:

    So the liblabcon evil alliance are in unison saying Ward’s comments are ‘an incitement to violence’. What about their total support for British arms manufacturing and exporting to every tin pot dictator around the world, will they condemn this incitement to violence

    Like

    • 6
      Correct says:

      Supporting the Izzies is blatant support for violence!!!

      Like

      • 19
        Hmmm...he doesn't seem to be anti-semitic to me! says:

        Like

      • 36

        Supporting Israel is supporting the right for a Nation to exist and the right to self-defence. I wish them success in exorcising a thoroughly evil islamic terrorist group then building a peaceful relationship with the citizens of Palestine. Have you considered that Israeli civilian casualties are low because the Israelis don’t use women and children as human shields to the glory of their God?

        Liked by 1 person

        • 45
          Jesus says:

          Look at how outraged the left were when they found out about a SodaStream factory that employed both Israelis and Palestinians on equal terms. They went mental and demanded a global boycott to try and force its closure. The left don’t want peace for either side.

          Liked by 2 people

        • 49
          ???! says:

          Well no, Supporting Israel is supporting the theft of land and the ethnic cleansing of millions into refugee camps at gunpoint.
          It is supporting crimes against humanity and racist supremacism.

          WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES?

          Like

          • Anon says:

            Very well said.

            Like

          • Jesus says:

            That is what I support. The world isn’t always a nice place. It only becomes a nice place when the bad people are moved on and the good people get to make use of the land.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Palestinians can start defending themselves by defenestrating the Islamic terrorists who use them as human shields. once those evil slime-balls are removed, peace will follow.

            Like

          • Yawn says:

            No, Old fartTelaviv. The Izzies wouldn’t stop at just stealing Gaza, they want a greater Izrael. Appeasing violent land thieves has never worked.

            Like

    • 9
      Whippersnapper2 says:

      That is ‘business’ Ward is a simple cnut.

      Like

  3. 4
    Maqboul the fool says:

    Jesus Christ, is Greedo being paid by the article to publish this non entity rubbish?

    Like

    • 40
      Spartacus says:

      geeders, just post the wiki page so we can save time ignoring this long winded twaddle

      More interest in the Royal Baby

      Like

  4. 5
    Correct says:

    Never, in the history of british politics, has so much sucking and arselicking been done by so many to so few for such an unethical an undeserving cause.

    Like

  5. 8
    Ockham's Razor says:

    The truth is not important. It is what people choose to believe that is.

    h/t EU Funded Pro EU Troll

    Vote UKIP and God Save The Queen! :-D

    Like

    • 15
      Bert says:

      “Freedom of speech is an important right, but it is not an unqualified one.”

      O yes it is, you utter cretin. Look up the word “free” in your Ladybird Book of Words.

      We have had no freedom of speech in Britain for years, thanks to cultural Marxists like this sanctimonious gink.

      Liked by 2 people

      • 27
        Ockham's Razor says:

        The problem is where one takes either side of the argument here. The First Amendment is under sustained attack. But shouting “Fire” needlessly in a theatre was acknowledged as an exemplary exception. Too many arguments forget the ‘needlessly’ part.

        The Schenck case and its aftermath rumbles on…

        Like

        • 34
          Bluto says:

          There is nothing about shouting “Fire”, needlessly or otherwise in the original amendment. That was invented by the hoon Hoon who misrepresented Holmes adjunction during the rotten years of New Labour and it has passed into cultural marxist lore with insufficient challenge to its absurdity. The US trend since Holmes has been to restrict this exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.

          “Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the ‘profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'”

          Legislating to prosecute for what is expressed is a form of pre-emptive content control, especially if it is as ambiguously worded as the current incitement law.

          “If A I would do B” is hardly incitement but we have reached a sorry state of affairs in this country where the law can be and is used as a political weapon to suppress freedom of expression.

          Like

          • Ockham's Razor says:

            I didn’t claim that the First Amendment did mention any “Fire” remark but was pointing out that it is now about to all but disappear in effectiveness, if not resisted.

            There have been actual examples of the false “Fire” circumstance having occurred though. If lives are lost, claiming Freedom of Speech is surely not good enough where the action was clearly irresponsibly made.

            What sanction would you propose here?

            Like

          • First amendment has some specific clauses but the real catch-all is protected vs. unprotected speech.

            ‘Fighting Talk’ for example is unprotected – that essentially covers real incitement – eg. Standing on street corner calling for folk to directly attack the government for example.

            However, this has been muddied recently by the introduction of PC etc. over there. The recent Red Socks football team copyright issue is a good example.

            The way the laws and judgements have been crafted the applicability of protected vs unprotected shifts with what is considered to be within the bounds of incitement, fighting talk etc. by society at a point in time.

            Ultimately requires Supreme Court judgements to properly shift goal posts, but that is what it is.

            Calling for actions in a remote location would be protected, provided it was not inciting domestic citizens to take certain actions. It is the actions which count and are covered by T’errorism Legislation.

            There is nothing in this tweet fiasco anyway. Unless a by-election comes up in which case:

            Vote UKIP :-D

            Like

        • 62
          Twampersand mk II says:

          It’s a false analogy. The freedom of speech laws are there to protect the citizen from the government because of his ideology, however allegedly ridiculous that ideology is. The freedom of speech permits a person to believe that there is a fire in a theatre, and to express that belief. It permits that person to continually express that belief. No one has been arrested for holding the belief that there is a fire in such and such a place, but this example is so often used to prevent people from saying other things, such as we should bomb so and so, for example. David Cameron did that very thing recently when he wanted to invade Syria. And the Ukraine. But the law doesn’t apply to him, obviously.

          The only exceptions that have ever been in place are the libel/slander laws, which, until recently, did not include mere abuse. One was entitled to believe, and express the belief, that x is a çunt/neeger/fat twat. Now you get arrested for it. Mostly because people allow the thin end of the wedge with this partial freedom (which is therefore no freedom at all) to express whatever belief they see fit, including that such and such a place is on fire.

          Like

          • See unprotected vs protected speech in relation to first amendment.

            You’re close, but there are a few other subtle tricks and it is not really to do with libel / slander over there.

            Fun fact: Sedition is still an offence in the US that is prosecuted.

            Vote UKIP :-D

            Like

          • Twampersand mk II says:

            The point I’m making is that it is the belief that is protected. All beliefs, even ones which we find abhorrent. Expressing your beliefs is not the same thing as incitement. Incitement requires a conspiracy, it requires organisation and it requires an action. No incitement to riot has taken place if a man expresses his views which others think inciteful, and then no riot takes place. Nor is it necessarily incitement to hold inflammatory viewpoint which other then choose to take to extremes, WITH THEIR ACTIONS, not their thoughts or words.

            It is so dangerous to allow the precept in law that a man may not believe such and such. Once that is set in stone, voting UKIP will be as socially acceptable as voting BeeNPee. Calling the PM a wanker, which he clearly is, will be illegal. Thinking that Izlam is shit will be a death sentence when they take over, using our laws against us.

            Speech is either free, or it’s not, and in the UK it is clearly not.

            Like

          • Bluto says:

            “What sanction would you propose here?”

            I wouldn’t. Freedom of expression should mean just that. Incitement was an inchoate act under common law and required no elaboration. It meant persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime. As a crime it also required guilty intent, in other words a deliberate incitement with malicious intent. Ward did not do that and even if he had the crime would not be under British legal jurisdiction.

            UK governments in 1976, 1986, 1994 and 2006 introduced the entirely unnecessary and far too broad notion of an incitement to hatred mainly in response to their own stupid and reckless immigration policies. Hatred is not a crime in common law and in logic cannot be prosecuted as a crime (because you can hate without anyone knowing it – it is an emotion). In effect that criminalised the expression of hatred on racial or religious grounds but it was and is bad law. And it is badly enforced too. Thus it is a censorship of freedom of expression because it can never prevent a person hating but only seeks to prevent them from expressing that hatred.

            Like

          • Bluto says:

            “Expressing your beliefs is not the same thing as incitement.”

            The common law inchoate crime of incitement required persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime. The essential good sense of that law has now been tinkered with and undermined by governments intent on legislating for beliefs, not to stop them being held which is impossible but to stop them being expressed which is censorship.

            It is bad law, made by fools and enforced by lesser fools with inherent dangers for democracy and freedom.

            Like

    • 21
      The Lone Ranger says:

      +1 Vote UKIP :)

      Like

  6. 10
    Cleggy says:

    Shit. What do I do now?

    Like

  7. 11
    Witty Monker says:

    You see Lefties? When you curb free speech (incitement to terrorism, my arse) it’s your free speech that can be silenced too. Suck it up.

    Like

    • 38
      Beats me ? says:

      Why do Liberals and Socialists go so Fascistic over Palestine while giving our country away ?

      Like

  8. 12
    Sam the Skull drinking Buckfast in Maryhill and occasionally dodging the Strathclyde constabulary says:

    True Scotsman, loyal Briton, and world-class humanitarian Gordon Brown has declared for all to hear: “Bring back our girls!” What can Boko Haram do other than comply? Argument over, business settled, case closed.

    Like

  9. 14
    Anonymous says:

    I hope the police will consider whether this MP should be charged with wasting police time.

    Like

  10. 18
    Jimmy says:

    “This one is a kite,”

    That had better not be a typo.

    Like

  11. 20
    Blue Peter Goldfish says:

    Lib/Dems, not the sort of people you would like living on your street.

    Like

  12. 22
    Deutschland uber Alles says:

    Guido’s guote of the day: “McVey told Grazia that she hasn’t married or had children because she ‘never found anyone to wind her biological clock.'”

    German performance has been much praised in recent days. Perhaps they could assist in this situation.

    Like

  13. 23
    Old Blue Eyes says:

    That Ward is still a Lib Dem MP after all the warnings he has had about his activities tells you all you need to know about that utterly discredited party They deserve to be wiped out at the next general election and those that vote for them should have their head examined.

    Like

  14. 24
    visibly shaken says:

    You better just start dealing with it, Hudson! Listen to me! Just deal with it, because we need you and I’m sick of your bullskit.

    Like

  15. 26
    FreeSpeechDiedALongTimeAgo says:

    I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    Like

  16. 28

    How the Conservatives – who are funded by a guy who enables the shooting down of Civilian Airliners – can criticize Ward on his rockets position is incredible.

    Priorities.

    ISIS should be able to shut down the !ranian supply routes once R’amadan is over, and H’amas must be nearly out of inventory by now. Unlike C’ameron’s crony’s their rockets don’t work that well.

    Vote UKIP :-D

    Like

    • 73
      Nuland & Applebaum says:

      I’ll give you this, Eurotroll, you’re persistent in your propaganda. If you had read the latest US AP release, you would have seen that it is devoid of any real proof whatsoever. Plenty of ‘might have’s’, ‘could be’s’ etc. Basically, it’s crap.

      Keep in mind that SAM’s like the BUK-1 or SA-11 have a very obvious signature, and back-tracking these devices is routine. Consider also that the US had a satellite over the area, plus intell and monitoring on the ground. Now add the two together, and you can see that Uncle Sam’s utter failure to provide ANY real info. on this incident gives a clear message. For the hard of understanding, let me translate it. ‘The rebels didn’t do it. The Ukies did but we can’t go back on our idiot politicians’ initial knee-jerk responses because its too embarrassing.’

      The US intelligence officers, many of who are dedicated and honorable professionals, must loathe the current White House.

      Vote UKIP.

      Like

  17. 30
    Ockham's Razor says:

    John Blundell RIP

    Only 61. Too young.

    Like

  18. 31
    Owen Jones QC says:

    I sentence David Ward to a public flogging with a minimum of 500 lashes.

    Now take this lump of excrement down.

    Like

  19. 33
    Diane Abbott says:

    Don’t forget me, I’m a racist too.

    Like

  20. 35
    Brokerman says:

    Exposed. Self styled “ex Goldman Sach (of shit) trader” Anton Kreil is a LIAR

    http://guerillainvesting.co.uk/2014/07/23/anton-kreil-is-a-liar/

    Liked by 1 person

  21. 39
    David War says:

    You joooze had it coming.

    Like

  22. 41
    the Black Death says:

    hello

    Like

    • 64
      conclete pump says:

      Herro…

      Like

    • 67
      The long view says:

      .Good grief – we’d have to go back to you to find a bigger disaster in British history than the ultimate consequences of letting in millions of followers of the RoP.

      Like

  23. 42
    Is this the Caption Competition ? says:

    Birmingham schools introduce humanity lessons.

    Like

  24. 43

    A jihadist MP is appropriate for 21st century London

    Like

  25. 44
    David Wisteria says:

    Tooday I am visiting the Shetlands.

    There should be no embarrassing problems there.

    Like

    • 52
      Anonymous says:

      The good people of Shetland are going to be loaded. Shetland basin has field with largest reserves. DC will offer the islanders an ‘Our Islands, Our Future’ deal not reflected in SNP numbers.

      Like

  26. 48
    Handycock says:

    Disgraceful behaviour by an MP.

    Like

  27. 51
    Ockham's Razor says:

    Fuchsia is one of the most misspelled words in the English language.

    If David Ward had one more IQ point, he would be a fuchsia himself.

    Like

  28. 53
    Now watch this get deleted says:

    Like

  29. 54
    sixupman says:

    What a load of rubbish!

    Like

  30. 56
    Anonymous says:

    Like

  31. 60
    Di Abbott says:

    Shame it wasn’t me ,but Owen is a worthy winner yet again.

    ‘One for each cheek!’ Owen Jones snaps up Rear of the Year award for the second time.

    Well done Owen.

    Like

  32. 61
    Anonymous says:

    Most People are impressed and influenced by what Nadhim Zahawi says, NOT!

    His own website yougov disses him.

    https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Nadhim_Zahawi

    Like

  33. 70
    Bardirect says:

    When did resistance against an occupier become illegal?

    Like

    • 77
      Mr. Rothschild says:

      It’s only illegal when the occupier is Israel.

      Like

    • 82
      Anonymous says:

      Israel are not occupying Gaza, dipshit.

      Like

      • 86
        Bardirect says:

        Of course Gaza has open borders. Apart from the Egyptian ones which have to stay closed under the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, and the Israeli ones which Israel doesn’t open. They can always leave and arrive by sea, I suppose although Israel will board or blow up any vessel going either way. And Israel destroyed the runway at Gaza airport. I have to wonder what your definition of “occupied” would be.

        Like

  34. 76

    Oh vey, think of ze children! Its another shoah!

    Like

  35. 85
    The Voice of Reason says:

    That’s a bit rich, given they were trying to get us to ally with ISIS in Syria only a year ago.

    Like

  36. 87
    The Voice of Reason says:

    Does Mr Zahawi have our best interests at heart?

    http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/07/08/national/illegal-immigrants-find-support-in-uk/

    Has he ever condemned terrorist actions by Kurdish groups?

    It would be interesting to know.

    Like

  37. 91
    Ward spreads misinformation which in turn spreads anti- zemitism. Help defeat it and stay informed says:

    http://www.adl.org/sp/israel-under-attack/protest-video.html

    Anti- zemitism is showing its ugly face again.

    Like

  38. 94
    Anonymous says:

    King David Hotel. Monday July 22nd 1946.

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Ed Balls’ Speech Was Pointless | Dan Hodges
Media Movements: James Lyons to Sunday Times | Media Guido
Rebekah Brooks in Line for £7 Million Payout | Times
A Different Sort of Class War | Telegraph
Labour Candidate’s Links to Ex-BNP Member | Breitbart
McVey Dodges White Dee Debate | Speccie
Labour Candidate: Churchill Was a White Supremacist | Mail
LibDems Stand By Disgraced Sex Offender-Linked Mayor | MK
Has Carol Mills Given Up on Westminster? | Canberra Times
Labour Consider Banning Uber | Asa Bennett
Did LibDems Make Up Hancock Disciplinary Meeting? | Scrapbook


VOTER-RECALL
Find out more about PLMR


Eddie Izzard, in his thirteenth year involved in politics, says he’s not cursed because it took Sir Alex Ferguson “seven years to win the premiership so it doesn’t really matter.”



cynic says:

Can anyone help me? I went on holiday a week ago and returned to find someone has pulled out the stake and Gordon Brown is back and acting as Prime Minister. What did I miss? Has there been a snap election?


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,468 other followers