Harry’s Place

Er, this: “He was arrested for making public information that the government didn’t want to be made public.”

I assume that when you sign the Official Secrets Act, as I’m sure this fella must have done, you’re not allowed to do certain things. Such as making public information that the government doesn’t want to be made public.

And anyway, I’m all for arresting high ranking Tories….

by your logic Paul, can I expect any reporter who makes public anything embarrassing about the Government to be nicked on anti-terrorism charges too?

Say, whoever broke the story about Cash for Honours?

Likewise, Osbourne. After all he did reveal that Darling had doubled the national debt, he can’t have wanted that to be public record.

Oh and the whistle-blower in the Baby P case… She did point out that none of the recommendations from the Climbe case were being adhered to particularly well…

“by your logic Paul, can I expect any reporter who makes public anything embarrassing about the Government to be nicked on anti-terrorism charges too?”

Do reporters have to sign the Official Secrets Acts? Don’t answer that…

arresting Tories? why not? it is fun

well, I enjoyed it, at least :)

Ok, I’ll concede that point. But there is surely a public-interest angle here. Are we arguing that the public has no right to know what the government working in its interest knows about immigration and specifically illegals working in it’s parliament?

Furthermore, this kind of leak has been going on since the dawn of a reported-on parliament, why is it suddenly a terrorist matter? How do you suggest the Government is held to account if only on the information it chooses to make public and then, when they don’t like the outcome, they can lift those scrutinising them?

“Are we arguing that the public has no right to know what the government working in its interest knows about immigration and specifically illegals working in it’s parliament?”

You can argue all you like about the value of this information being made public. But you just end up in a situation where you pick and choose what leaks you approve of. You happen to approve of this one - I’m sure there would be many that you wouldn’t approve of. Which is why I’m broadly in favour of this: if you willingly sign the Official Secrets Act, don’t whine like a pussy when you’re caught deliberately contravening it.

He is a Tory; and so in my ideal world he would be banged up in the scrubs for good, the ’special friend’ of a man called Bubba who ‘loves his purty little hands’.
unfortunately, in this actual case he hasn’t actually broken any laws, and instead has probably fallen foul of outgoing met head Ian Blair’s grudge against the tories for BoJo sacking him. I wouldn’t be surprised if Blair wasn’t also mischief making in order to embaress the government for failing to support him.

Do reporters have to sign the Official Secrets Acts

“Signing” the Official Secrets Act has absolutely NO legal effect at all. You are either bound by the OSA or you are not.

Darren

“and instead has probably fallen foul of outgoing met head Ian Blair’s grudge against the tories for BoJo sacking him”

I have a horrid feeling that you’re right.

He’s a freaking Tory. What other reasons do you need?

What struck me was that it apparently took 9 police officers to go and arrest him. No doubt Boris will take the Met’s efficiency into account in setting next year’s budget…

This is pure speculation, but Green was arrested specifically for “[b]conspiracy[/b] to cause misconduct in public office”. As lawyers will know the originally common law offence of conspiracy was replaced by the statutory offence in the Criminal Law Act 1977. Conspiracy is an agreement, whether express or implied, between two persons to breach the criminal law at some future point. It is known that Damian Green has publicized documents which came from within the Home Office.

If documents are subject to the Official Secrets Act, then for someone outside the civil service to make an agreement with a civil servant to disclose such documents in future would amount to a conspiracy to break the Official Secrets Act.

However, what we have here is the common law offence of ‘misconduct in public office’. The relevance of this offence would seem to be in the deliberate and systematic leaking of documents subject to the Official Secrets Act. If there was an ongoing agreement between a civil servant and someone outside the civil service to regularly disclose documents subject to the Official Secrets Act, then the civil servant could be guilty of misconduct in public office, and the outside person could be guilty of conspiracy to cause misconduct in public office.

As I said, just speculation.

Paul - as I understand it, this has nothing to do with the OSA. If you make public information pertaining to Government not in the public domain, that is not, automatically, a breach of the OSA. Various other tests have to be satisfied, notably that the leak caused damage. There is no suggestion of that here, or of an OSA breach. He has been arrested in connecting with aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in public office ie having non-OSA, non-intelligence information leaked to him which he went on to publish. This is what opposition politicians do. It is a moot point if leaking non-OSA information is ‘misconduct in public office’ - it’s hard to see how it is if the public has a legitimate interest in the information, as was the case here (Home Office employing illegal immigrants) - but in any event it has pretty well always been the case that it has been thought not in the public interest to pursue the leakee (here, Green) in this way, because this is how democracy wors. The fact that the Government has taken this step - in what would appear to be a heavy-handed attempt to intimidate whoever has been leaking material from the Treasury - I find genuinely very disturbing. Modernity, with respect I’d say you’re being far too blase about this. This is a big deal.

David T - it can be of evidential value in a prosecution.

Can I say Stalinist tactics at work, or do I have to wait for a kneecapping?

David T - that was my first reaction.

Listening to the dreaded Woolas on the Today programme this morning, he kept stressing (as per David Boothroyd above), the ‘conspiracy’ word.

Pure speculation here - but I wonder if the allegation is that Green actively incited a civil servant to leak data. Still something feels odd about the whole thing.

He made Jacqui Smith and her chum Ian Blair look bad - that’s the reason. Speaking of the disgusting Ian Blair, he’s been on the news this morning whining about being sacked, spreading bullshit that he “resigned for the good of the Met”. You were sacked, Cuntface, because you were an incompentant piece of shit with your nose up the arse of the Labour Party. Good fucking riddance.

I thought you would have loved Ian Blair Morgie considering he loves shooting up the Muslims

I thought you would have loved Ian Blair Morgie considering he loves shooting up the Muslims

Shurely “Brazilians”?

I thought you would have loved Ian Blair Morgie considering he loves shooting up the Muslims

Brazilian Muslims?

If they are guilty, sure, shoot the fuckers. But that applies to anyone who is guilty of serious crimes, Brazilian, Muslim or not.

Incidentally, if Parliment was in session, there would have to be an official debate on Green being arrested. Parliment went on a break the day before the arrest. How awfully convenient, eh?

I don’t remember the Tories being so outraged when Lord Levy was arrested.

I don’t remember the Tories being so outraged when Lord Levy was arrested.

Ah yes, Lord Levy that well known member of the House of Commons…

Further more, Damian Green has been arrested for engaging in official Shadow-Cabinet business, i.e. effectively legal Government Business. Lord Levy was…raising funds for the Labour Party. Can you not see the difference, Mike?

As you as one-eyed as McBean?

Levy is a member of the House of Lords and was a chief aid to the PM. Other aids at number 10 were also arrested.

They were all carrying out normal party business, as we now know.

I’m just saying that there was no outrage then.

That was the watershed moment that led to this arrest.

The Tories: soft on white-collar crime and soft on the reasons for white-collar crime.

I thought that the Government at one time promoted the idea of whistle-blowers.

Its rank hypocrisy.

When will they be investigating who leaked that VAT was going to be reduced to 15%. You can argue that such a leak would stop people buying stuff until Monday and reduce the tax coming into the Government.

“Can I say Stalinist tactics at work, or do I have to wait for a kneecapping?”

Not “Shot whilst attempting to escapew” ?

Damn it all ,the NKVD ain’t what it used to be - unfortunately.

GW

Well, they already started putting right-wing newspaper owners in prison on trumped up charges, why not MPs?

It’s abundantly obvious that the western welfare-state/credit-bubble system is inching ever closer to a network of police states. It’s also abundantly clear, however much you cream that Melanie Phillips is “mad”, what side of the political spectrum is working to make this so.

*cream = claim.

What a bizarre slip.

I thought I dreamt this. Didn’t it happen in an episode of “The Thick of it?”

Rounding up the opposition and having them arrested really isn’t on thopught, is it? What happened to parliamentary privelege?

BTW. No-one signs the OSA anymore, I did when I joined the Civil Service as a boy, and used to have to get new recruits and contractors to sign it. The Act was reforemd in the mid-nineties with the efect that anyone can be covered by it.

The Late Lord Shore - you do still have to sign it (or rather, as was always the case, a notice that you acknowledge that you are bound by it) if you do anything remotely spooky, or have any delaings with spooks. The logic is that it prevents someone like Shayler trying to argue in defence/mitigation that he didn’t know what he was doing was illegal: cue prosecution counsel holding up his signed OSA form.

This is not about the government, it is about the Police who, as Mike has already noted, have done similar things to members of the government. In fact, it was the “Stalinist” SNP MP Angus MacNeil who instigated the Police action that time.

Green’s arrest is utterly outrageous, as was sight of the British Police force chasing around after UK politicians at the behest of another politician. It is time Parliament removed the Police from British politics, and let the voters decide who remains in office.

I was just thinking off all of the same type of leaks used by various Labour politicians including Gordon Brown during the last few years of the Major government and have to ask should they be arrested for doing exactly the same thing.

Seems like a very fascist thing to do, I guess nothing surprises me now with this government.

Let some good come of the Police’s contempt of Parliament, although of course the arresting officers and those who authorised them will have to be imprisoned for a time.

Let the Official Secrets Acts be repealed.

And let the Police concentrate on arresting those sitting or former MPs who are war criminals.

How many people called Bubba are there in this country?

Darren, I don’t blame you for coining this meme (to spread a phrase) but it’s sick to consider that rape is a normal part of our justice system. The removal of freedom caused by imprisonment is punishment in and of itself. We don’t need prisons to be dangerous or horrible.

Just let him get possessed by Saints and Demons and have Martin Shaw save him I say. Er.

David Lindsay -

(a) this has nothing to do with the OSAs
(b) it would be madness to repeal the OSAs. If somebody passes national security secrets to eg North Korea or Russia or Al Qaeda, there must be a specific mechanism by which to prosecute them

They make do perfectly well without the OSAs in America, for example.

Russia is no threat to Britain (quite the reverse, in fact).

North Korea is no threat to Britain (like, say, Iran, why would it be?).

And “al-Qaeda” does not exist.

DL - if you say so, mate.

Read any serious book on the subject.

For that matter, just think about it. Why would Russia attack Britain? Why would Iran? Why would North Korea? What for?

And even the BBC is having to backtrack on this “al-Qaeda” business. We now get “al-Qaeda-inspired”, or whatever. No one denies that there is an ideology (a strikingly Postmodern pastiche, actually, drawing on the Wahhabi, the Deobandi, the Salafi, all sorts). And there are the people with the cash, of course. But there is no central organisation. There doesn’t need to be. It would just get in the way.

David T is right - signing the OSA is a meaningless formality, presumably to impress on people the consequences of breaching it. All UK citizens are subject to the OSA, which has the unique provision that time served prior to sentence does not count as part of the sentence.

Classification of documents is a very haphazard process. Home Office documents, particularly pertaining to immigration, should not be classified in the sense of National Security (i.e. Restricted, Confidential and Secret) at all.

If Blair [Plod] is behind this, then this is a quite deranged fit of pique, and should this transpire to be the case, then he is guilty of all sorts of malpractice, and possible crimes. It is also difficult to believe that no one in Government was aware of the intention to arrest Green, when Boris had been informed. Ian Dale notes that if the House had been sitting, members of all parties would have blocked the Police to prevent their access to Green’s office.

So in summary, this action is either malicious, deranged or both. There will be consequences for those behind this. And until Broon can provide proof that his Government had no involvement (and as yet we have had no comprehensive denial, only evasions), the Tories are absolutely right to level accusations at it. Iain Dale has a list of questions that require answers, and PDQ.

Green’s arrest is utterly outrageous, as was sight of the British Police force chasing around after UK politicians at the behest of another politician. It is time Parliament removed the Police from British politics, and let the voters decide who remains in office.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this particular case, if the police have genuine reason to believe that a politician has broken the law it is entirely right that they should investigate. There is no evidence that the police acted improperly in the “loans for peerages” case, apart from maybe being a bit heavy handed on occasions. If the accusation made by Angus MacNeil was purely malicious and without foundation then they would have dropped the investigation pretty quick.

Are not MPs immune from arrest unless their immunity is revoked by the House of Commons? Recall that it was Charles I’s attempt arrest five leading MPs that set off the English Civil War.

What Andrew Adams says. I look forward to burst of moral outrage from Cameron and Clegg the next time your average Joe Shite is arrested to help police with their enquiries.

Or is it only the arrest of fellow MPs which eilicits such fits of pique?

Actually, I know the answer to that one. Because a junior Home Office official was arrested in connection with the same enquiry on Nov 19th. Strangely enough, Clegg didn’t think this was the end of British democracy as we know it, judging from his (non)reaction.

If this all turns out to be something of nothing, then the police are going to look pretty stupid. But as we can’t know that, all this posturing by Cameron and Clegg is mighty presumptuous. Unless, of course, they think there is one law for MPs and another for we mere serfs?

Because a junior Home Office official was arrested in connection with the same enquiry on Nov 19th. Strangely enough, Clegg didn’t think this was the end of British democracy as we know it …

Perhaps something to do with the fact that junior Home Office officials are not an integral part of the democratic process, unlike shadow ministers in Parliament?

Unless, of course, they think there is one law for MPs and another for we mere serfs?

That’s a pathetic attempt to turn this into some kind of class warfare. Why don’t you address Cameron’s point that Gordon Brown and New Labour repeatedly used leaks against the government when they were in opposition, but now Brown’s government is looking shaky and weak, not to mention foolish and incompetent after the VAT fiasco, leaks are a cause for police investigation? Risible.

Perhaps something to do with the fact that junior Home Office officials are not an integral part of the democratic process, unlike shadow ministers in Parliament?

What about equality before the law? I mean I do have sympathy for Green - I’m strongly in favour of a radical overhaul of our secrecy and freedom of information laws and I think that a strong case could be made that neither he or the home office official have done anything which should be deemed a criminal offence. What I can’t accept is that Green should be treated differently because he is an MP.

Perhaps something to do with the fact that junior Home Office officials are not an integral part of the democratic process, unlike shadow ministers in Parliament?

Talking of enquiries, here’s my stalker (geddit?)

Terrible oiks in the lower echelons of the civil service suffer a night of the long paper-clips and there’s not a peep.Then some poor defenceless shadow cabinet minister misses dinner with the family and Magna Carta has gone up in smoke!

It’s a disgrace!

Oh, the last time I checked, the civil service most certainly is an integral part of the demcoratic process; unless you think it’s only the dedication of 650 odd MPs that keeps the country afloat?

That’s a pathetic attempt to turn this into some kind of class warfare. Why don’t you address Cameron’s point that Gordon Brown and New Labour repeatedly used leaks against the government when they were in opposition, but now Brown’s government is looking shaky and weak, not to mention foolish and incompetent after the VAT fiasco, leaks are a cause for police investigation? Risible.

“Risible” is how I’d describe Cameron’s point. The Home Office is leaking like a sieve and senior civil servants wanted something done about it. A junior official was suspended - an event that shook the world, as we know - and the police were called in. Cameron now asks:

I think government ministers have got questions to answer as well [as the police]. If they didn’t know, why weren’t they told?

Unmitigated stupidity. Believe it or not, Gordon Brown doesn’t get to decide who is arrested and who is not. In my solar system, I want government ministers to be totally ignorant about the arrest plans of the police. I’m reassured that the government isn’t part of the decision process in these matters. Cameron would be on any other occasion; but today, he questions why ministers weren’t in the loop.

And John Little thinks he has a point.

“Risible” doesn’t begin to cover it.

I’m strongly in favour of a radical overhaul of our secrecy and freedom of information laws and I think that a strong case could be made that neither he or the home office official have done anything which should be deemed a criminal offence.

Andrew, I’m with you on part 1 and, who knows, maybe part 2. But the leaking business in some government departments has reached unprecedented levels. They’ve got be allowed to conduct their business without suspecting that every email or meeting minute is going to wind up on the front page of the Mail. If leaks aren’t stopped, you inevitably have more and more business being done behind closed office doors by a smaller and smaller select band of higher ranking officials. Meetings won’t be minuted, emails won’t be sent and documents won’t be filed. None of us wants this (except maybe John Little).

As for the “public interest” defence, let’s be honest: an awful lot of the material leaked these days looks like it might be in the interest of opposition parties and certain newspaper editors (an bloggers), but that’s about it.

As Mark Twain noted, a public interest is nothing other than a massed accumulation of private interests.

I can’t help wondering if the raid was connected to the matters he has already made public, or perhaps something else that he has not yet divulged.

Would there be a difference in the legality if, for example, DG was actively encouraging / seeking the leak of the documents versus traditional leaking?

CPS guidlines specify public interest, and Damian Green was working in the public interest not against it there was in fact no possibility of charges being brought. Therefore to arrest Green and search his private papers was completely wrong. Does he have a case for unlawful arrest? Police can’t legally arrest people who haven’t committed an arrestable offence except in certain, well-defined circumstances. I can’t see the pollice doubting Damian Green’s identity!

This is a politically-motivated arrest, as the only victim of the “crime” was Labour’s party political interests. Either that political motive comes from Brown or it is within the police. Either of these is absolutely shocking, disgraceful and cannot be accepted.

paul

Have you ever signed the official secrets act? I have, four times in triplicate.

That has absolutely no relevance here. Even if Green has signed it (which I suspect not. I admit I don’t know, but you are assuming he did) then it has no relevance to this case. He was not given the information as part of his job for which he signed the official secrets act. It was leaked to him. It might be relevant if the informant had signed, but not Green himself.

Correction: I should have said they can only arrest someone suspected of an arrestable offence, assumed innocent!

P.S. Seeing Labour supporters suggesting that people should be arrested for political views simply confirms my own political opinions. I certainly don’t want to be politically associated with Paul, modernity, Eugenio and Darren. Glad however to see there are still many people on all sides horrified by this specific incident.

CPS guidlines specify public interest, and Damian Green was working in the public interest not against it…

Says who? There’s not just the substance of the leaks, but how they came about. What if Green had a direct debit set up to the mole at the HO who then spent half his employer’s time looking for juicy emails to ‘leak’ to the Hon member? Would this still be serving democracy as you see it?

Seeing Labour supporters suggesting that people should be arrested for political views simply confirms my own political opinions.

Where do you stand on pre-judging a police investigation? If I’m ever arrested - for anything - can I count on your support and the odd comment to this blog where, from a position of complete ignorance, you champion my innocence?

“What if Green had a direct debit set up to the mole at the HO who then spent half his employer’s time looking for juicy emails to ‘leak’ to the Hon member? Would this still be serving democracy as you see it?”

Yes it would. In fact that is what the House of Commons is there for, to police the Home Office, the civil service, the police etc. We the people are sovereign, and they represent us. This country is governed by the House of Commons, who vote on all matters, laws, and bills produced by ministers. Because ministers have portfolios, get big houses, and parliament tends to rubber stamp their bills into law it seems that the law makers are the “government”. Not so. The lawmakers are the entire house, or both houses. They govern, not just the government of the day. Therefore there can be no leaks to any member of the House from any civil servant, for it is no more a leak, or a criminal offence for Green to know something about a whitehall department than it is for Gordon Brown to know it, both are members of government.

Even more sinisterly the Police raided a parliamentarian and seized all his documents - including all correspondence from his constituents ( some of which may be critical of Police). That is symptomatic of a Police State.

Every policeman involved in this raid needs to be fired ( eventually). Firstly the commons needs to convene to drag them immediately before committee. Lawmakers need to point out to law enforcers exactly who is ruling who.

Members of the old democratic left have been heroic today, like Benn on C4 news. The leftwing idiots on this comments thread can only make neutrals despair.

by the way parliament has power of arrest. so it should arrest all the policemen and bring them before it. Enough cross party support for the actual democracy of the Commons would ensure this.

Lickspittle Labour Party apparatchiks like Brownie can always be relied upon to act like Squealer and defend the indefensible. HP has gone from supporting the right of the Metropolitan Police to decide which music artists can perform in London, to now supporting the politically-orchestrated police intimidation of the opposition party. Britain is rapidly becoming an ugly little authoritarian hell-hole. Very sad.

Oh, the last time I checked, the civil service most certainly is an integral part of the demcoratic process

What mendacious rubbish. You know damn well that the state bureaucracy is not “part of the democratic process”, unless you really are stupid enough not to have heard of the division of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Which somehow I doubt, so I can only conclude that you actually get some kind of thrill seeing the boys in blue detain leading politicians on trumped-up charges, as long as they are Tories. Who needs the BNP with fascists like you cheering on the actions of a police state?

A division of powers does not negate the idea that all branches of the state are part of the same process. Go away and take an aspirin -you are doing your blood pressure no good with this emotive bullshit which you seem intent on pumping out as fast as Beckton sewage works pumps shit.

Brownie

Says who? Errrrr, say the CPS guidlines, as I said in the little bit you quoted. You should try reading things you are replying to, it will occasionally stop you making yourself look silly.

If you are ever arrested for giving out information that has no security implications and is in the public interest to disclose, but against the party political interests of the party in government then yes, you will have my support. You will have that support however you came by that information, and whatever colour of party is in government. Hence my taking issue with those that clearly state that people should be arrested for political views, a point you quote then entirely fail to address.

As for pre-judging the investigation, have you actually read the original post that you are replying to? It won’t take long, it’s only one sentence. That sentence is important. There is no conceivable justification for arresting someone in this manner for releasing the information Damian Green released (note he was not arrested on suspiscion of any other crime related to acquiring that information, but for conspiracy to publish the information). I am not, therefore, pre-judging anything.

I am not, therefore, pre-judging anything.

Would you like to explain then why Mr Green has been released only on bail , presumably to return for trial at a later date?

Thought not.

P.S. had there been some sort of standing order (and there has been no hint of that, so you have made it up) then it is possible Green did something wrong, although that is still debatable. However then there would have been no need to arrest him or search his offices. Forensic accountants would have had little difficulty finding that. So you are in a catch 22 defending the police actions. Either Green did nothing wrong, or he could have been investigated without arrest and searching his offices, or he was arrested on different grounds to the alleged wrong, which is wrongful arrest.

Damian Green was working in the public interest not against it

I rather think that the whole point of many of the Newspaper editorials today would be how YOU know this to be the case rather than that you are speculating that it is the case based on what exactly?

“This is pure speculation, but Green was arrested specifically for “[b]conspiracy[/b] to cause misconduct in public office”.”

All very well. But every time a government or civil service insider, arranges to meet a journalist, presumably they are both parties to a conspiracy. Every department of state has a press officer, who is nominated to brief the press. So there is no need for anyone else to go to the papers, is there?

Unless, of course, there’s something dirty going on.

By the way, we are all bound by the Official Secrets Act, whether we signed it or not. But the government is now abusing this act. They should not be able to classify information just because it is embarassing to them.

None of you are going to get an answer to this question unless and until someone (possibly not including D Green MP) is
1) charged
2) tried
then you’ll find out what evidence the Police had both before and after this high profile incident.

It’s almost enough to make a fella believe that the expression “chattering classes” actually has some meaning.

Meanwhile, Rt Hon D Camera-wrong has made himself look about as mature and of sound judgement as Boris Johnson.

Totally agree Alan. I expect the (frankly quite weird) expression “Stalinesque” to follow Cameron around for many years.

Britain is rapidly becoming an ugly little authoritarian hell-hole. Very sad.

Like I said, John, you stay where you are and we’ll both be happy.

Well, I will, at least.

You know damn well that the state bureaucracy is not “part of the democratic process”, unless you really are stupid enough not to have heard of the division of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.

It’s good to see that you weren’t ill for all your General Studies classes, and although your contributions to this blog do not exclude the possibility you might still be getting your education, I’m guessing the Constitutional Renewal Bill has come too late for you. One provision in this bill is to enshrine the role of the civil service in law. Because the role of the civil service is considerd integral to the democratic process.

Please come again.

Errrrr, say the CPS guidlines, as I said in the little bit you quoted. You should try reading things you are replying to, it will occasionally stop you making yourself look silly.

I’ll take it slowly for you Richard. The CPS guidelines do indeed refer to a public interest. When/if there is a case for Green to answer, it will be decided whether he acted in the public interest. What you are doing right now is asserting as fact something that is yet to be established. It may be your subjective opinion based on little or no details of the case that Green has acted in the public interest, and that is fine. Knock yourself out. But when questioned on this, you can’t pretend that is the CPS who has found Green to have acted in the public interest, when in reality it is just ‘Richard’, a piss-poor blog commentator who cannot distinguish conjecture from fact.

This was a message from the HP Information Service, a integral part of the democratic process.

“. One provision in this bill is to enshrine the role of the civil service in law. Because the role of the civil service is considerd integral to the democratic process.”

Whats that got to do with whether Members of the House have a right to civil service information. That bill, not pased yet, is typical New Lbour. it says

”
To rebalance power between Parliament and Government, and give Parliament more ability to hold Government to account;
”

which is almost certainly Orewllian speak for doing the opposite - since we already have a Parliament which can hold government to account, and - in the greatest freaking piece of spin I have ever read

“The right to peaceful protest has long been regarded as an important component of British citizens’ liberties and healthy democracy. The Government has made clear that there should be no unnecessary restrictions on people’s right to protest particularly around the seat of the elected representative. A consultation has been launched.”

Who took these rights away on the first place?

Parliament rules the UK. It is sovereign over the executive so there is no way that any civil servant can leak to any member of parliament, whether part of the majority party, or not. simple stuff. The civil service, if it is part of the “democratic process” had better be subject to democratic scrutiny, and that means all information should be available to all parliamentarians on request, unless releasing the information is a clear breach of the official secrets act. That would be democratic.

The police raiding a parliamentarian for doing his job is not democratic. It is police statist.

“Totally agree Alan. I expect the (frankly quite weird) expression “Stalinesque” to follow Cameron around for many years.”

Even on left wing blogs and commentaries the word is bandied around, quite accurately. Stalinist, ( Stalinesque) it is.

David T,

None.

But it does have utilility - we are about to find out if parliament is willing to assert itself, or whther the payroll vote will out. Important information for all of us.

As to the public perception. I doubt that anything will convince the general public that high profile prosecutions don’t have some political element. Most will assume that these things are governed by informal agreements between members of networks whilst maintaining polite fictions about police and judicial independence.

Until 1979 we had a fairly settled body of laws that could in part be seen as a sort of secular moraility. However, since Thatcher and continuing under New Labour we have seen an acceleration in the passage of endless amounts of legislation and the passing of unworkable laws ‘to send a signal’ that leads people to believe that our laws are now just the instruments of administrative discretion and the police the tools by which that administration is enforced.

The police are just doing what they’ve been asked to do with the powers they’ve been given, and they can’t be faulted for that. If parliament wants its old job back then some of its honourable members will have to do the decent thing and put country before party.

I don’t know if this is very likely, but its going to be interesting to find out. Of course its always possible that we’ll just get some symbolic sacrifice like the resignation of the speaker, and then it will be back to the same old same old.

Even on left wing blogs and commentaries the word is bandied around, quite accurately. Stalinist, ( Stalinesque) it is.

You are as mad as a hatter and obviously quite unaware of what happened to Russians who were dragged from their places of employment by the police during Stalin’s purges.

“You are as mad as a hatter”
ad hominem as argument. fantastic.

” and obviously quite unaware of what happened to Russians who were dragged from their places of employment by the police during Stalin’s purges.”

A police force that breaks into parliament, arrests a parliamentarian for doing his job, and may have bugged him… stalinist.

ad hominem as argument. fantastic.

It isn’t an argument - it is a statement

A police force that breaks into parliament

You have evidence for a “break-in”?

arrests a parliamentarian for doing his job

You know what exactly he was arrested for?

may have bugged him

May have? Really?

You insult Stalin’s victims every bit as much as David Irving insults Hitlers…

Don’t waste your time on Brownie or Graham, David T is the brains of the operation, that’s why he posts while they just catcall in the comments.

Whats that got to do with whether Members of the House have a right to civil service information.

Nothing, which is why it was posted in response to something entirely different, namely John Little’s insistence that an independent civil service and servants are surplus to the requirements of a functioning democracy.

Try reading before commenting.

John Little, seek help for your obsession with me, there’s a good sociopath.