Luke Akehurst’s Sick Mind
I first met councillor Luke Akehurst the other week. We met for coffee in Leather Lane, and we spent a very pleasant hour talking about Hackney, its people and its politics. I enjoyed it. He seemed a nice guy.
I was astonished, then, to read this disgusting, sick, vile and idiotic statement on his blog:
Maybe instead of Labour fielding a candidate in Haltemprice & Howden we should find a Martin Bell type candidate - preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack, to run under the following 5 word candidate description: “Independent - for detaining terrorism suspects”.
I can’t believe how repulsive and politically stupid Luke’s suggestion is. Nor am I alone. Nation of Shopkeepers sums up my feelings perfectly:
Did he really mean that? Did he really mean that they should dig out a mother of someone blown to bits by terrorists and plaster her face all over an obnoxious ‘dog whistle’, knuckle dragging authoritarian campaign? The answer, unfortunately for his children, is yes, he did.
So does Rachel, who survived the terrorist bombings in London.
I expect terrorists to attack our freedoms and our democracy by using fear and terror to hurt us. I was right there, seven feet away from a 19 year old suicide bomber in my carriage on 7/7 and lucky to escape with my life when he killed 26 fellow passengers.
I object vehemently to your assumption that victims of terrorism can be waved about to us as a bloodied figleaf to cover up a naked desire to be seen to be tough on terror for entirely politcal purposes, I object to being used as a political football, and if ‘for the victims’ is going to be invoked for this kind of liberty-trashing fearmongering, then this ‘victim’ (hate that word)is going to shout right back that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
Akehurst, your opinions are disgraceful. You do not deserve to win the parliamentary seat you crave, and I hope the voters in Chatham Ward give you a good kicking when they next go to the polls. I am personally going to canvass against you and make sure every single voter knows what appalling views you hold.
NEED A UK COPYWRITER? Someone who writes crisply, convincingly and without using ugly jargon? Websites, reports, commercial bids, trade magazines, newsletters, advertisements, press releases: any job tackled quickly, effectively and at a good price. Visit www.benlocker.co.uk to find out more.
Akehurst doesn’t surprise me anymore. It always has been and will be all about getting and hanging on to power, by any means necessary.
I long for the day when Hackney Labour are finally voted out of power.
Comment by kris — 15th June, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
http://nationofshopkeepers.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/nu-labour-prat-applies-for-leave-from-being-a-member-of-the-human-race/#comment-3299
Oh dear. He’s losing it. His comments may just earn him a referral to the SBE.
Just sayin’.
Comment by kris — 15th June, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
To be fair Kris, I think those comments on that blog were made by the spoof Luke Akehurst.
Comment by Ben — 15th June, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
would that stop the SBE? heh heh.
Just sayin’.
It was his spoofster. But that doesn’t change the facts that he’s a fat stupid bastard.
Comment by kris — 15th June, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
Personally, I think Luke should resign his council seat and force a by-election… Let the voters of Chatham Ward have a say on the issue.
Comment by Ben — 15th June, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
Rather an over-reaction given that Nick Robinson suggested exactly the same thing on national TV.
Mr Davis wants a referendum on his stance on 42 days, I don’t really understand why it’s “offensive” for me to float the idea that therefore his opponent should be someone that either has professional or personal experience that has led them to the opposite conclusion.
You are very welcome to publicise my views on locking up terrorist suspects to the good electors of Chatham Ward. My hunch is they are likely to think my stance is rather ridiculously liberal.
Comment by Luke Akehurst — 15th June, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
“You are very welcome to publicise my views on locking up terrorist suspects to the good electors of Chatham Ward. My hunch is they are likely to think my stance is rather ridiculously liberal”.
Interesting.
Luke, I think the point most found objectionable was your suggestion Labour trot out a 7-7 victim or bereaved to win a seat. On closer examination of Rachel North’s and others’ posts, you’ll see that is what you’re being criticised for. Dingbat.
Ben, I’ll come along canvassing in Chatham in due course if I might.
Comment by kris — 16th June, 2008 @ 7:07 am
I didn’t suggest the candidate involved would be in any way Labour’s candidate, I said a “Martin Bell” type candidate i.e. an independent single-issue one as befits an election which has been called on a single issue. Mr Bell didn’t exactly turn out to be a friend of the Labour Party when he got elected. Mr Davis has chosen to strike a highly emmotive tone in calling this election, I think his opponents should play it just as hard, as the arguments on the other side are pretty emmotive too.
Comment by Luke Akehurst — 16th June, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Luke,
The comments you made on your blog are unforgivable - arrogance in the highest degree. You seem to have lost contact with reality. Read back through what you have written and then perhaps you might understand why so many people are so horrified with what you’ve written - it’s from across the political spectrum.
Comment by Alexander — 16th June, 2008 @ 11:37 am
A “Martin Bell” type candidate would be someone standing on an anti-corruption platform, and someone motivated by their own beliefs and principles. Not a stooge.
Dredging out someone who has suffered from terrorist attacks - either directly, or because of a family member’s experience - and then convincing them to stand on an illiberal, pro-incarceration-without-charge ticket - just to make the Labour party look a little less foolish - is a contemptible idea. It’s about exploiting someone because of who they are; it’s not about someone with powerful convictions putting themselves forward.
That, Luke, is what is so odious. If you believe differently and you’ve expressed yourself clumsily, then I suggest you do something to clear this mess up.
As for the 42 days thing, I suggest having a look at today’s Times. A fine letter from someone called David Haim:
Sir, David Blunkett argues in favour of pre-charge detention of 42 days because it is necessary (letter, June 10 ). May I remind him of what was said by William Pitt in the Commons in 1783: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
Quite.
Comment by Ben — 16th June, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
I love the way Luke Akehurst keeps citing ‘the public’ ‘the public opinion’ - it gives this perception of ‘the public’ as this big, dim, woolly sheep-like animal. Homogeneous and in need of guidance by the government. Er, the people commenting and in dissent with your opinions are the public. It’s just as valid on a blog as on an opinion poll.
Comment by annie — 16th June, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
No, comments on a blog are not as valid as an opinion poll as they are by their nature self-selecting and potentially unrepresentative.
You’ve chosen to use language like “Dredging out” and “exploiting someone” - presumably you don’t believe anyone can oppose Davis’ position in good faith, but must be suffering from false conciousness.
Ironic that Ben should quote in support of Davis William Pitt, who was responsible for the Treason Trials when radicals were arrested and put on trial for advocating democratic reforms, prosecution for sedition of publishers, suspension of habeas corpus in 1794, the Seditious Meetings Act (which restricted the right of individuals to assemble publicly), and the Combination Acts which banned unions and political campaign groups. Fairly typical reactionary Tory in other words.
Comment by Luke Akehurst — 16th June, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
You know that cliche, “when in a hole, stop digging”. In Mr Akehurst’s case, he should not only stop digging, he should start apologising. Apologise for his grotesque, savage populism; for his inability to conceive that principles might matter more to some than tribal politics do to himself; for the obscenity of his patronising put-downs to real victims of real bombs, whose hypothetical peers he wished to sign up for his hypothetical campaign against David Davis.
I don’t suppose Mr Akehurst understands much that isn’t directly related to the performance of his hidous party at the polls. So here’s an “idea” in response to the grotesque one he spawned onto his blog. I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing from Labour about how popular their policy (of six weeks detention without charge) is with the public (as though it’s either a physical constant of nature, or has any epistemic worth regarding evaluation of the policy’s hypothesis), so: why doesn’t Mr Akehurst show the way? Resign, and trigger a by-election.
Comment by Graeme Archer — 16th June, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Blimey, are there really people so lacking in compassion and empathy? This remark in the comments;
“I think Rachel’s position just goes to show that experiencing something first hand doesn’t necessarily lead you to come to the right conclusions about how to deal with it.”
is just unbelievable - how can someone be so entrenched in their political dogma? What an arrogant idiot.
Puss
Comment by Glamourpuss — 16th June, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Surely, Luke, if Labour won’t stand its own candidate, and you are trying to find someone outwith your party to stand against Davis, then you’re dredging someone up for your own political ends. I find that exploitative. And offensive. More so as you’re suggesting someone who has suffered at the hands of terrorist activity.
Anyway, nice to see we’re back in 1794. Last time we argued politics you took us on a trip back to the 1930s. It’s a shame that it’s these “reactionary Tories” you mention who are having to stop Labour - soi disant party of social justice - from banging up people for 42 days on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Back in 1997, I bet you’d never have believed it could happen.
Comment by Ben — 16th June, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
I am not aware of anyone in the Labour Party actively trying to find an independent candidate.
If one emerges, that’s a different matter and we could look at them on their merits.
Comment by Luke Akehurst — 16th June, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
“Maybe instead of Labour fielding a candidate in Haltemprice & Howden we should find a Martin Bell type candidate - preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack…”
Royal “we” or the Labour Party?
Comment by Ben — 16th June, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Ben, the operative word in the sentance you quote is “Maybe”. “We” refers to the Labour Party but I don’t actually decide what it does - I’m just one of 200,000 individual members floating an idea - in this case one you and a number of other people have expressed your strong disagreement with.
Comment by Luke Akehurst — 16th June, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Luke
Face facts: your suggestion was crass in the extreme.
You’ve had your ass handed to you from around 7-7 suvivors and other astounded around the country.
I’m not in PR, but if I were, I’d be thinking it would be time for an apology - or at least stop your compulsive digging.
Comment by kris — 17th June, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Perhaps what you were trying to say, Luke, was “wouldn’t it be good if a ‘terrorism victim’ candidate were to appear to oppose Davis and promote the 42 days”. Maybe so for Labour to save face, but this shouldn’t be about ’saving face’. Some ideas that are floated should remain unaired. (To mangle a metaphor).
Comment by Adam — 19th June, 2008 @ 12:16 am