Harry’s Place

Is this post a spoof? Politicians have been taking the piss out the electorate for years with their lies, self-righteousness, arrogance, hypocrisy and disregard for the world outside Westminster. Next you’ll be starting a whip-round for bankers who have hit hard times…

The assault by counter-terrorism police on the sanctuary of Parliament is a major interference in Britain’s system of democracy.

Not according to the experts it wasn’t : Oxford constitutional professor Vernon Bogdanor says the police were quite within their rights to enter parliament on this matter.

Is this the same Dennis Mcshane who has voluntarily performed fellatio on the phallus of an unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic EU bureacracy for goodness knows how long?

You’d think with all his hypocrisy about ‘democratic rights’, ‘freedoms’ and ‘democratic doctrines’ he’d have the decency to admit to the public in plain English just how how great his role has been in curtailing our freedoms and signing them away. This man is a complete cockweasel and I would never trust anything the man says.

Plus, either deliberately like most of the other commenters or accidently (something I doubt for such a cold, calculating and enthusiastic Jean Monet brownnoser), he has completely failed to highlight the real issue. Why was Green being fed information and only releasing it to the press…why not have it scrutinised in parliament, joke that it is?

I am not a fan of Gordon Brown by a long stretch, but if he promises to arrest more Tories, drag them through the streets and dump them in a small cell for a few days, then I’ll will make an effort to reconsider voting Labour.

please, oh Gordon, make it Osborne next! It will be a vote winner :)

Already in this parliament we have had the sad sight of a Scottish Nationalist MP writing a chancer’s letter to the Metropolitan Police and a huge inquiry being launched that resulted in nothing.

The police made a mistake in not sending the Scottish Nationalist letter back with a polite note that it was politics - not policing - that would deal with his allegations.

You would expect a Labour loyalist to say something like that; you would expect Mr. MacShane to link the Damian Green issue with that loyalist defence.

The inquiry was carried out to ascertain whether or not an actual law was broken - related to selling peerages. The inquiry was justified; at any rate, the result of the inquiry does not necessarily relate to whether or not it was justified to carry it out. MacShane knows that.

However, what he writes for the Torygraph is for the Labour Party’s propaganda benefit, he’s a standard politician. It’s duly regurgitated without criticism at HP.

The result of the inquiry did not result in nothing - far from it; rather, it did not uncover enough evidence to take the matter further.

If you are loyal Labour supporter (not the brightest of beasts) you will obviously happily view the fact that Labour supporters and donors got various rewards as purely a coincidence, and the fact that the system of oversight and awarding these gongs was subsequently changed as purely a coincidence too. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

Of course, as a loyal Labour Party supporter, when the party in government changes, you will suddenly become super sleuths, and when the Conservative Party does the same thing, you will be dutifully outraged.

Graham,
We don’t have a constitution, so how can anyone be an expert on it?
Parliament is going to have to decide if it is going to allow this precedent to stand. That is all.

alan,

well partly, there’s isn’t a fully CODIFIED constitution, but there are more than enough conventions, historical precidents, etc to help out, if in doubt try Hennesey’s Muddling Through

If you are loyal Labour supporter

I should perhaps qualify that to a certain type of…

It would be unfair to say all loyal Labour folk are like this. However, if one does criticise, one is immediately labeled as disloyal, ‘old labour’, etc etc., so it’s all rather difficult.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: the UK needs a fully codified, written constitution, partly modeled on the US one, preferably with the abolition (or at least heavy pruning) of the monarchy.

well partly, there’s isn’t a fully CODIFIED constitution

Quite. Bogdanor is professor of Government and an expert on constitutional matters. We don’t actually have Polar bears either but that does not stop us having professors of zoology.

What’s the monarchy got to do with the price of eggs? Anyway, if perfessors like Bogdanor have forgotten their basic consitutional law principles you could always adopt a codification of them like the Irish did: Art 15(10) “Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, with power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.”

What’s the monarchy got to do with the price of eggs?

Thankfully, not a great deal. Apart from the price of eggs though, there is the little matter of being born straight into wealth (and some power), which some of us democrats take issue with. At least Bill Gates, richer than the Queen, does not treat his kids like minor members of a royal family; there is at least some notion of merit involved.

But for the non-royal rich who shower their spoiled brats with every accoutrement under the sun, there’s an issue with them too.

NOW will you understand just how useless a Speaker we’ve got.

Any Speaker worth his or her salt would have told the Police to eff off. If necessary the Speaker would have had a word with the Shadow Minister and told him he was overstepping the mark. But to let the police mount a gestapo style raid is unforgiveable.

He should be booted out of office immediately. No ceremony. Out.

Was the Speaker told or did the Serjeant-at-Arms let the plod in without consulting him?

This political arrest fiasco is banana republic shiite, it really is very embarrassing.

V for Vendetta time? I thought THAT totalitarian England existed
only in the movies…..

Just remember in future not to discuss any matter with your local MP that you wouldn’t want the police to find out about and you should be OK.

Both McShane and Neil D are suggesting that politicians should have the right to tell the police that they should not investigate where there is evidence or an accusation that a crime has been committed. This would be fundamentally wrong - it is fundamental to the principle of separation of powers that politicians should not be able to interfere in the workings of the criminal justice system.

Why has it taken Jacqui smith so long? What’s wrong with this country?! In the Baby P case, it took aaages before there was any note concern or apology. Why did nobody get any comeback for Baby P, and yet 15 people get the sack for a dodgy Gary Glitter joke?

p.s. What a load of bollocks coming from some Labour partisans here. I can only imagine the outrage if counter-terrorism police raided a Labour politician for whistleblowing under a Tory administration.

And what Benji said re the “loans for peerages” investigation.

I have spent some time googlimg Damian Green and have been unable to find out exactly WHAT was leaked. Can anyone assist me?

I’m generally in favour of leaks, both ways, unless they are conerned with security.They give the public more information about what is going on underneath the political surface. Were I a politician - unimaginable - I would make sure I had nothing to hide. Nobody could leak anything about me as my life is an open book.

As for trusting politicians, not I.The very idea of being a ‘loyalist’ of any party has something distasteful about it. I generally vote for the left because of a few, not unimportant, nuances in their policies, such as being more favourably disposed to women, gays and the poor. (The Torah has strict rules about helping the poor).

Defending the rights of British citizens, who until last week complacently believed that what they told or sent to their MP would remain confidential and not be seized by the police, is a matter for all Members of Parliament.

That’s the only thing that I have any sympathy with in this article. And even that, I personally would sacrifice if the police could show that they had good cause to do it. Members of Parliament have special privileges. I am sure that the police took into account the indignation of various MPs who may have good reason to be worried.

I am sure that many posters on HP would be truly happy if the police had a good peep onto Gorgeous George’s HD.

The thing is though it’s not as if MPs are the only people who might hold confidential information about us. What about solicitors or doctors, are they to be exempt from being raided by the police if tehy are suspected of wrongdoing?

Ironically the old bill were unable to take Green’s home computer because his barrister wife had privileged information on it.

However, after reading you all I have been converted!

Isn’t it great that our fractious and untrustworthy politicians are being put in their place by the apolitical guardians of justice, law and order? Isn’t it about time that members of parliament had their wings clipped? Who do they think they are, with their pensions and special privileges? What we need now is strong, decisive men who will place their country before their own personal ambitions. Men who will uphold the law without fear or favour. Men who look good in a uniform.

If Brown didn’t know about the arrest he should have

You want the governmentof the day consulted before the police move? I suggest you think about that one again.

And we have got to trust our politicians more in order to allow them to do so, because our cynicism is corroding the ability they have to stand up for us as our elected representatives.

I basically agree with this, but I don’t think you get there by granting MPs more legal privilege than they already enjoy. The point is that if this were Mark Green instead of Damian Green (i.e. my greengrocer and not the MP), no-one would bat an eyelid. I recognise that Damian Green is an elected official, but I would have thought this meant he should expect more scrutiny and not less.

Defending the rights of British citizens, who until last week complacently believed that what they told or sent to their MP would remain confidential and not be seized by the police, is a matter for all Members of Parliament.

I’m not a lawyer (really, I’m not), but my understanding is that constituents’ correspondence enjoys legal privilege, so I’m guessing the police do not have this material or, in the event they obtain it whilst looking for something else, can’t do anything with it and have to return it.

rusty - I didn’t really say that they should be just like us ‘common’ people. Just that there would or should be a wider area for them to operate in in their democratic function as elected officials. Just what that limit is should be carefully defined in law.

Using a phrase like ‘in pursuit of their democratic function’ to give them a bit more leeway without actually breaking the law. Otherwise politicians would be being constantly accused by their opposition with illegal practices just to ‘clog’ them up and stop them from functioning as an elected official.

We have this problem in Israel. Three years ago, the police wanted to search the premises in Tel Aviv of some gambling criminal but were stopped by his daughter who was a Member of Knesset, (Likud surprisingly - snigger). She claimed that she was resident in the home and therefor, it was immune to police search. The police went away. I wouldn’t like to see an extreme misuse of parliamentary privilege used like that in the UK.

Theres been acres of newsprint expended on this, all written by people who don’t know the two salient facts.

1.What, if any information, besides that which Green gave the Press was passed to him.
2.What if any, inducements did the civil servant claim had been offered him.

Without knowing thes we can’t reach any conclusion as to whther the Police acted correctly.

And what Benji said re the “loans for peerages” investigation.

Although most of the critcism I’ve read of this investigation - including my own - is focused on the manner in which it was conducted and the constant leaking from the police, including ‘off the record’ press briefings against Levy et al. During this enquiry, the police were leaking more than the HO!

Also, the fact that they got nothing is relevant. If it transpires that Green has done nothing wrong, then it would be right and proper to ask the police to justify their actions, including the decision to detain Green for 9 hours. This is how you hold the police and other arms of the state accountable; not by prejudging their enquiries on the basis of what you’ve read from Green’s friends, colleagues and a sympathetic press.

Andrew Adams

The police are public servants. They are also an arm of the executive.

Politicians MP’s, might be members of the executive whose powers should be delimited and the actions of which they should be accountable.

As individuals peerrs and MP’s also remain legally liable fortheir actions for which parliamentary privilege does not apply.

As parliamentarians however the fundamental principle of a constitutional democracy is that parliament is sovereign as the legislature.

Parliamentarians are the embodiement of the will of the people as the law makers and the source of legitimate authority and the nations authority.

This cannot just be fudged away as police operational issues.

There has been a great abuse of the fundamental protections of a constitutional democracy. It is an outrage.

Parliament controls the Police or no-one does and a police state ensues.

Members of the opposition to the executive administration, the government of the day, are the legislature, ministers are not.

The Government is not the law, the police are not the law, parliament is and the police and civil servants responsible should be arrested dragged before it and subject to its powers of censure.

I have no intention of trusting the Police or politicians, ever, I am very Hamiltonian-Madisonian about this.

The reason we have a democracy is because you can’t trust those who will inevitably abuse the accretion of executive power unless they are subject to the checks of the constitutional separation of powers and the balancing of powers necessary to maintain it.

The reason that we have a flawed democracy in Britain is precisely because we have refused to construct a clear and transparent written constitution.

We have relied on fudge and convention where it turns out that really there is nothing stopping the executive from abusing power systemically other than a pretence of Public School etttiquete, where the most important rules are the ones that are never written.

I am no more thrilled by Toffs in parliament cheating because they know how to play the Eton wall game than I am by Townies who join in and discover that there is nothing actually stopping them from nutting a Toff and nicking the ball if they wish.

Parliamentary privilege is not preferrment at a gentlemans club, or it shouldn’t be, it is the mechanism that ensures that parliament remains bound to the electorate, by the self interest of MP’s needing to seek re-election.

Opposition MPs are meant to oppose and contest the government to find out what their plans and policies are and expose them to political and democratic debate its their job.

The corruption of the executive, its loosening from balancing structures and its abuse of power has reached unprecedented levels in Britain.

Parliament is largely supine before the executive which micromanages executive functions sidestepping most of the historical procedural independence, continuity and neutrality of the civil service.

We are supposed to believe that ministers do not use their departments as their personal fiefdoms because there is always a Sir something or other to claim that it was ultimately, entirely their dictatorial and secretive behaviour to blame.

The protection of parliamentary privilege does not require an inappropriate intrusion into Police operational independence (though of course home secretaries actually believe that is their personal rightI.

It is a case of demanding a senior command structure in the Police that undersstands clearly and at all times the boundaries and limitations of its subordinate constitutional role it has.

But as I am sure that senior police officers have no greater an understandng of constitutionall limitations on their power than Proffesors of constitutional law, so its all another great British shambles.

I basically agree with this, but I don’t think you get there by granting MPs more legal privilege than they already enjoy. The point is that if this were Mark Green instead of Damian Green (i.e. my greengrocer and not the MP), no-one would bat an eyelid. I recognise that Damian Green is an elected official, but I would have thought this meant he should expect more scrutiny and not less.

Exactly.

Brownie, re your comment @ 9:19

Yes, it is perfectly reasonable to criticise the manner in which the police have carried out an investigation, or whether indeed they have acted over-zealously or have misinterpreted the law, even if you support in principle their right to carry out such an investigation.

Metta - will digest and reply later, I have to do some work now :(

There has been a great abuse of the fundamental protections of a constitutional democracy. It is an outrage.

Can you be more specific? An ‘outrage’ because Green was arrested, or because he was arrested in the manner he was? Because police entered Green’s offices?

Also, the fact that they got nothing is relevant.

Not necessarily at all. In terms of the loans for peerage thing, the inquiry turned up nothing that could have been the basis of further action - but that does not mean that the actual inquiry was not justified. MacShane says point blank that the inquiry should not have taken place, but offers no argument as to why it shouldn’t have taken, apart from saying that it turned up nothing, which I bet he knows is no argument in itself.

Its all very well Labour MPs saying that the inquiry exonerated the PM and the party - I don’t agree, but at least it is ballpark. But to say that the inquiry should not have taken place purely because it turned up “nothing” (at least not developing the argument) is just no argument at all, its rhetoric (and indeed MacShane lays on the rhetoric quite thickly at that point).

McShane is right to raise the police decision to go around arresting people in the so called cash for peerages episode, because it was then that incident where the precedent was set for this type of further police action in politics. If MPs and the media has shown a united front on that occasion, instead of using it to undermine Blair, then this probably would never have happened. Labour would still be in charge of Scotland as well.

However, having said that, a strong part of our system has always been that we have an impartial civil service. It is therefore not acceptable that a Tory activist, who used to work for Damian Green, should be in cohorts with the opposition party. That’s a fundamental breach of our long standing laws and traditions in this country, therefore this matter should be investigated properly.

Not necessarily at all. In terms of the loans for peerage thing, the inquiry turned up nothing that could have been the basis of further action - but that does not mean that the actual inquiry was not justified.

You’re right, it doesn’t meant it was no justifeid. But I didn’t say otherwise. I chose my words very carefully. The fact that no charges were brough is “relevant”, though. If you have a police investigation lasting many months costing millions of pounds and which is criticised at the time for being a wild goose chase that eventually turns up nothing, then it’s right and proper that police actions are scrutinised and questions are asked. Hence ‘relevant’.

As I say above, if Green turns out to be entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, then I’d expect the same scrutiny of events that led to his arrest and detention. This is the way it’s supposed to work, is it not?

How can you hope to have a healthy democracy, if you treat politicians from the opposition parties as ‘crooks awaiting arrest’?

Do we really want the sort of political culture that the Republicans created in the 1990s with their hopeless attempts to impeach Clinton?

Or like after the 2005 general election when the antiwar left tried to impeach Blair because they had lost the vote.

As others have pointed out, both in this case and cash for peerages, the police were investigating allegations of breaches of the law. MPs can’t expect to be immune from this, nor should they expect special treatment in terms of being arrested in dawn raids, held in cells, kept waiting etc…

The specific problem here is that nobody is quite clear of the circumstances in which leaking is permitted, whether to journalists or to MPs (who are usually just conduits to journalists). I don’t think anybody thinks that civil servants should have carte blanche to leak anything they want to MPs; equally there is some stuff which it is clearly in the public interest to have brought into the open. Information about failures in the immigration system is probably covered by public interest, but what about lists of Labour MPs, showing which way they might vote?

The fact is that the law in this area is a mess and to that extent I have some sympathy with the police on this.

How can you hope to have a healthy democracy, if you treat politicians from the opposition parties as ‘crooks awaiting arrest’?

You ask this on the back of the arrest of one MP?

Let’s assume worst case scenario here. The conservative activist leaking to Green was groomed for his role and rather than ‘whistleblowing’ or leaking ‘in the public interest’ has in fact been passing on anything and everything that just might prove politically useful to HM’s loyal opposition, to the point where the HO can barely function as an operational department. This would be a fundamental breach of the principles that underpin the relationship between the executive and the civil service and clearly undermines the democratic process (partisan civil servant briefing against his employer).

There are leaks, and there are *leaks*, are there not?

Whatever happened to commonsense? This is not the first time the Met has put its boots before its mouth. As always these days, whenever a row breaks out about bureaucrats over or under reacting to some issue, we are told they have followed procedures.

In the case of the House of Commons, asked why the police had been allowed in to raid Damian Green’s offices, Speaker Martin’s secretary bleated “There was a process to be followed and it was followed”. He declined to say what that process was.

Interesting the timing of the police raid, I wonder if they had inside information from the Home Office on the best time to carry it out.

Interesting too that the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office, Sir David Normington, who called in the police over the leaks, is the man who is vetting candidates for the Met Commissioner’s job, and chairing the interview panel. And that both Sir Paul Stephenson the acting Commissioner and Asst Commissioner Bob Quick, responsible for the raid, are said to be applying for the job.

Former Head of the Flying Squad John o’Connor was interviewed on tv at the weekend and asked if there was too little control over the police. He said on the contrary there was too much, suggesting they were expected to jump to their political masters’ tune.

Maybe with the top job on the line, and pressure to find the HO mole, both Quick and Stephenson were a bit too quick to oblige the Permanent Secretary and the Home Secretary.

I also see reports the police claim they acted on the advice of the CPS. There have been a number of cases recently where this has happened - the police claim prior appproval from CPS for their actions - and it turns out that the CPS have merely advised how the law would pan out in a particular scenario and the Met have taken this as sanction to act.

Here it turns out the DPP was never advised and this is interesting because there are now rumours that the Serjeant at Arms let the police in because she was told the raid had been sanctioned by the DPP.

Bogdanor’s view can be challenged on two counts - one that the Palace of Westminster is a Royal Palace and that means the police can only enter by invitation of the Speaker. And once inside by what right are they able to seize privileged information like constituents records and correspondence? I don’t think they are.

The police increasingly use the CABE Act provision to raid the premises of an arrrested person, without the need for a further warrant. I think this needs to be revisited in cases where they seize privileged information which is not relevant to the case, eg medical records, social security issues, MPs’ correspondence with constituents.

No one is suggesting that Green has been party to leaking national security data or acts of treason. The very most he could be guilty of is encouraging a disaffected civil servant to feed him inside information. Is this sort of raid really necessary?

Reading the blogs and press comments on line, it is clear that this incident, whatever the legal justification, has only increased many people’s views that we are all vulnerable to the banging and shouting on the front door in the small hours of the early morning and being hauled off to the police station while they comb our house for evidence.

I even had a nightmare about just that two days ago!

” am not a fan of Gordon Brown by a long stretch, but if he promises to arrest more Tories, drag them through the streets and dump them in a small cell for a few days, then I’ll will make an effort to reconsider voting Labour.

please, oh Gordon, make it Osborne next! It will be a vote winner :)”

Yes, comrade! An lets not stop with Osborne and all the slick-spittle running dogs of capitalism in the Tory side. We must purge the Commons of every member of the opposition, or any backbencher, who might someday commit this heinous crime of getting information from the people’s civil service to hold our glorious leader to account (in their pathetic bourgeois farce of a parliament, and its reactionary “Question Time”. Dear leader has no time for this nonsense!).

We must also go after the treasonous Nick Clegg who attacked this glorious action of Dear Leader in using the valiant peoples police force to silence reactionary questioning from the opposition, and also - most importantly - the treasonous lick-spittles within our own Labour party, like Tony Benn ( a thorn on Dear Leaders’ side since he took over) who have questioned Dear Leader on this issue. Benn must also be arrested on the same charges - he must surely have had some interaction with civil servants over the years while only a mere backbencher.

All of commons except the glorious executive needs to be jailed, that way lies the shining path to people’s democracy!

Congratulations, Comrade, on the most piss-poor satire to ever hit this blog. And that’s some fierce opposition you’ve seen off there.

Reading the blogs and press comments on line, it is clear that this incident, whatever the legal justification, has only increased many people’s views that we are all vulnerable to the banging and shouting on the front door in the small hours of the early morning and being hauled off to the police station while they comb our house for evidence.

The people you are referring to were already nuts to begin with.

I even had a nightmare about just that two days ago!

This I can believe.

Black helicopters all round!

The specific problem here is that nobody is quite clear of the circumstances in which leaking is permitted

Bang on. I suggest that in recent years the line between public interest and “my party’s interest” has become somewhat blurred. If the leaker or the substance of the leak suggests it’s all about the latter, then this should be discouraged and, where possible, prevented. Not least becuase it means the civil servant in question is no longer serving the public, but rather his preferred political masters.

Do we really want the sort of political culture that the Republicans created in the 1990s with their hopeless attempts to impeach Clinton?

This is the same country with a written constitution, a model we’re supposed to adopt, right?

Oh dear, I appear to have commented obsessively on this thread after weeks of inaction. Pardon me, I’ll take my leave.

“Men who will uphold the law without fear or favour. Men who look good in a uniform.”

Aren’t you going a bit over the top, Rusty? Your words sound like the speech of a great poilitician. Since the Nazi episode, I’m somewhat allergic to uniforms and screeching officers. The uniforms look good in operettas. Well, I admit that some men look handsome in uniform.

May I be the joker in the pack, sometimes? You can always tell me to piss off.

I’m not at all keen to be in uniform myself, but was forced at my posh English school in South Africa which was a bit like a military academy - cadets we were.They didn’t know quite what to do with me. I was sent to the signallers, from there to red cross and so on. One day - lo and behold! - I was singled out as the smartest cadet of the day, simply because I had put an awful lot of polish on my belt and shoes.

Colonel Honeyball screamed at me, “Felix, you have the mind of a butterfly, and a female one at that!” I was very pleased with this description of me. Later Colonel Honeyball became fond of me, because of my anti- and non-military achievements for the school.

But, no, Rusty, I’m often glad there are men in uniform about. Verlaine hid behind a policeman when Rimbaud tried to shoot him.

Mr Galley [the mole] polled 676 votes when he stood as the sole Conservative candidate in the Hetton ward in 2004, coming fifth

Holy shit! This is my mother’s neck of the woods. I’d like to know where they found 676 Tory votes in Hetton! I think there should be a police investigation.

Great post mettaculture.

I’d like to say I’m astonished that some liberal, progressive labour-supporting commenters here are defending this. But I’m not.

Latest reports - admittedly in the Mail - state that Sir Paul Stephenson Sir David Normington up to date with the investigation into the leak and telephoned to warn him of Damian Green’s pending arrest. But Sir Paul did not tell Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. Maybe Sir Paul thought this was how Smith wanted to play it. Maybe Smith asked not to be informed so that she could claim ignorance .

(Keep up at the back - Sir David Normington is Permanent Secretary at the Home Office and Chairman of the Interview Panel for the Next Met Commissioner).

Sorry ignore the above garbled posting, I’ll run it again.

Reports - in the Mail - state that Sir Paul Stephenson (acting Met Chief Commissioner of Police) liaised directly with Sir David Normington (Permanent Sec, HO) over the Damian Green investigation. And that Sir Paul telephoned Sir David to alert him to Damian Green’s pending arrest. Neither party informed Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. (Why not?)

Sir David Normington is Permanent Secretary at the Home Office and Chairman of the Interview Panel for the upcoming appointment of the next Met Commissioner of Police to succeed Sir Ian Blair. Sir Paul has applied for the job and so too, it is reported, has Asst Commissioner Robert Quick who led the raid (and was appointed by Jaqui Smith back in the spring).

“I don’t think anybody thinks that civil servants should have carte blanche to leak anything they want to MPs; equally there is some stuff which it is clearly in the public interest to have brought into the open. Information about failures in the immigration system is probably covered by public interest, but what about lists of Labour MPs, showing which way they might vote?”

Let me solve this problem for you. Parliament runs the country. The executive is weak. It cannot even make laws without parliament ( unlike strong executives - i.e. presidents). The executive produces bills, they go through commitee, changes are added, parliament votes etc. Private members can also produce bills.

Since parliament is sovereign, there is no such thing as an illegal leak to it from the civil service. The fact that the members sign the Official ecrets act does not mean that they dont have rights to those documents, but that they do.

It may well be that the executive may want to hide information from the opposition, this is a political process, a game where the executive wants to hide information from the opposition, or parlliament in general ( by the way backbench MPs from the same party as the government as in the same position as an opposition MP in regards to their constitutional position). In trying to get the information from our civil service the opposition is performing it’s duty, in try to stop it the executive is trying to govern less accountable.

so the constitutional issue is clear, if this precedent is allowed to stand then the opposition in parliament may as well not exist, in fact parliament may as well not exist, and once the government of the day is chosen the parliament may as well dissolve itself and allow the executive to make its 5 years without opposition, or the threat of dissolution.

it is likely that the police broke the law here, and a strong constitutional law too, they are acting in contempt of parliament.

Therefore parliament as a whole needs to act to ensure that the people in contempt, the police and the civil servants get to know who runs ther country.

All should be held in contempt and brought in front of commitee. Labour members who are worried about this should think about their inevitable generation in opposition, with such laws intact they will have no power whatsoever.

“Congratulations, Comrade, on the most piss-poor satire to ever hit this blog. And that’s some fierce opposition you’ve seen off there.”

Where was the satire. I was responding to a poster who wants the opposition leader locked up, for no reason. As a stalinist I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I think that this casual (and hyperbolic) throwing out of accusations of “Stalinism” are really going to follow Cameron and co around for a long long time. It is quite disgusting to insult Stalin’s victims by comparing their fate with the short detention of a pampered British MP.

For those interested in the legal issues, there is a clear explanation of the issues in this article by Geoffrey Robertson QC http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23595009-details/Mr+Green%27s+arrest+is+an+affront+to+democracy%3A+Michael+Martin+must+go/article.do.

This explains the various grounds on which the police could have arrested Damian Green and the charges which could follow. None incidentally are the grounds they used for the arrest.

Here is perhaps the key section:

“Much of the debate over the police action has missed the point.

“Police have operational independence, and it would have been wrong for them to have told their plans to the Prime Minister or Home Secretary. But the police must act according to law and obtain the approval of the DPP before beginning any operation against MPs.”

As I pointed out in my earlier posting, the Met seem to have a habit of confusing initial guidance sought from the CPS with approval for a course of action. The DPP has stated he did not specifically approve the arrest of Damian Green on this charge and therefore it seems the police have acted illegally.

Congratulations, Comrade, on the most piss-poor satire to ever hit this blog. And that’s some fierce opposition you’ve seen off there.

No need to get so defensive Brownie. It clearly annoyed you :)

Modernity with his oh so hilarious joke about purging of Tories kicked it off the Brownster.

Great post mettaculture.

I’d like to say I’m astonished that some liberal, progressive labour-supporting commenters here are defending this. But I’m not.

Exactly!

Anybody really interested in the legal issues and not the propoganda of a right-wing rag like the London evening Standard would be better off reading this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3534362/Why-Tory-MP-was-arrested.html

Section 32(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows the police to search not only an arrested person but also “any premises in which he was when arrested or immediately before he was arrested for evidence relating to the offence for which he has been arrested”

I am not a Labour supporter by any stretch of the imagination but it seems to me that the crucial point is whether Green was actively encouraging a civil servant to leak confidential information. If he was then he crossed a line that the Tories would be equally indignant about if it were to happen to them, and rightly so. If he was acting as a passive recpient of information which he then judged whether it was in the public interest to release, then he was doing nothing more than many other MPs have done in the past. We shall have to see whether evidence emerges to support the idea that he was ‘running a mole’ in the civil service. Although I am contemptuous of much of Labour’s attacks on civil liberties - the database state, the ‘extreme porn’ ban, numerous tinkerings with the CJ system - I am not yet ready to shout ‘police state’ on this one.

I am not a Labour supporter by any stretch of the imagination but it seems to me that the crucial point is whether Green was actively encouraging a civil servant to leak confidential information. If he was then he crossed a line that the Tories would be equally indignant about if it were to happen to them, and rightly so. If he was acting as a passive recpient of information which he then judged whether it was in the public interest to release, then he was doing nothing more than many other MPs have done in the past. We shall have to see whether evidence emerges to support the idea that he was ‘running a mole’ in the civil service. Although I am contemptuous of much of Labour’s attacks on civil liberties - the database state, the ‘extreme porn’ ban, numerous tinkerings with the CJ system - I am not yet ready to shout ‘police state’ on this one.

Quite right we don’t know enough yet and it is quite funny to watch the Tories blow their wads about civil liberties before we do. The offence of “conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office” under which green was arrested is usually (according to the telegraph) applied when a:

public officer, acting as such, who wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification”.

Which sounds like much more than leaking a few things to me.

No need to get so defensive Brownie. It clearly annoyed you :)

Haha. You reckon?

But the police must act according to law and obtain the approval of the DPP before beginning any operation against MPs

If this really is the case, then the police could be in trouble, couldn’t they?

I’ve no problem with questions being asked of the police conduct. I’d encourage it. But there is a difference between condemning police action action because they pursued their quarry without following the correct process, and condemning it becasue Green is an MP and therefore should get a free run at anything he likes.

Fionn,

Let me solve this problem for you.

Okay. Does the the offence of “conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office” extend to MPs, or doesn’t it?

of course it does. Parliament may be sovereign, but individual MP’s are not “parliament.”

Graham, Geoffrey Robertson makes clear that MPs are not above the criminal law. But he points out there are legal conventions and practice in the field of consitutional law as it affects Parliament, just as there are in any other field. This is why he states the DPP must give approval for any action against MPs.

Robertson is a QC working in this area and therefore his legal opinion has just as much validity as Vernon Bogdanor’s. Or should we only believe what we read in the Guardian?

But I think it all raises more interesting questions than the police harrassing a Tory MP.

There must be legitimate concern that the police have seized records of constituents’ affairs and correspondence with no bearing on the case and there must be some safeguards against this happening.

Under the PACE Act once a person has been arrested then their premises can be searched without further warrants. According to letters in the press, the police are now using this as a catch all in many cases where in the past they would have obtained a search warrant. This needs to be revisited to protect confidential records held by Doctors, Social Services etc from arbitrary seizure on unrelated grounds by the police.

(Journalists and newspapers editors are exempted and additional permission has to be sought from a circuit judge, but MPs forgot to extend this rule to themselves. This should now be done.)

Then there is the fact that the invesigation was conducted by the officer up for promotion to Commissioner at the request of the the Permanent Secretary scheduled to vet candidates and chair the interview panel. There must be some conflict of interest here.

Personally I think the whole affair should have been treated as a political matter and it should have dealt with by dismssing the civil servant and cutting off the information flow not trying to entrap a senior opposition MP.

Finally it appears to seem as though the police sought guidance from the CPS on whether what they planned to do was legal, and used this guidance to assume official sanction for their actions. They do not appear to have thought through further repercussions.

This is not the first time this has happened - the police mistaking CPS guidance on the law for approval to act. I think the Met need better access to legal access from specialists in these sorts of constitutional grey areas. They need to be able to ask, can we do this legally, AND if we do this what are the likely legal outcomes as a result.

In the light of my saying that we don’t know enough about the arrest I have no idea what you are getting at with your “should we only believe what we read in the Guardian” Mrs B. (Especially in light of my just posting a link to an article in the Telegraph.) I said way back that “according to Bogdanor” the police were within their rights to enter parliament that does not stop there being other opinions.

I suspect you are rather regretting trying to turn this into a party political matter without the knowledge of what exactly has gone on and I am sure Cameron’s rather disgusting hyperbole will rebound on him, especially as some of us remember his party’s efforts ehich led to the prosecution of Sarah tisdale in the eighties.

Yes they are, MP’s are protected by parliamentary privilege when carrying out the legitimate functions of a parliamentarian.

The police acted beyond their powers to enter parliament and seize an MP’s documents and constituency papers in a ‘fishing expedition’ to see what they could find.

The threshold for arrest of an MP should be a strong prima facie case of criminal misconduct or a real and present danger to national security.

If Green had been believed to be torturing babies or even fiddling his tax returns, then sovereign immunity would not apply.

This is so even for a head of state as was ruled in the Pinochet case ‘it is not the lawfull requirement of office for a head of state to murder his gardener’.

I think that this is a far more clear cut case of constitutional law than of the Lord levy affaire (which may have established a cultural but npot a legal precedent).

The issue is surely, that this is clearly a politically motivated arrest where the shambolic procedure seems to be a consequence of engineering plausible deniability.

The Home Secretary can argue, narrowly, that she was not responsible for the Police decision to arrest, because a chain of non-directive unaccountable advice and opinion is involved rather than any obvious ministerial order.

A Home Secretary uses weasel words when they claim that they were briefed and kept up to date with developments but they were not informed of the decision to arrest.

Briefed but not informed might most accurately describe our current political culture otherwise it must be pretty obvious that in general it is a very bad thing in a democracy when the Police arrest opposition leaders for doing their job of finding out the government’s plans and opposing them.

The position of the leaking civil servant is quite different. He took the piss when he took the documents and obviously faces iimmediate dismissal for gross misconduct.

He can no doubt be prosecuted for all sorts of breaches of contract and of criminal offences relating to exactly how and what he leaked.

The government might reflect on the Clive Ponting case before it pursues this avenue though.

Labour really will be in opposition again maybe quite soon, and there will be payback unless parliament gets its cross partisan act together for once in defending parliament for once rather than narrow personal or party political self interest.

This is why he states the DPP must give approval for any action against MPs.

Sorry, is this a legal convetion or is it law? I’m not clear which. Joshua Rosenberg doesn’t mention this in the Telegraph and i’ve not seen it referenced elsewhere, which suggests to me that this is Robertson’s take on a convention.

Mrs Ben - you raise some interesting points. Although I don’t share the indignation of some w.r.t Green’s arrest - not yet, anyway - I have concern over the extent to which the police can search and retain materials of an arrested person. However that’s an issue with the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which gives unparalleled opportunities for fishing expeditions. Oh how we need a 4th Amendment! There are rather more important things for civil libertarians to get worked up about at the moment, such as the publication of the data sharing review, which proposes to remove virtually all legal impediments to the sharing of confidential data across government departments and agencies where a so-called ‘robust case’ can be made. It’s funny that a government that is so exercised by the loss of its own data should want to leak my confidential data to all and sundry without my express authorisation.

There is nothing in our “constitution” (such as exists) which stops the police from entering the House of Commons (it has happened many times in the past) and going about the investigation of a crime in the normal way.

The forcing out of a Police cheif by a Tory mayor is a much greater (and more novel) threat to civil liberties than anything which has happened in the Green case.

Yes they are, MP’s are protected by parliamentary privilege when carrying out the legitimate functions of a parliamentarian.

Yeah, but he wasn’t (and the suggestion is that his involvement with Galley went beyond the legitimate functions of a parliamentarian).

Parliament was prorogued and as Rosenberg notes, this gave the police a window of opportunity. Nobody is suggesting they parliamentary speech privilege or constituents’ correspondence should be up for grabs. Just as with the legality of the Iraq war (and most other things come to that), it seems there are conflicting legal opinions on this.

Briefed but not informed might most accurately describe our current political culture otherwise it must be pretty obvious that in general it is a very bad thing in a democracy when the Police arrest opposition leaders for doing their job of finding out the government’s plans and opposing them.

When it’s been established that this is in fact what happened, then I’ll join the chorus of disapproval. As it is, this is currently nothing more than your best guess. Running a partisan mole in the civil service - the independence of which really is integral to our ability to function as a demcoracy - is not the job of any MP.

I have not tried to turn this into a party political matter at all Graham. When I pointed out Geoffrey Robertson QC’s take on the legal ramifications, as published in the Standard, you dismissed this as “the propoganda of a right-wing rag like the London evening Standard”.

The whole issue of what can and cannot be permitted as parliamentary privilege and on what grounds an MP could and should be arrested and his offices raided, clearly needs further review, if only to protect the records of innocent constituents from being seized in an unconnected raid on an MP’s offices.

If the police did tell the Serjeant at Arms that the raid had the approval of the DPP when it did not (and I am inclined to believe they did- probably due to thinking a conversation about it with the CPS constituted approval) - this suggests the police need better access to informed legal advice in this sort of area.

Is that a right wing comment? Is Geoffrey Robertson a ring winger because he submits a piece as a constitutional lawyer about it to the London Evening Standard? I always thought he was on the left.

And for God’s sake give us a break over Ken. I never mentioned him or Boris at any stage. Your chip is showing.

If the police did tell the Serjeant at Arms that the raid had the approval of the DPP when it did not

But we’re stil talking about a convention, aren’t we? As in, Robertson’s take is that the permission of the SatA should be sought and that only in cases where the DPP is sanctioning police entry to the palace should it be granted? Again, I’m not seeing anywhere this claim that the DPP has to santion such police action before it can happen.

And for God’s sake give us a break over Ken.

I never mentioned him either - your own chip is disabling your ability to have a rational discussion.

Now fuck off with your class bigotry.

I think the DPP thing (like so many of Mrs Ben’s “points”) is probably a complete invention.

There is no little savage irony (no, pathetic, really) in the fact that all the laws, ordinances, etc., which the police cite as the foundation for their actions were voted upon by the very same politicians now so outraged by the current police action. As several have pointedly, sharply, commented elsewhere, don’t these “tossers” ever read the legislation they vote on? There is no small satisfaction taken in saying: “Serves them right!”

BTW, a very thoughtful discussion (in the main) up to this point all round–mettaculture, Fionn, XofTheX and Mrs Ben especially.

Come on Graham, you can do better than personal abuse.

I am not a legal expert. Geoffrey Robertson is, he is a QC working in the area of constitutional law. It was his point that I made about the police needing to notify the DPP before moving against an MP. So I did not make it up, if anyone did Geoffrey Robertson did. I assume there is some precedent for what he wrote, but as I also pointed out above, I imagine, due to our lack of a written constitution that it is a grey area which is in part a matter of convention and interpretation.

The comments I made about the police telling the Serjeant at Arms that their raid had the approval of the DPP are being repeated widely on all political front and this sound plausible. As I also said, I can believe they did say this, based on a misinterpretation (to be charitable) of their conversations with the CPS.

Constitutents’ correspondence is confidential and they have a right to expect this. (Hansard debate 5 November 2008) This confidentiality has clearly been breached in this case and is why I imagine Harriet Harman is particularly anxious. I am very disturbed by the police seizing unrelated confidential records over which the House of Commons has a duty of care and I think they should be required to obtain a separate warrant in such cases.

Anyway the real reason for posting is I now see where all this is leading. The police believe that Green placed his mole in government in order to spy for the Tories and are looking for evidence to prove this. Good luck to them if they find it. I still think a trial would back fire, under Article 10 of the HCR.

Come on Graham, you can do better than personal abuse.

I was merely responding to your precedent alleging “chipiness”

Anyway the real reason for posting is I now see where all this is leading. The police believe that Green placed his mole in government in order to spy for the Tories and are looking for evidence to prove this.

I would suspect from what the Telegraph said about the offence being usually interpreted as a:

public officer, acting as such, who wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification”.

that it is all a little more serious than this - but the point is that nobody knows…

Constitutents’ correspondence is confidential and they have a right to expect this. (Hansard debate 5 November 2008) This confidentiality has clearly been breached in this case and is why I imagine Harriet Harman is particularly anxious. I am very disturbed by the police seizing unrelated confidential records over which the House of Commons has a duty of care and I think they should be required to obtain a separate warrant in such cases

I think you are absolutely right to be concerned about it. Whether or not the investigation into Green turns out to have been legitimate, the way in which the police have conducted it should give the public considerable concern. Not because it was done to an MP but because the same powers of seizure can be used against any citizen.

21st Century Socialism have just published an editorial on the Damien Green affair. Some HP commenters may even agree with it.

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/who_guards_the_tories_01794.html

Ta Zin - very interesting take on the affair.

The civil servant leaker is to give a press conference at 4.30pm
Should be fun.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Damian-Green-Arrest-Civil-Servant-At-Centre-Of-Inquiry-To-Hold-News-Conference-Today/Article/200812115168364?lpos=Politics_News_Your_Way_Region_7&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15168364_Damian_Green_Arrest%3A_Civil_Servant_At_Centre_Of_Inquiry_To_Hold_News_Conference_Today

Graham

Section 32(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows the police to search not only an arrested person but also “any premises in which he was when arrested or immediately before he was arrested for evidence relating to the offence for which he has been arrested”

I’m in favor of Law and Order Graham but that actually seems a bit draconian.

If the police wanted to search some premises but could find a reason for a warrant, they could wait until they saw some silly legal infringement on that premises, arrest the infringer on that premises and search the premises.

They could Clap but I really think we are in the business of working out the law as it is at the moment.

One thing at least seems certain - the law will need to be clarified or changed later on.

21st Century Socialism have just published an editorial on the Damien Green affair.

Ta Zin - very interesting take on the affair.

Graham bigs up the Chavez supporter who wants to import Venezuelan-style demonization of the democratic opposition and media as traitors and spies.

Graham bigs up the Chavez supporter who wants to import Venezuelan-style demonization of the democratic opposition and media as traitors and spies.

haha - not been reading the thread below have you mate!

And how is saying something is “interesting” “bigging it up” anyway you complete right-wing moron?

Graham,

John Little has some ‘issues’ he likes to work out in our comments section. I’d pay him no heed.

Yes I think he is the “alter-ego” of someone who regularly gets their arguments shredded.

He certainly seems to bear a grudge.

There is a distinct whiff of RCP about him at times.

Mettaculture has made the most pertinent points. This, from William Rees-Mogg in the Times is also relevant:

In 1523, Sir Thomas More, as Speaker, had to resist the pressure of Henry VIII’s Minister, Cardinal Wolsey; in 1642, Speaker Lenthall frustrated Charles I’s attempt to arrest the five Members. The House of Commons needs the protection of privilege to do its job. The liberty of Members is the liberty of the people.
…

The Speaker, Michael Martin, and the Serjeant at Arms, Jill Pay, failed to prevent the police invasion of the Palace of Westminster and may even have approved it. This breaks 700 years of parliamentary tradition. Both of them had the authority to keep the police out of Mr Green’s office.

Speaker Martin does not appear to know his history, or the importance of it. Having a 700 year precedent on your watch is not an accolade he will savour in his (hopefully soon) retirement. Jacqui Smith was evasive and shifty on Sunday AM, falling back on process and forgetting the core principles on which all our freedoms stand. The silence of Brown also speaks volumes for his position.

in 1642, Speaker Lenthall frustrated Charles I’s attempt to arrest the five Members.

Lenthall merely established a precedent that the speaker was a servant of parliament rather than of the crown. Martin is just as totally entitled to decide that the arrest of Green was beneficial to parliament if he so wishes.

Imagine what would have happened had Charles arrested (and probably tried and executed) those five members. Martin’s inaction means we now have a constitutional crisis, and a big question mark over the judgement of the Met high command. Harmon understands this, even if you do not.

What would cause a constitutional crisis is for the speaker to be influenced in his decisions by the likes of yourself. The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and has a job to do (which includes deciding on these matters as Lenthall did before him.)

Wasn’t Charles I simply trying to protect 700 years of a diffrent tradition?

And as for public interest, I’m a member of the public and I say it is in my interest that partisan, serial leakers are exposed, and that MPs running moles within a government department (as opposed to innocently receiving information) should be brought to book (assuming this accurately describes Green’s behaviour, which of course it may not).

Wasn’t Charles I simply trying to protect 700 years of a diffrent tradition?

Very well put - all we need now is Ven to tell us that tradition was far better.

Harmon understands this, even if you do not.

Haha, Harman was a leaker herself, once, and a not very careful one. She was taken to court by the HO for leaking court documents. I think you can safely determine that her opinion on this affair is far from objective.

In fact, it goes further than Harman. I’d no more take advice from MPs over this one than I would ask a turkey what it thought about Christmas. There but for the grace of God, and all that…

“The forcing out of a Police cheif by a Tory mayor is a much greater (and more novel) threat to civil liberties than anything which has happened in the Green case.”

The US disproves the point. There local politicans get to choose the head of the police force, and sometimes the electorate.

On the subject of serial leakers.

” If Michael Heseltine wanted to leak a government document, he would have had more sense than to do so through a Labour spokesman.

He can therefore be acquitted of responsibility for the disclosure by Gordon Brown of his memorandum to fellow cabinet ministers arguing for a different treatment of EC funds to support the less well-off regions of the UK. The leak, more to the point, is salutory. The case he makes is now assured the public airing it deserves.”

and

” Major blamed the party’s opponents for spreading “scare stories” when he addressed the Tory women’s conference in London on Friday. Yesterday, Michael Portillo, chief secretary to the Treasury, followed suit when asked about an apparent leak of Whitehall information to Gordon Brown, Labour’s shadow chancellor.

Brown said that a team at the social security department was exploring ways to cut housing and sickness benefits.”

Many more at http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/11/to-assist-the-m.html.

There were a hell of a lot of leaks back in the day, I wonder if a serial leaker was involved, surely so? Maybe brown escapes this because of the Statute of Limitations, maybe not. What’s the procedure? How do we find out? Do I issue a complaint to the Met, or do I have to be in good odour with the Home Office.

“There local politicans get to choose the head of the police force, and sometimes the electorate.”

should be the electorate gets to chose the police chief, of course.

The US disproves the point. There local politicans get to choose the head of the police force, and sometimes the electorate.

I have no wish to live in the USA thanks. Besides that, there is a very potential danger of low turnouts in local authority elections leading to extremist candidates becoming elected into positions of responsibility with the police. So thanks but no thanks and my point about civil liberties stands.

Well the Home Office Mole and his lawyer have surfaced and claim there was nothing of national security importance in the material he leaked to Green.

“Mr O’May (the lawyer) insisted the leaked documents were “embarrassment material” and important to holding the Government to account. “It’s really not state secret, national security, terrorism, financial jeopardy, loss, gain or otherwise — nothing remotely like that,” he said.

“Asked why police were not using powers granted to them under the Official Secrets Act, he said: “Instinct is to say that it is because the material that was passed across was at the very lowest level, the sort of thing that was almost in the public domain already.”

So it remains unclear why anti terrorism legislation was used to act against Green and what it was the police consider such a serious conspiracy as to merit it. It will be interesting to hear the police’s account in due course.

Brownie, are you opposed to all political leaks regardless of who is in power? and who is doing the leaking to whom? Would you make it a blanket ban on the whole lot?

“I have no wish to live in the USA thanks. Besides that, there is a very potential danger of low turnouts in local authority elections leading to extremist candidates becoming elected into positions of responsibility with the police. So thanks but no thanks and my point about civil liberties stands.”

I don’t want the US system either ( although I am dubious about the low turnout idea, the turnout would be a valid statistical sample of the entire electorate unless absolutely tiny). It is, however, not a loss of liberties, but a gain of some. Preferring representative democracy, and professional public servants I prefer our system - *but* - the police action against Green is far more worrying than Johnson’s action against Blair - in fact the two are diametrically opposite, a high ranking elected official against a high ranking public official in one case; the opposite in the other. ( Assuming Jacqui Smith had nothing to do with it)

*but* - the police action against Green is far more worrying than Johnson’s action against Blair

Possibly from your perspective. Mine remains that of an ordinary Londoner.

Quick note. It’s wise to ignore what Bogdanor has to say on anything ever. He recently claimed in the TLS that New Labour’s constitutional reforms have made Britain a freer country (though he at least had the grace to admit they have not revitalized the political process).

Thus, in Bogdanor’s opinion, a set of reforms designed with the explicit purpose of (i) destroying constitutional and mixed government in this country and (ii) removing impediments to the implementation of directives from Strasbourg have made this country freer.

Thus, Bogdanor is a mendacious liar.

The forcing out of a Police cheif by a Tory mayor is a much greater (and more novel) threat to civil liberties than anything which has happened in the Green case.

If Ken had of done it on other hand… ;)

Oh, sour grapes! Ah yes, an elected representative with a majority mandate, expressing no confidence in an unelected official in who’s force seemed to be descending in to a litigational quagmire which threatened to seriously undermine counter-terrorism and hate-crime efforts. Yes, a real threat to civil liberties! These elected representatives, who do they think they are?!

Bring on elected police heads.

Mine remains that of an ordinary Londoner.

Me too. And I completely disagree. As did 52% of other Londoners :) You still haven’t spoken to any acquaintances who voted Boris?

And for God’s sake give us a break over Ken.

I didn’t see this. I’d like to forget partisan dividers and concentrate on constructive areas. But it’s difficult with the rather hysterical and partisan sniping from parts of the left over the new Conservative mayor of London…

Mine remains that of an ordinary Londoner.

Long-time Labour Party hack, more likely. Ordinary Londoners don’t go around accusing people of belonging to obscure, forgotten Trot sects that nobody has ever heard of outside the very small world of student political activism.

I’ll stop commenting. I really should hold off from pressing submit,

But I find this a tad hilarious, the Tories are angered by reading another leaked email to discuss the Speaker’s speech to parliament on Wednesday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7759629.stm

If Ken had of done it on other hand… ;)

But he didn’t - so that makes as much sense as suggesting Gandhi invaded Poland…

Long-time Labour Party hack, more likely.

I was a member of the Labour party for one year (1985) Mr McCarthy… (Interesting you know the RCP were “Trots” however)

Fionn,

I couldn’t give a monkey’s is there was a leak every half hour if the information leaked was both unsolicited and *genuinely* in the public interest - rather than Westminster tittle-tattle designed to give a political advantage to one party over another.

We don’t know the full facts as they relate to this case - although many are commenting as though we do - but assuming an MP was soliciting leaks and effectively running a mole in a government department, would you regard this as nothing more than the cut and thrust of democratic politics, or is it something an elected representative of the people ought not to be doing? I think you know where I stand, but I’m not sure I know what your answer would be.

As did 52% of other Londoners :)

Turnout was 35% so actually 52% of the 35% of Londoners who bothered to vote voted for Johnson.

Not so bright looking now is it?

So it remains unclear why anti terrorism legislation was used to act against Green and what it was the police consider such a serious conspiracy as to merit it.

Anti-terror legislation was not used to act against Green. It’s one of several myths associated with this enquiry.

And I’m relieved to know that the information leaked was truly insignificant….albeit all in the public interest, of course.

I see Galley’s solicitor also noted that the leaks started “just over two years ago”…..or either just after or just before Green met Galley to disucss the latter’s employment prospects within the Tory party machine.

Man meets boy. Boy asks for job. Man refuses. Boy spends next two years furnishing man with every bit of political tittle-tattle he can get his hands on.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Brownie, are you opposed to all political leaks regardless of who is in power? and who is doing the leaking to whom? Would you make it a blanket ban on the whole lot?

No to all of it, although I think the law needs to be clarified. I think the test of what’s truly in the public interest needs some work. You don’t have to be a Labour loyalist to agree that much of what is leaked these days (and it would be no different if the Tories were in power, I’m sure) is more in the opposition’s interest rather than that of Mr and Mrs Jones on Acacia Avenue.

For the record, if it is shown that Green was soliciting leaks from a partisan civil servant, would you think this was just hunky-dory?

Turnout was 35% so actually 52% of the 35% of Londoners who bothered to vote voted for Johnson.

How about asking why the other 65% don’t trust politicians enough to bother voting?

I hold all politicians and the whole system of leaks in contempt - on both sides. And the Met police too. I don’t give a stuff if Galley offered them or Green solicited them, that is just semantics as far as I am concerned.

Pathetic attempts are made circulate to smear Green (there is a serious conspiracy in play, Green was grooming the mole) and now tonight on the news, we are told the real concern all along was just the volume of facts being leaked. Fine sack the civil servant.

I am more concerned about other implications of this case.

The seriousness of Green’s unspecified “crime” apparently justified the police raiding Green’s offices and home and seizing all his constituents’ correspondence and letters - which are confidential - and cutting them off from contact with their MP by shutting down his email and confiscating his phone and, and telling the Serjeant at Arms the DPP had approved this action, which the DPP denies.

Meanwhile the two senior coppers involved are both reporting directly on this to the senior civil servant who will shortly be chairing the interview panel for the top job they have applied for.

Mrs Ben,

No doubt the irony of your last post, which leads with a criticism of what you apepar to believe is the smearing of Green, and which concludes with you smearing acting Commissioner Stephenson and Normington, eludes you entirely.

“Man meets boy. Boy asks for job. Man refuses. Boy spends next two years furnishing man with every bit of political tittle-tattle he can get his hands on.”

Being a bit ageist aren’t you Brownie? Or is everyone other than a middle aged male tory MP a victim these days ?

I merely stated the truth about Quick and Stephenson. Liberty today said they believed there was a conflict of interest. Why is this a smear? The comments about Green (the one about a conspiracy came from Phil Woolas interviewed on the radio, and the comments about being accused during his arrest of grooming a mole, were leaked by “shadowy” Tories. The BBC tonight said the reason behind the arrest appeared to be concern in the HO over the stream of leaks. Does this justify the police tactics?

Take this story, not about Green, but about a lorry driver from the other end of the country, lighting a Gus Fawkes bonfire, different event, same tactics. Don’t they have anything better to do with their time.

“Night on the village green at Elwick went off in the traditional blaze of glory. But Guy Fawkes wasn’t the only sacrifice. Two days later, organiser Brett Duxfield was arrested, held at a police station for ten hours and charged with arson, for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.

He was taken from his home at 8am and had his DNA and fingerprints taken after police received a complaint that a 130-year-old bylaw banning fires on the green had been broken. Mr Duxfield appeared before Hartlepool magistrates and was granted bail after the case was adjourned.

Mr Duxfield, who lives in nearby Hartlepool, moved from Elwick three years ago but still visits the village to meet friends. He said that on Bonfire Night, 14 uniformed police officers had turned up wearing protective clothing.

He said he gave his name as a point of contact and was told that officers were only there as a matter of safety. ‘Two days later, three police officers turned up at my home at 8am and I was arrested,’ he said. ‘I was interviewed until about 11.45am and then I was thrown in the cells until 6.15pm.”

‘The inspector kept opening the hatch and asking if I would accept a caution. I told him there was no way I would do that as I had done nothing wrong. ‘I will definitely be making a civil case against the police force.’

Inspector Tony Green, of Cleveland Police, said: ‘We are duty bound to follow a complaint through.”

Does this justify the police tactics?

Do you know what, Mrs Ben? I don’t know, and I won’t be able to make a clear judgment until a few more facts come to light.

It’s great that Galley’s solicitor can call a press cofnerence, present the case for the defence and then refuse to answer any questions becasue of an ongoing police investigation, but I’ll assume there’s another side to the story and keep my powder dry all the same.

You, on the other hand, seem to have little problem drawing hard and fast conclusions on the basis of, I assume, the same facts available to everyone else. Congratulations, I think.

So a guy who doesn’t live in a particular village decides there will be a bonfire on the village green regardless and, presumably, a local resident complains. He winds up being detained as he refuses to accept a caution.

The gulags can only be just around the corner.

Being a bit ageist aren’t you Brownie?

Okay, I give in. Explain to me how my comment is “ageist”.

I merely stated the truth about Quick and Stephenson.

I’m calling bullshit on that one. This has been your modus operandi all day. My rabbit can work out what you’re about with what must your fourth or fifth reference to the fact that there’s a vacancy for Met Chief.

Normington is one of the selection panel as I understand it. The logic of Liberty’s and your position is that even if there were incontrovertible evidence of criminal activity, Normington should not have called in the police lest there be suspicion of a conflict of interest when Stephenson or whoever come before the selection board. It’s preposterous.

As for the number of leaks rather than their sensitivity being the motivation for calling in the police, there has been much made of the fact that there has been no disclosure of any information that compromises national security. Well, imagine that next month there had been such a leak, and that we then learned that weeks before the most senior civil servant at the HO had sought the permission of the Home Secretary - as so many seem to think he should have done - to call in the police due to systemic leaking from the department, only to be told by Smith that she would not sanction this - as so many seem to think she ought to have so ruled. You and every other critic of Green’s treatment today would want Smith’s head on a spike at traitor’s gate.

The person involved is reported as being 26 years of age.
I’m also careful not to refer to women in their 20’s as girls, as I think it is respectful only to use these words about people under the age of their majority.

Brownie -

“As for the number of leaks rather than their sensitivity being the motivation for calling in the police, there has been much made of the fact that there has been no disclosure of any information that compromises national security. Well, imagine that next month there had been such a leak, and that we then learned that weeks before the most senior civil servant at the HO had sought the permission of the Home Secretary - as so many seem to think he should have done - to call in the police due to systemic leaking from the department, only to be told by Smith that she would not sanction this - as so many seem to think she ought to have so ruled. You and every other critic of Green’s treatment today would want Smith’s head on a spike at traitor’s gate.”

eh?

Mrs B

I repeat, why not just stop the flow - sack the civil servant concerned.

Mrs B.

“So a guy who doesn’t live in a particular village decides there will be a bonfire on the village green regardless and, presumably, a local resident complains. He winds up being detained as he refuses to accept a caution.”

Actually this is not true, it was a village bonfire supported by the villagers. Unknown to them a local parish councillor objected and registered a complaint with the police. The police turned up in force on the night saying they were there to check on safety. The bonfire lighter gave his name to them in good faith and next thing finds himself thrown into jail for 11 hours while the police try to force some admission of guilt out of him.

You apparently think this is acceptable police behaviour. Maybe you are living in the wrong country.

One good thing is that enraged villagers forced the councillor concerned to resign.

The person involved is reported as being 26 years of age.
I’m also careful not to refer to women in their 20’s as girls, as I think it is respectful only to use these words about people under the age of their majority.

Alan, it was a play on the “boy meets girl” theme. If I’d have said “man meets man”, it would’nt have worked quite as well.

Seriously, catch yerself on.

You apparently think this is acceptable police behaviour. Maybe you are living in the wrong country.

I don’t know if you’ve actually bothered to read my comments today and insist on misrepresenting me, or whether you simply haven’t understood. Let me say it again for the hard of understanding:

I don’t need to be convinced that the police - like any other state actors - are capable of overstepping certain boundaries, exceeding their powers or generally just screwing things up; or worse, deliberately hindering the course of justice. The Guildford 4, Brimingham 6, Hillsborough…you name it.

What is right and proper, however, is that the police should enjoy operational indepdence. What we ought not to countenace are attempts to prejudice an ongoing police enquiry, not least by people who simply cannot be aware of all salient facts, and definitely not by polical operators with a vested interest in preventing an enquiry running its course.

So today we have a chairman of the Met Police Authority - who also happens to be a Tory mayor - openly questioning an ongoing police enquiry. Truly unprecedented, and not a peep from you, Mrs Ben, who can sniff out a conflict of interest at the distance of a country mile.

Your pyromaniacal lorry driver plans to bring a civil action against the police and has no doubt lodged a complaint with the relevant police authority. This is how you hold you the police to account in this country. Or at least, it used to be.

eh?

Playing dumb doesn’t suit you, Mrs B.

Brownie

‘Wasn’t Charles I simply trying to protect 700 years of a diffrent tradition?’

Exactly! the principle of Parliamentary privilege is the crystalisation of democratic opposition to the absolute rule of Tyrant Kings.

The Monarch was once the source of prerogative powers of the Executive that included summary law making powers.

James 1st/6th by seeking to concentrate all power in the hands of the Monarch attempted to remove any constitutional restraint on his power.

He pushed even the week constitutionalism of Magna Carta and the growth of an independent law to which even the King should be subject passed breaking point and created the constitutional conflict that contributed to the English Revolution (a civil war is a battle between 2 or more societal factions, when a new class arises dominates the assembly, seizes the machinary of government and creates a national army that wins a war and executes the Monarch installing a Monarchless new regime it is generally called a revolution).

The Glorius Revolution and the Bill of rights of 1689 represented the new constitutional settlement that ended the interegnum by forever limiting the power of the Monarch as subordinate to parliament.

The Bill of rights 1689 preanble is astonishingly close in substance and style to the century later American Bill of rights.

Yet the 1689 Bill of rights is worthless it means nothing in Britain it gives no rights and entrenches nothing.

The middle Tempple lawyers as supporters and influencers (even drafters) of the US constitution got it right, they seperated the powers and created a clear rule based system for upholding these checks and balances to resist forever descent into the tyranny of an absolute ruler.

It is pointless to argue for a English constitution that is robust by convention when a 700 yr old convention can one day be ignored, without anyone realizing that the tradition was supposed to represent a rule and a principle (a constitutional convention is not just a silly hat that you choose not to wear)

Graham

I am rather surprised by your ’so what, no big deal ‘response. It is the closed nature of English circulating elites who act outside of any constitutional restraint that is the rot at the heart of the UK polity that always erodes personal liberties.

To argue that we really don’t know what the law is, so we must retrospectively find out, has always been the response of reactionaries for whom ruling is a right and a state of mind.

For the permanent secretaries, and ministers and their executive rule by clubby ways, a transparent constitution is exactly what they most fear, which is why they have always defended the superiority of a Diceyan view of the robust nature of an unwritten constitution that is oh so solid until you try to pick it up when it melts into air.

i happen to believe that the ‘robust unwritten but far superior English constitution’ (how would anyone know it is superior if they don’t know what it is) is the biggest most manipulative lie in British history.

Frankly there is no point in asking experts on what constitutional law is.

All of the progressive liberal, democratic, constitutions throughout the world were established by laying down clearly what it should be.

As a Socialist I cannot understand the total disregard for constitutionalism.

I have to say there is something Stalinist (or rather Marxist- Lenninist) about this, as one finds that the thinking often does not go far beyond seizing state power then excercising it as government without any restraint or limitation in every ones best interests.

Tories have never played by the rules, or only for those things that do not matter, as the real rules are never written as every public Schoolboy knows, you learn the rules only to know how to cheat and not get caught.

An even greater reason then for democratic socialists to insist on the rules and the principles.

And procedures and operational issues are not rules in the sense of law they are made up things to serve a particular interest and are imposed by executive power not agreed by a sovereign parliament.

The real reason that no government in office has ever shown any concern with abolishing the monarchy or the House of Lords is because they discover that they (the Cabinet and prime Minister) actually get all the Monarchs powers that cannot even be reviewed by Parliament, let alone controlled by them.

In a constitutional democracy (a real one where people actually know what it is) limitations on executive power, the powers of a president vs Prime Minister vs the legislature vs the Judiciary have to be spelled out, yes there are abuses but at least you know if they are abuses, rather than competing views on how things should be done.

And yes I do think that Boris Johnson’s effective dismissal of iain Blair was a constitutional outrage (deeply ironic considering the Tories abolished the GLC and have resisted any real powers for the Mayor.

A democracy could perfectly have a Mayor whose powers included that of prominent appointments of Public officials, but that would have to be constitutional with all the checks and balances and powers for democratic oversight that entails.

Boris Johnson had no such power it is an abuse of office.

But it is exactly of the same order as the Green case where sweeping powers are assumed where none lie, where things are done because people in positions of power think they can use public office as an extension of their narcissistic egos, that protect themselves from criticism by saying they didn’t actually order or do anything they just raised the matter with some other people who raised the matter with some others and mysteriously their wishes and intentions are fulfilled.

The corrupting powers of an absolute Monarch should not be left just lying around in various sized chunks, littering the dead spaces of what was once a constitutional democracy.

These ‘powers’ are picked up and abused by peop;le who once would have seen themselves as Public Servants.

Now those who seek high office are chancers, as narcissistic and egocentric and devoid of personal restraint and public morality as any reality show contestant who thinks that the point of life is to get attention and be given things like great power and influence, and the right to get what they want as a result of their right to be a celebrity, because ‘they’re worth it’.

You can’t reason or negotiate with a person with a narcissitic personality disorder, otherwise known as those in or chasing high office, you can only lay down the law with sufficient authority to make them realise (briefly) that what they want personally isn’t a sufficient reason to give it to them.

One more thing about dictaroships and Police states, which is universal not of a Stalinist origin.

Every democratic state under the rule of law, that has become a dictatorship by seizure of the executive, has inherited its public servants from a democracy.

Judges, Police. Armed forces, civil servants etc have continued to serve much as before though the demands on them may change.

Now presumably not every policeman overnight turns from nice uncle Carlos by day to throwing students out of aircraft by night, but some, quite a lot really, do.

In fact with very few and honourable exceptions most public servants, serve the incoming dictaors, they do not resist their new job descrption, indeed there are many opportunities in such a system for the young and ambitious.

I see a creeping moral corruption of British institutions where everything is proceduraly correct but nothing is right or principled or honest.

When we witness a situation where Police as empoyed officials of the state subject to law are allowed to enter parliament and seize an MP’s documents, as if it is unexceptional, unimportant or remotely unusual, when the Monarch, the head of state is barred from entry into the Commons then we are in a sorry state.

If the constitutional separation of powers is understood to be merely folkloric and of no real consequence for operational decision makers of high office then we are in trouble.

If the protection of the rights of the commons are seen as a pantomime of Searjent’s at arrms and buckle boots and britches and ceremonial swords, as a pythonesque charade, that need not detain serious oficials, about their serious business, who see the only authority for their actions or limitation of them as flowing autonomusly from their own practices and procedures, then we are fucked.

We might as well have selection for high office by reality show, more people would show an interest then, and certainly more people would be bothered enough to cast a vote (premium call rate) for them.

It certainly couldn;t be any less democratic could it?

I am rather surprised by your ’so what, no big deal ‘response.

To be honest it is more of a “we don’t know enough yet, let’s wait and see before we bust a gut” response.

Mettaculture,

I’m a republican and a longstnading agitator for a written constitution. Although the fact we don’t have one and therefore - in your words - may was well not bother asking so-called constitutional experts for an opinion on matters such as these (Green, etc.) cuts both ways, does it not? It makes no more sense to claim Green’s detention and the manner of his arrest was an affront to our non-existent constitution than it does to argue the opposite. I appreciate the point about 700 years of tradition, but as a Catholic who is by dint of his religion and another longstanding tradition out of the running for head of state, I think tradition is overrated. And if we accept that an MP’s Westminster office is not entirely out of bounds for the police (and we seem to agree about this given your earlier comment when you talked about prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing justifying access), then there is no principle at stake, just a question of degrees.

Do you think an MP who is soliciting leaks, who has effectively recruited and then handles a mole who in turn is responsible for systemic leaking that compromises the operational efficiency of a government department, deserves any censure at all? There has been much talk of the fact that the police are public servants; well, this is the very definition of a civil servant. I employ Galley as much as I do the police. The behaviour of which Green is (apparently) accused, is the very antithesis of democratic politics. If guilty, Green has been complicit in the deliberate politicization of a process and perversion of people, the indepdencen of whom is a cornerstone of our ability to function as a democratic state. There was a time when this would have caused more outrage than the offending of Westminster palace sensibilities about who precisely is entitled to enter which room.

It is pointless to argue for a English constitution that is robust by convention when a 700 yr old convention can one day be ignored, without anyone realizing that the tradition was supposed to represent a rule and a principle

Metta. I am no lawyer but I am sure that the only right that Erskine May lists is the right for MP’s not to be impeded as they go to vote - MPs are not protected in any way from arrest on criminal grounds and although there may not be a recent precedent for the arrest of an MP in the house it certainly will have happened in the past. What I see right now is a lot of hysterical tories (egged on by the Standard and other such rags) calling for the head of the speaker - and that really is a threat to democracy.

The behaviour of which Green is (apparently) accused, is the very antithesis of democratic politics.

Gordon too then? (see all the televised footage about him boasting about his mole/s when in opposition)

Leaks and moles may be deplorable but they are worked by all political parties in and out of government and it doesn’t look like they are about to give up the habit any time soon.

I am more concerned about the heavy handed tactics of the police, which are becoming ever more typical, and the impact on the private affairs of Green’s constituents.

Leaks and moles may be deplorable but they are worked by all political parties in and out of government

This sounds like the “why should my son be arrested when Mrs Jones’ boy down the street got off scott-free” argument.

In fact (boiler-plate about “leaks” notwithstanding) and as pointed out upthread and re-presented here for the third time….the offence under which Green appears to have been arrested is usually used upon: “a public officer, acting as such, who wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder, without reasonable excuse or justification”.

In other words it sounds like a bit more than a simple leak.

I agree Graham but nothing has emerged so far to support the leaks being anything more than “simple” leaks. Both Green and Galley have denied they were anything more and this is also the line Dominic Grieve is taking.

On the news last night, the BBC reporter doing an update suggested that “senior civil servants” thought that a stream of leaks, in themselves innocent enough, were sufficient justification for this charge. There were several charges the police could have made and maybe they chose this one in the absence of anything more solid.

It cannot be irrelevant that the DPP has distanced himself from police claims that he approved this charge. It will be interesting to see what they do pin on Green, if anything.

The police are also reported to be keen to interview David Davis, who presumably used the same mole when Shadow Home Secretary, but are now nervous about how to go about doing so. Particularly as there is reported to be bad blood between Asst Commissioner Quick and Davis.

but nothing has emerged so far to support the leaks being anything more than “simple” leaks.

This is the entire point. You have no idea for instance just what the police have found on Green’s computer.

And if the police find nothing more than the leaks we have heard about so far, will that justify their actions? Will it justify them confiscating and trawling through his constituents’ correspondence? This is a very slippery slope.

One interpretation is that Green was arrested for conspiracy for misconduct in public office (receiving a stream of leaks from a well placed mole) and not for the misconduct itself. It was for his part in the civil servant’s actions, which were the ‘crime’ being investigated.

My guess from the tone of recent reports coming from the BBC etc is that the HO wanted to stop the chain of leaks. They contacted the police who investigated and found the trail led back to a Tory MP.

They then sought guidance from the CPS on what they COULD do, to find out what information the MP actually held, and then took this to to be advice on what they SHOULD do. They then claimed, to the Serjeant at Arms, their actions had the backing and approval of the DPP. Who has denied this. I hope the police have something in writing. This is potentially very damaging for the police.

Bob Quick, by the way, who took the decision to raid Green’s office in the HoC is we are told currently the Police’s most senior counter terrorism expert. I am always puzzled by the way the police are moved around between jobs for which they appear to have little relevant experience. Here is Bob Quicks cv.

All very worthy, admirable even but there is no indication at all of any experience of counter terrorism before he was appointed head of the counter terrorism unit in February 2008.

Robert joined the Metropolitan Police Service in 1978 where he served in Lambeth. In 1982 he was selected for training as a Detective and posted to Brixton.In the following years he was appointed to a number of leadership roles in both CID and Uniform Operations in many South London Divisions.

He also served as a detective on a number of Metropolitan Police Service Central and Area Squads. He also served on the South East London Crime Command investigating murders and serious violent crime. In 2000 he was appointed Detective Chief Superintendent in charge of the MET’s Anti Corruption Command and in 2001 he attended the Strategic Command Course before promotion to Commander in November 2001.

In 2002 he led the Met’s ‘Operation Safer Streets’ campaign against street robbery. As an experienced detective officer he has a range of experience, including leadership of high profile anti-corruption operations and the investigation of racially motivated murder. As Commander in Territorial Policing (Crime), he led the Metropolitan Police Operation ‘Safer Streets’ Campaign against street robbery and armed crime in London.

In 2003 he transferred on promotion to Surrey Police as Deputy Chief Constable and in November 2004 he was appointed Chief Constable of Surrey.

Between 2005 and 2008 Robert was the Chair of the ACPO Workforce Development business area and led the National Workforce Modernisation Programme introducing 11 large scale demonstration sites piloting various workforce and business reforms.

In March 2008 he was appointed as Assistant Commissioner ‘Specialist Operations’ (ACSO) within the Metropolitan Police Service, London .

And if the police find nothing more than the leaks we have heard about so far, will that justify their actions?

I think MP’s have been arrested (and charged)for less. Surely you are not arguing that an MP should be above the law so “the actions” you refer too can only be that the arrest took place in the commons - a matter that we have already said does not seem to be against parliamentary privelige but which can be codified very easily.

Brownie

Well the way I studied English Constitutional Law which lacks any evident coherent principle (but in fact represents principle endlessely overturned by vested interest) was through the lens of the US consitution.

Through the viewpoint of the fdrafters of the US bill of rights and Constitution that was desinged not to be the wrongs of England and never be able to slip into rule by powerful elites.

I would say that even with the incredible attempts to dominate the process the US constitution has fared remarkabley well.

So my point of departure is allways beneath this piecemeal of bits and bobs is there a principle and what should the law be.

But Brits just don’t get it over the US elections when some pompous someone or other said to a republican strategist ‘but would mcCain be prepared to Govern if he one on the electoral college but had a minority of the popular vote’ the guy looke at him with a ‘are you for real’? expression and said ‘you bet, its the name of the game’.

My view is that we shouldn’t be in this position and no the police would have to cross a very high evidential threshold and have permission of the DPP, and the speaker before setting foot in parliament and that the home secretary and prime minister and leader of the opposition be informed before this becomes a news story.

As for investigating MP’s well parliament should have more US style hearings after all as the jighest law makers in the land they have the power to initiate criminal proceedings, make arrests and examine witnesses.

But as for you not being entitled to being the head of state because you are a Catholic, well its true that Catholics can’t but i would think you are disbarred on account of you not being a Royal in lline to the throne, unless that is you have been keeping your foundling origins secret and you really are a prince descended directly frm the catholic stuarts…:_)

cue Oh yes you’re the great pretender whoa whoah

That’s ‘Viscount’ Brownie, to you.

My concern remains that the confidential records of MPs constituents do not appear to be protected from seizure by the police on unrelated matters as in this case.

I think the provision of the PACE Act need to be extended to grant increased protection to these sorts of confidential records (constituents correspondence etc) so that separate warrants are needed to seize these when somneone is arrested on criminal charges, rather than letting it go by default as at present.

And the police do seem to have an increasing tendency to respond to any complaint by a bureaucratic functionary by going in boots first, where commonsense might dictate a more nuanced approach.

I also think there is far too much secrecy in government and I don’t approve of leaks as I think nearly everything that could be in the public domain should be. I don’t buy the argument there are degrees of leaks, I think either they are all wrong or you accept them all as a facet of political life. To me it makes no difference if they are supplied regularly or intermitantly. By all means sack the mole, but unless all MPs, including the likes of Gordon B, stop using moles and leaking out information (and I include the leaks to the press under the guise of “a source close to government said”) , then discussions on which type of leak is bad and which is good are just so much semantics.

You seem to think the charge chosen means Green is guilty of something more serious than merely receiving leaked information regularly. I tend the other way, that they had to use it as they had very little else they could go for and the Cabinet Office was demanding action.

No doubt we shall soon find out who is correct.

My concern remains that the confidential records of MPs constituents do not appear to be protected from seizure by the police on unrelated matters as in this case.

I don’t think that’s been established at all, has it? My understnading is that correspondence with constituents always was and remains privileged. I’ve not seen any reprots that clarify *exactly* which records were and were not taken. Having said that, I don’t think police should be prevented from seizing a computer that they believe may contain incriminating evidence just because it also holds a draft letter to Mr Jones about the dodgy path at the front of his drive. Police should be forbidden to reveal this data or use as evidence in any way, but otherwise you’re making it pretty easy for MPs to cover-up any subterfuge.

BTW, and for the record, I have no doubt whatsoever this case will be dropped. Just yesterday, you noted that the police would probably have wanted to interview David Davies next but were unlikely to do so due to the *volatile political situation*.

Isn’t that just dandy? A police investigation effectively stopped in its tracks because of political volatility?

Oh yes, this whole Green affair has cast a shadow over some of our longest-standing democratic traditions alright, just not the ones many people keep talking about.