My e-mail to David Davis

[shane]

Dear Mr Davis,

Congratulations on your by-election victory.

I was highly impressed by your recent stance against the Labour government's assault on British liberty.

However, after having followed the by-election campaigns of you and your fellow candidates over the last few days, I must say I am bitterly disappointed.

I would very much like to know why, Mr Davis, if you are "for freedom" as you profess to be on your website, was fellow candidate David Icke not allowed to attend your public meeting with Bob Geldof?

Mr Icke attended the Hull Guildhall with a resident from the Haltemprice and Howden constituency, with tickets booked through the local Conservative Party in her name, to see the presentation.

The resident was told, as was everyone else, that this was a public debate open to anyone so long as they had a ticket booked. The event was advertised as such on your website.

However as soon as your minders saw David Icke everything changed. Suddenly it was a ‘private’ event that only invited people could attend. This was clearly untrue.

Also, I understand that you refused to debate the emerging "Big Brother State" with Mr Icke days earlier.

Clearly none of this behaviour is congruent with someone who claims to be "for freedom" and opposed to "Big Brother".

I find this confusing and would appreciate an explanation at your earliest convenience.


I sent that on Friday. I expect I'll get some sort of reply from one of his lackeys, which most probably won't address anything I've said. But I also won't be surprised if I get nothing back at all

I don't care either way, I just like to remind the likes of DD that they can't fool all the people.

[beldazar]

I sent him one but I didnt bother asking any questions so I dont expect a reply. I really hope you do, it will be interesting to see what he has to say!

[shane]

If he does reply, I expect he'll do what career politicians always do - say a whole lot without actually saying anything...

[psych641]

He didnt even talk properly to the greens! I heard their candidate was let into the meeting but was told something like theyd run out of seats or something.

[knockoutgorilla]

As a friend of mine once said"I'm happy with the world i live in and don't want to hear your nonsense"

The politician's of this world think that we are all like this.we the truth seekers no that this isn't the case and if we keep spreading the truth we will crush there lies.

Lets hope you get a reply,just so they know that were not all brain dead morons happy to follow the other sheep.

[mercuryrapids]

He didnt even talk properly to the greens! I heard their candidate was let into the meeting but was told something like theyd run out of seats or something.

Yeah, the Green candidate was on the news sating that other candidates were allowed in after everybody else, but they were stuck right at the back, standing up. At least the others got in. David didn't even get through the door. Shows how dangerous he is to 'the agenda', IMO.

[legendary]

[I]
I don't care either way, I just like to remind the likes of DD that they can't fool all the people.

"you can't fool all the people all of the time, but if you fool the right ones, then the rest will fall in line" - Dead Prez;)

[largejack]

He didn't reply to me, nor David Icke for that matter. I think he needs his computer fixing, his emails don't seem to be getting through?:D

[cacadores]

[I]Dear Mr Davis, Congratulations on your by-election victory......
David Icke was excluded so that his presence didn't overshadow Davies' meeting, I think that's pretty understandable in politics.

Good that you did something, in my opinion. I would only gently point out that honesty demands our questions are true questions too (as opposed to questions we already know the answer too!). There are things we could ask David Davies and things we can tell him without alienating him.

There's every possibility that he's still genuine, that he hasn't been totally corrupted yet. I'd be more interested if he knows the business backgrounds of his financial backers now, so that they don't gt a chance to call in their debts when he ever gets to be Prime Minister.

[cacadores]

With respect, I'm not a 'peasent' ;) ....... I know what you mean, but ask yourself if this helps us reach the truth, or if you might be simply using words to distort.

It's speculation: all even David Icke knows is about two of Davis's backers. Honesty demands honesty of all of us and after all: we're more likely to find it if we keep an open mind. I'm happy to view what you say as a possibility, but if you hold the view too strongly, you surely close your mind to alternatives. Have a look at David Davis's background: you'll find it was not a narrow establishment background at all.

What do you think?

[lightgiver]

All these politicians read from pre scripted garbage ,so it makes not the slightest difference to them ,what WE think.
Time for revolution;):D

[legendary]

revolution isn't the way forward the masses are far too indoctrinated for that. if we revolted we would be invaded by America and the EU most likely if we even succeeded. the way to progress is to enter politics yourself. the youth of today are the next generation of politicians, and if we can act soon enough we can stop their plans before it's too late


p.s. David Davis's rejection of Icke could simply be because he does not wish to become politically associated with somebody who has already been thrown into disrepute due to some of his theories which are more questionable than others.
Nigel Farrage campaigns for independance from the EU but at the same time he avoids relating to less respected groups such as the BNP because they undermine the image of UKIP to the public, which is what is important. Sadly at the same time this encorporates NWO tactics in order to overthrow their aims, and as Lord Acton said "all power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Those who free us from tyranny could well be the tyrants of tomorrow

[cacadores]

All these politicians read from pre scripted garbage ,so it makes not the slightest difference to them ,what WE think.
Time for revolution;):DAllow me to say that a line like that that simply isn't good enough.

Every country needs some leaders: ipso facto they all become politicians and so 'revolution' would simply replace some leaders with others and probably cause a lot of innocent deaths. And I personallly have no wish to live in anarchy, where the bullies and thieves take over. Government by the proletariat is govenment by graft and grafters.

There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater: Britain and the USA have, had, or are supposed to have: Habeous Corpus, jury trials, the Magna Carta, the nominal right of free speech, a law that is above all, the law of treason, the right to impeach the Head of State, a nominally free press and a democratic, pluralist system. Even other so-called 'liberal' western states don't have all this: in France and Italy the head of state has certain immunities and there are no jury trials for example.

The sensible course is to strengthen what there is, to use it to condemn the people who are plotting power over us without our consent and to shout loudly when anyone, be it the Federal Reserve, the EU, the 'Illuminati' or anyone try to take our rights.

To use the rights we do have to fight back, not to throw away all our rights and then wonder why the bullies win. I reckon

[legendary]

anarchism is the way forward bring on the spontaneous revolution lol
personally collectivist anarchism is the future for me although how it would be brought about is a mystery

[cacadores]

anarchism is the way forward bring on the spontaneous revolution lol
personally collectivist anarchism is the future for me although how it would be brought about is a mysteryIt's no mystery, 'Legendary'. It happened, in Russia it began between 1917 and 1922. Great: anarchy, workers taking over the factories, end of wage enslavement.....great. Hurrah!


Except then the food started to run out................




Legendary and Lenin

So forced collectivism was the response made by the voluntary collectives in the cities to the fact that their production had plummetted so fast that they had nothing to trade for foodstuffs from the country districts. So, they came up with the idea of country collectivism: basically a means of forcing farmers to store all their produce in centralised storerooms, so that the bolshiviks could drive up in their lorries and steal it all. By taking control of the food supply, they took control of everyone. Farmers didn't like this idea? Start the Terror: kill large numbers of them until the rest agree.

Industrial collectivism meanwhile, doesn't work, because if everyone is being paid the same, it's in your interest to work the mimimum. If there's anyone from Eastern Europe here, they'll tell you what it was like: life, literally in grey. (there is no functional need for coloured paint on houses - so there was none). There is no functional need for choice in things you could buy - so there was none. The man who might come to fix your boiler or your car, wouldn't be paid any more if he did his job properly, so he didn't. So most things didn't work

But: you still need roads to be built, dams to be maintained, electricity to be supplied........how to do it? Why not put one-tenth of the population in concentration camps (gulags) and make them do it? Not enough criminals? Invent new crimes!

What a good idea Legendary: all our problems solved!
;)

[legendary]

It's no mystery, 'Legendary'. It happened, in Russia it began between 1917 and 1922. Great: anarchy, workers taking over the factories, end of wage enslavement.....great. Hurrah
;)

that wasn't anarchism that was socialism hence the dictatorship of the proletariat

Anarchism believes in a SPONTANEOUS revolution, meaning there are no leaders and therefore any form of 'anarchism' resulting in a dictatorship isn't a true form of anarchism the only actual occassion where a version of anarchy has been implemented is in catalonia in Spain but the anarchists were overthrown. do some research before spouting lies at me

The fact you say THEY means there was leadership hence it wasn't true anarchism

[polveirbecker]

I have a pretty good friendship with my local MP - decent bloke on the front. Its best to get in touch with the big wigs through your local MP who can probably give it to Mr Davis by hand. Things get done a lot quicker politic wise through your local MP.

The big wigs on the other hand will just put you aside and give it to they PA to reply to you in about 3 - 6 months. I wrote an email to minister for Education and it took so long for a reply and when it did happen it was wrote by his PA.

Seriously get in touch with your local MP.

[cacadores]

that wasn't anarchism that was socialism hence the dictatorship of the proletariat
When the Terror was unleashed in the countryside 1918: that was pure leaderless anarchism.


Anarchism believes in a SPONTANEOUS revolution, meaning there are no leaders and therefore any form of 'anarchism' resulting in a dictatorship isn't a true form of anarchism the only actual occassion where a version of anarchy has been implemented is in catalonia in SpainApart from the unconstructive talking shops, you must mean the ones lead by Buenaventura Durruti? I did say 'lead' didn't I? Oh yes.

but the anarchists were overthrown.
Actually not quite. Their leader (that's right, 'leader') died and they started to fall apart - eventually being incorporated into the Republican army.

do some research before spouting lies at me. You accuse me of lying? Have the graciousness to point out where you can detect any lie.

The fact you say THEY means there was leadership hence it wasn't true anarchism Lenin unleashed the terror with his decrees. Once in the country districts, it was every man for himself. The ones with the guns tended to last longer.

'Good anarchism' is an imaginary construct. In practice, the bullies take over. You can see that in any mixed class of 14 year olds: leave them alone for long enough and there'll be a contest for dominance - usually involving a fight, mental bullying or physical intimidation of some kind.

[legendary]

i didn't say anarchism was practical but it is logically the best way forward
as for your saying the anarchists in Catalonia had a leader this may be true but is contrary to what i was taught and if it's true then it wasn't anarchism either. Russia never employed anarchy whatever you try and tell me. there was always a leader and monitary system

in an ideal collectivist anarchist nation superiority would not be a factor as there would be nothing that could be claimed as personal property (how can you steal a loaf of bread if your allowed to eat it) and since money would not be an issue as collectivism is more contractual in nature (you all contribute to the society and if you fail to do this you would be exiled by the majority (not in the sense of a disabled or handicapped person but more a rapist/murderer etc)) how could you raise an army to conquer when you can offer your soldiers no reward for victory? how would you conquer with force if manufacturers weren't producing bombs and guns for profit? sure you could make a spear but then the collectivists could build a wall or 50 spears