Thank you for getting in touch

My quick views on this thorny topic.

As always, the key is where and how to strike the appropriate balance
between safeguarding personal freedom and safeguarding the general (and law
abiding) population against acts of terrorism and organised crime.

I tend to take a (David Davis) approach - that is: the presumption is in
favour of maintaining personal freedom (which includes freedom from
unsolicited surveillance etc.).  It is for the govt of the day to make out
an extremely strong case (backed by evidence) in order to justify any
rebuttal of that presumption in favour of the state.  Absent such evidence,
the status quo prevails.  I recognise that we live in a fast changing world
where information is easy to gather and disseminate etc. but, if elected, I
would see myself as a defender of the law-abiding man in the street!

I deplore the harassment of photographers and would like to see the law
altered in order to prevent abuse of this type (eg law abiding plane
spotters getting arrested; tourists taking innocent photos of landmark
buildings or police officers).

I adopt David Davis' approach to withholding suspects without charge - that
is to say, the Government singularly failed to make their case for this.

I am taking advice re: Digital Economy Bill and will revert if I can before
the election.  One thing is for sure, however, This piece of legislation is
being hurried through without proper debate and that, in itself, is a
dangerous precedent.

Kind regards

Edward (Legard)

PPC Darlington (Conservative)