Harry’s Place

When the plod are arresting Labour MPs under a Tory government, raiding their parliamentary offices and reading their private correspondance with constituents and fellow MPs, you will regret that you diminished and minimised the importance of this scandal.

“‘Stranger and Stranger’ said Alice”
-Alice in Wonderland

Christopher Galley is to freedom of information what Karen Matthews is to child-rearing.
Come, come. You are prejudging. We don’t actually know what the leaks were, apart from trivial ones like illegals being employed by the Home Office.

I agree there’s been a lot of hyperbole here, and I have no patience with Tory placemen serving two masters. If Galley was paid, or even induced, to do what he did, that is serious corruption and deserves exemplary punishment. We don’t know if that’s what happened, it’s just an allegation. Ahem.

However:
*Should police be used to investigate master/servant disputes where there is no issue of national security?
*Should police be able to go on a fishing expedition anywhere, never mind Palace of Westminster?
*How would your answer differ if a government agency were involved, and why?

etc etc.

We aint heard nothin yet…

Chris Huhne made a thoughtful speech in the Commons yesterday pointing out that the Commons is a ‘constitutional poodle’ compared to may other legislatures, and that leaking actually has an honourable history in the UK, such as the time when Winston Churchill used a leak from the civil service to warn about the dangers of Nazi Germany.

This leaking can have role in circumventing some of the weaknesses the Commons has in terms of oversight and holding the government to account. It’s only recently that the UK introduced a half way decent freedom of information act. The tradition of British state secrecy is a long one.

It will be interesting to see how this finally plays out.
Any Minister found to have lied about prior knowledge of the arrest will have to go.

On the other hand I think theres a good chance that the Tory party,particularly if it is seen to have taken legal advice on what they could offer the leaker, may come over as a bunch of entitled posh lads playing with a fag while giggling about it all in the tuck room.

And if Cameron wanted to know what he could and couldn’t offer a Civil Servant to breach of their contract then the words “unfit for office” should be hung around his neck.

Jesus wept.

You think that just because the parliamentarian they arrested was Tory that the police are on your side?

And what the Tories got legal advice on is no one’s business but their own. This is really basic stuff here.

not a coherent post

Too damn right, more like a load of partisan sour grapes and innuendo. What “lies” exactly did Thatcher utter re the Belgrano (pretty obviously a matter of national security), by the way?

A recent MSM article stated that the Serjeant at Arms was usually an ex-military type with a fearsome demeanour. The government seems to have downgraded the post (including cutting its salary), believing it to be solely ceremonial. You get what you pay for.

I remeber when Tory MPs were also ex military types, rather than advertising industry fops.
I bet one of them would’ve thought to ask the rozzers whether they had a search warrant old boy.

Presumably you’ll come back with ‘coherant’ thoughts when a Tory gov’t nick their first Labour MP.

Meanwhile let’s put an end to this nonsense about Green ‘grooming’ his informant. Whatever he is, he’s not a paedo nut it just shows how desperate our Stalinist gov’t is

grrr, these comments are making me unspeakably cross.

Let’s put aside the parliament aspect for a second and deal with the leaking.

Nothing that was leaked was particularly in the public interest - no major scandals were being covered up, no government lies were exposed, it was all -as Gene says- barely more than gossip; a draft letter for gods sake and so on.

The civil servant doing the leaking, was doing it not in the public interest but to cause damage to New Labour -that’s not the worst motivation for breaking the law but it’s hardly virtous, but specifically he was passing information to a shadow minister who was then selectively using it. Someone really concerned to have this information in the public domain would have passed it to the press or his own mp or put it on a blog.

Finally on the leaking, I see no reason why I should risk the sack or imprissonment for leaking confidental or secret information while some public school joker doesn’t because he’s passing it to the tory party.

I’m all for more openness in government, I can see no reason why all whitehall correspondance isn’t published routinely as soon as it is finished with as an active issue, and available on request sooner. I’m in favour of MPs closely scrutinising the workings of government -but that would mean mps on all sides being able to poke there noses in, not the selective leaking from one racist homophobe toff in the civil service to his similar mates in the Tory party.

Presumably you’ll come back with ‘coherant’ thoughts when a Tory gov’t nick their first Labour MP.

Yeah, but I’ll probably spell it differently.

Too damn right, more like a load of partisan sour grapes and innuendo. What “lies” exactly did Thatcher utter re the Belgrano (pretty obviously a matter of national security), by the way?

The initial claims that it had only been sighted on the day it was sunk, that it was inside the exclusion zone and headed towards the task force. There was also the deliberate stonewalling of when exactly the Peruvian peace deal was recevied by the govt. To clarify, I’m not arguing that the sinking of the Belgrano was wrong; but lying about the circumstances of its sinking certainly was.

Oh, and why would I have “sour grapes” given it’s a Tory MP who is suspected of being in cahoots with a party activist HO mole?

you all seem to be forgetting that during the cash for honours enquiry– the police did in fact arrest downing street aides and search their office and computers.

Im with Brownie on this. This past week has seen an avalanche of depressing cant from the Tories and their press poodles.

I rather liked David Starkey’s likening of this to the Thomas Becket affair.

In that case a rather decent King was “assisted” in his disputes with an opinionated prat of an Archbishop by overzealous knights who just went too far and killed the guy. Centuries on do we think of Henry II as a decent King and Becket as a dangerous zealot? No. Henry is just a murderer, Becket is a saint.

There’s something highly dubious about a Tory MP running his own mole in a government department. But sadly PC Plod’s clever idea of sorting the issue out using a massive and unnecessary response - raids on 3/4 addresses, arresting an MP and questioning him for 9 hours, employing dozens of size-12 footed enforcers from the anti-terrorist squad when a single ‘phone call would have been enough to get the guy to agree to drop in for questioning, seizing confidential correspondence between an MP and his constituents - is all that is getting coverage, and is all that will be remembered.

Whatever happens to Galley, it is well nigh inevitable that the police will announce at some point that there is no basis for any action against Green. And it’s only really the police that will be villified over this, not the Tories.

A huge cock-up, IMHO.

you all seem to be forgetting that during the cash for honours enquiry– the police did in fact arrest downing street aides and search their office and computers.

Cash for Honours was a purely a Party Political Affair. The arrest of Green was an attempt by this corrupt government to silence HM’s Offical Opposition.

Its not surprising that an authoritarian such as Oppengruppenfuhrer Brownie is all for arresting his political opponents.

The latest opinion polls have Labour falling almost 15% behind now - the next election will be a reckoning that will make 1997 look like a tea party.

There’s something highly dubious about a Tory MP running his own mole in a government department.

I bet you there was more than one involved,and I bet you one of them was David Cameron.

The latest opinion polls have Labour falling almost 15% behind now - the next election will be a reckoning that will make 1997 look like a tea party.

An average of the latest polls show Labour 6-7% behind and the Tories need approximately an 8 point lead to form a majority.

Cash for Honours was a purely a Party Political Affair. The arrest of Green was an attempt by this corrupt government to silence HM’s Offical Opposition.

What is the point of bothering to type a comment, Morgoth, if every wrod is premised on a lie like the one above. Neither you nor the Tory party can find a single policeman or civil servant who implicates the government in all of this. Not one. So tell me, why shouldn’t we just ignore everything you write?

What is interesting here is that the police decided to go after Green even after they had nabbed Galley. Sacking a civil servant who passes on confidential information is relatively straightforward, prosecuting the MP who receives it is much harder.

I assume the police went after Green because they needed more evidence to actually charge Galley. But as they were not sure what information had been passed they had to go for the relatively obscure law they chose and not the Official Secrets Act for example. In fact there was a week’s delay between the two arrests anyway, time enough for Green to cover his tracks if they needed covering that it, I should have thought.

Various parties involved also seem to have exaggerated the situation to talk up their own book: first of all the Cabinet Office said that the leaks were of material affecting major issues of National Security, (according to the police in some reports), then as the story unfolded, they said it COULD be National Security issues, then that the very fact of the leaks over an extended period meant it was an issue of major National Security.

Meanwhile reports have also surfaced that the police told the hapless Jill Pay that the raid had been sanctioned by the DPP. The DPP then surfaced and said no it hadn’t, and we are now told only that they had initial discussions with the CPS and it was made known to Jill Pay that she could ask for a warrant. Quick’s letter is quite carefully worded. I wonder what they actually told Jill Pay.

I wonder even more why she did not demand either an arrest warrant or something in writing saying the raid had been sanctioned by the DPP if that is what the police did tell her. And why didn’t the Speaker immediately take steps to find out what was happening? Both Pay and the Speaker seem totally incompetent.

There has been a lot of discussion about parliamentary privilege, the PACE Act, whether an MPs offices are covered by it etc but what I find much more alarming and what Brownie conspicuously fails to mention, is that the police made off with Green’s PC and all his confidential constituency records.

I believe, and am happy to stand corrected, that while medical records and legal records are protected by confidentiality legally and also journalists records by the PACE Act, somehow MPs consituency records got overlooked. I don’t think they should be seized by the police on the sayso of the likes of the police and Jill Pay.

Harriet Harman (who is of course a Civil Liberties lawyer) was on tv saying in future they would need a warrant from a High Court judge to do this, and I have to agree with her there.

Bottom line is: all the time politicians in opposition use moles to obtain inside information and politicians in power, leak to the press what they want us to know (”Whitehall sources” etc”) then this sort of thing will continue to happen. Debating degrees of who told what to whom under what circumstances is pure semantics. The sensible thing to do is stop the leaks, not start raiding MPs offices.

Oh the hypocrisy of a Labour Placeman accusing others of lying!

It’s true that the ability of Opposition ministers - and MPs in general - to make public information received on the sly from civil servants can be in the interest of the public good. It’s also the case that uncontrolled leaking of information that isn’t particularly in the public interest for the sole purpose of damaging the governing party and providing its opposition with an advantage inhibits the ability of the government to function effectively and undermines the independence and professionalism of the civil service.

If this was purely a case of a politically-motivated arrest of an Opposition MP for giving the government a headache, those crying ‘police state’ might have a point. But it’s not. Galley, over the space of two years, systematically leaked information from the Home Office not because he thought it was in the public interest but because he wanted to give the Conservative Party, of which he was a member, a political advantage. Civil servants are there to do a job - support the government in its work and help to run the country. There may be times in the course of that job where they believe that they have received information that shouldn’t be kept secret, and judge it wise to make it public. But turning it into an opportunity to continually spy on the governing party and slip information to their rivals is an abuse of power and office. It’s also precisely the opposite of what the civil service is meant to be for.

I’m not entirely convinced that the heavy-handed way with which the police conducted the initial arrests and seizure of Mr Green’s computers and papers and so on was entirely sensiblle, and does look quite bad, but to make the point that what he was doing was perfectly acceptable and that he’s some sort of martyr of free speech working bravely against a Stalinist government is just stupidity of the highest order.

It’s cathartic for me, so just bloody read it.

No.

The real problem is the modern culture of the individual. When people believe they have some pre-existing right to disclosure in all circumstances then all is lost. Integrity cannot be imposed, it is something one believes in like fair play. But without something like it, especially at the level of governance, life would become impossible. Governments, even one’s of which I disapprove must be able to have discussions and trial ideas for policy in camera if we (not they) are to be competently led. Eventually all governing parties are judged at the polls on what they have done or not done.

It was correct for the Heath government to have talks in secret with IRA Sein Fein and for successive governments to maintain channels to that organisation. Had ‘whistleblowers’ rushed in with the news then the press would have screamed headlines. A potentially valueable link would have been broken and careers ended.

There are levels to this but even in cases where the public had a ‘need to know’ the motives of the person disclosing the information need to be scrutinised a little more closely. Much of the material relates to immigration and I remember a case from some years ago when sensitive information relating to immigration was made public by a man who in subsequent televison appaernces did not struggle to hide his own views on immigration. When such views chime with the editors of the main press titles such a person rapidly becomes a martyr; when they do not – anti-terror legislation, UK security – a traitor.

However, I have little sympathy for the government in power. The Lobby System has been a truly wilful piece of news shaping for many years and is riddled with jobbery; ‘off the record’. EMuch of the most ‘damning’ material is squirrelled into the hands of journalists via the passed over and disappointed among government itself. This culture with grew and grew under MacMillian, Wilson and Thatcher has migrated to the civil service. (”Neutral but who against?”) Exploiting ‘moles’ seems a natural next step. Moles inside the offices of Ministers is afterall hardly new, but working for the Loyal Opposition? That’s a new one.

>He exposed a Thatcher government’s lies concerning the sinking of the Argentinean cruiser Belgrano: when the vessel had first been sighted; its location and direction when it was sunk by a British submarine.

The government did not lie.

Ships do not go in a straight line and their direction and position is relitive to the situation they are in, not their intention.

THe media is full of Lefties who don’t understand or like the military, but anyone who has a bare knowledge of warfare could explain that the ‘lie’ was on the Left.

tt,

My father fought in the Falklands and I’ll wager I have more family connections with the military than you. FWIW.

What you say about intention is absolutely correct, which means the government didn’t have to lie but still chose to.

They basically botteld it because they didn’t think they could do a decent enough job of explaining why the Belgrano was sunk outside the exclusion heading away from the task force. That’s their problem, not mine or any bunch of “lefties”.

dirigible,

Your response indicates that you must have read at least some of it.

Oh the hypocrisy of a Labour Placeman accusing others of lying!

Brownie has been installed by the Central Committee? What are you talking about, Moggie?

Completely agree with Brownie. A civil servant systematically leaking like Galley was doing is not capable of doing his job properly, he can’t be trusted. Green must have known this, must have known that if found out Galley would at the very least be sacked. This makes Green’s behaviour at least morally wrong, and worthy of further investigation from the police.

Larkers,

The best bit of commentary I’ve read on this affair.

Ah come on Brownie. *If* the material being leaked is ‘trivial’ and of no real interest to anyone then why the police involvement for a matter of internal discipline? (Galley will be fired, of course, and no one is trying to say he shouldn’t be. Why it can’t be left at that escapes me). Why the use of arcane and archaic pieces of legislation that contradict more recent human rights laws?

The European Convention of Human Rights, which the Labour government quite rightly enshrined into law, protects whistleblowers, by the way (cf the Sally Murrer case). Like, Brownie I’m not too bothered by the stuff about employing illegal immigrants, but plenty of people are I’m afraid. You can’t really define the importance of a story simply based on your own interests, I’m afraid, but if someone writing a story about an MK Dons footballer getting in a fight in a pub is protected by this, then you can be sure Galley and Green will be.

(In the spirit of Harry’s Place of old, does anyone want to take up a bet that the case against Galley and Green falls apart?)

As for the search of the Commons. It’s not so much that MPs are above the law, but this massive over-reaction is bad on so many levels. Is anyone really comfortable with the precedent that the police can search an MP’s correspondence with his constituents and his files so casually? That they might potentially find information that a less scrupulous government might use to discredit him (NB this is hypothetical, I’m not alleging there’s any dirt on Green)? The fact is the arrest of an MP, in these circumstances, and the searching of the Commons is potentially open to massive abuse, and the constitutional safeguards against these abuses have been casually trashed by the police and some party hacks.

It is unutterably depressing to see the number of Labour bloggers who have tried to evade these points simply because it’s a Tory involved and they want to make it a party political matter. It isn’t. A number of cabinet ministers have made it as clear as they can without undermining the whole principle of collective responsibility that the police and speaker (and the serjeant) have acted shoddily and the government’s failure to manage the affair is a part of the cock up.

It doesn’t mean Britain is turning into Zimbabwe, it does mean that this and subsequent governments should be more careful about involving the police in matters of civil service internal discipline and Westminster to-ing and fro-ing.

I seem to remember Cameron getting all upset and “Stalinist” when someone leaked a photo of him on a Bullingdon Club night out.

Bill - quite agree it is pretty hypocritical of Labour apparatchiks to criticise the Tories for something which goes on all the time across the politicial spectrum. And as for Lord Voldemart coming over all holier than thou, for Christ’s sake he is part of the problem not part of the solution. Pass the sick bowl someone.

Mrs B

You know it’s time to don slippers, grow nasal hair with abandon and start smoking a pipe when you agree even this much with Brownie.

*If* the material being leaked is ‘trivial’ and of no real interest to anyone then why the police involvement for a matter of internal discipline?

BILL

To pursue the Sharon Matthews analogy, because whilst she should be punished, so should an errant parent who simply leaves a young child alone in the house whilst they go out for extended periods. It’s a matter of scale. The potential for unrelated correspondence with constituents to be riffled through is a concern, but, Bill, if you are able to hold true to a principle of the inviolability of an M.P.’s office, why not to the principle of not conspiring - allegedly - with a civil servant to access information for partisan gain?

It is unutterably depressing to see the number of Labour bloggers who have tried to evade these points simply because it’s a Tory involved and they want to make it a party political matter.

Yes, that comes under the heading of partisan loyalties, but I recall Brownie was right behind the expulsion of Miranda Grell, so I fail to see your point here viz. him. Plus, we can also compare the chagrin from the likes of Morgoth to their complete approval of Lord Levy’s arrest.

And, yes, I am bloody annoyed that an overprivileged tosspot went straight from university to a cushy civil service position, never mind that he then started feathering his own nest immediately.

Alec, who is Sharon Matthews and what is the analogy supposed to be?

Yes, it did look odd as I was typing it, Chris.

Just noted in Times Red Box comment

“Just as the 18 month cash for honours investigation collapsed into a pointless multimillion pound mess, so too has another long running probe disappeared down the plughole with little more than smears and stains on careers to show for it.

The Crown Prosecution Service, who decided it could not bring charges, has torn up electoral law in the process. They have decided Peter Hain was not legally responsible for over £100,000 of late donations because he wasn’t the signatory on the campaign accounts. This has come as a surprise to the Electoral Commission, who thought that as candidate he was the “regulated donee” and therefore should take the rap.

So the much hated 2000 donations laws are now officially a complete mess, with the watchdog and police working by completely different rules. That wont sort itself out in a hurry.”

Not sure what the problem is - poor relations between police and CPS; unclear relationship and communications lines between ditto; insufficient legal advice available to police in political cases; police wanting to do their own thing; politicians trying to slide round the law; lack of witnesses and or evidence to prosecute at the end of the day; law unclear in the area concerned.

And I am still bewildered by the coroner’s announcement that the jury cannot find for an unlawful death in the de Menezes case and cannot contradict the findings of the Health and Safety investigation or even regard the police story as false because they lied?

This sort of thing seems to be occurring a lot lately and all at public expense. Someone like to explain to me what is going on?

Interesting - it turns out that the CPS lawyer Stephen o’Doherty, who advised the IPCC that the police marksmen in the de Menezes case could not be held accountable for his death, is also the same CPS lawyer who has decided there is no case against Peter Hain.

Mrs B, at the risk of sounding like Norman Tebbit, if you are wondering about where your tax £ goes once lawyers are involved you might like to peruse Lenin’s case, reported in the last couple of days. Guy turns up in the UK in 1998, claims asylum unjustifiably, and has been here ever since litigating to avoid being thrown out (pausing only briefly to commit a sexual assault on a child). He’s still here, and we are still, presumably, paying his legal team….

You can’t really define the importance of a story simply based on your own interests, I’m afraid

But this is what any civil servant with a grudge/party political predisposition is doing when they leak to their favourites and then claim “public interest”. I’m ecstatic that there exists a public interest defence in law, but that has to be tested, otherwise it really is a case of anything goes.

If Galley wants to dress up every revelation that is transparently in the Tory interest as public interest, then expect others to cry foul. It’s a clear abuse of the public interest defence when a partisan civil servant is systematically leaking every bit of useful information he can get his hands on to his preferred political allies. Public interest never made it onto the statute books to protect people like Galley, and nor should it.

And whilst I’m happy that we agree what should be done about Galley, I’m frankly staggered that the possibility an MP iis complicit in such goings on elicits no more than a shrug of the shoulders. I mean FFS!

Can people stop claiming that it’s an opposition MP’s role to conspire to subvert the independence of the civil service, because it’s not. It really isn’t.

The fact is the arrest of an MP, in these circumstances, and the searching of the Commons is potentially open to massive abuse, and the constitutional safeguards against these abuses have been casually trashed by the police and some party hacks.

Really? I thoguht Jill Pay just forgot to ask for a warrant?

The police are not responsible for the fact that Jill Pay doesn’t know her job. The police will go wherever they are allowed. If there are things MPs don’t want the police to see, tell the gatekeeper not to let them in.

“But this is what any civil servant with a grudge/party political predisposition is doing when they leak to their favourites and then claim ‘public interest’.”

Brownie, if you believe the civil service is still independent, then you either still believe in fairies or else have no experience of the reality in Whitehall.

Since it took office, Labour has done everything it can to destroy the political independence of the civil service. It has appointed Special Advisors as civil servants, and used these apparatchiks to effectively run departments. They, in turn, have corrupted the service and turned previously independent civil servants - particularly those with ambitions - into cogs in the party machine.

You write of partisanship. During my time in Whitehall, I witnessed, on a number of occasions, Labour-supporting senior civil servants offering policy suggestions to both SpAds and Ministers, something totally forbidden by Civil Service impartiality rules. It’s a bit rich to moan about Conservative Party wannabees passing on embarrassing hidden truths to Opposition front benchers, when supposedly “independent” civil servants collude with political appointees, wouldn’t you say?

Labour supporters cannot whine about a politicised Civil Service when it is the shabby practices of their own party that have brought it into being.

Larkers@10:43

Martyrs or traitors? All depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it? In this “leaking” and subsequent attempts to “frame”
the issue one way or another in the public mind you in G.B.
are increasingly following America’s lead. “Migrated” to the civil service, eh? That’s been a well established traditions for years on this side of the pond. You’ve a lot of catching up to do, you slackards.

People need to ask what sort of relationship they want with their political masters.

Er, I’d like to be able to vote them out if they behave like a bunch of anally-retentive, self-obsessed, globalist cockweasels…

…what with Lisbon’s increasingly likely legal personality, my ‘political masters’ will be evermore entrenched in their bunkers.

“People need to ask what sort of relationship they want with their political masters. Suspicion and mistrust at the heart of government inevitably lead to an increase in chats in the corridor, fewer email exchanges and more meetings without minutes”.

This is the Evening Standard

“Gordon is already on the back foot over his previous links to leakers. But here’s a new curiosity about his past connection to Treasury insiders.

It turns out that Government whip Helen Goodman was a former Treasury civil servant who was - wait for it - once a prime suspect in a leak inquiry.

Ms Goodman wrote a secret report that embarassed the former Tory government when it fell into the hands of the then Shadow Chancellor, one G Brown.

The leak of the report - and Ms Goodman says she was cleared by her former bosses - is being dragged up by Whitehall officials because it shows just how much his views on leaking have changed with the times.

Brown published the leaked report on the eve of a major economic debate in the Commons in 1996, in the process causing huge embarassment to Ken Clarke.

The report forecast various policy changes such as the privatisation of pensions and welfare benefits. It suggested the Tories would sell off roads and force drivers to pay to use them. A gleeful Brown described the report as “a nightmare vision of the future under Tory rule”. Clarke dismissed it as the “cranky” work of “juniors at the office”.

It then emerged that when she was not working at the Treasury under her maiden name of Goodman, the report’s author was an ambitious Labour politician using her married name of Helen Sleaford. She made the shortlist for the safe Labour seat of Barnsley East but suddently withdrew when the furore over the report blew up.

Ms Goodman left the Treasury in 1997, worked for charities until finally being selected for a fresh safe seat of Bishop Auckland in 2005. She was instantly promoted when Brown became leader, taking the post of Deputy Leader of the Commons. She has since been moved into the whips’ office.

Ms Goodman has previously insisted that she was not the person who leaked the report and claimed at the time that she was cleared of leaking by the Treasury.

But she is well-liked by Labour MPs and highly rated. Just imagine if she were still the deputy leader of the Commons…in this week of all weeks.”

The police are not responsible for the fact that Jill Pay doesn’t know her job.

Actually, they are. The police did not inform her of her rights, specifically that she had the right to refuse entry because they did not have a search warrant. Funnily enough, there’s an obligation on the police to inform people of their rights regardless of whether those people “know their job” or not, you totalitarian dork.

“The police are not responsible for the fact that Jill Pay doesn’t know her job. The police will go wherever they are allowed. If there are things MPs don’t want the police to see, tell the gatekeeper not to let them in.”

You know I am still puzzled about this. Did the police just turn up and say “Right love, we are investigating a leak and we just want to raid Damian Green’s office. No need to bother with bureaucratic things like search warrants eh, just sign here like a good girl and we’ll be out of your hair in no time”. (or words to that effect)

I’m struggling with that. The initial reports said the police told Pay the raid had been authorised by the DPP. That would explain why she (foolishly) did not insist on a search warrant. But then the DPP then popped up and said he had done no such thing.

So what did they tell her? Asst Commissioner Quick’s statement is rather ambiguously worded - and there are rumours that the police were rather more vague on the day about Pay’s right to request a warrant than is currently being suggested.

We are told the police wrote down the exchange and will publish it in due course. I am not sure what this proves. Judging from the de Menezes affair what the police write in their notebook may simply be an account of what they would have liked to happen.

Normally then you would expect the affected parties to pipe up and contradict the police if their version of events differed and indeed Martin has. But the government doesn’t want to upset the police on this so maybe Pay is about to be thrown to the wolves. I hope Jill Pay get’s the chance to put her side of it in full.

Green must have known this, must have known that if found out Galley would at the very least be sacked.

Yes, in the past they would have been found out and sacked. If their leaks had compromised national security, they might have been prosecuted under the OSA (and likely let off by the jury). What is unprecedented is turning this into a police investigation, sending the rozzers into parliament, using bullshit charges (which potentially carry a life sentence), all over “trivia”. That’s a disturbing ratchetting up of the authoritarian trend in British politics and anyone who wants to blithely go along with the idea there is nothing to worry about, like Brownie, is probably only a few years away from stomping around Parliament Square in black shorts.

Actually, they are. The police did not inform her of her rights, specifically that she had the right to refuse entry because they did not have a search warrant. Funnily enough, there’s an obligation on the police to inform people of their rights regardless of whether those people “know their job” or not, you totalitarian dork.

As I understand the law - and I’m happy to be corrected on this as it makes no difference anyway (see below) - the police are under *no obligation whatsoever* to tell Jill Pay or anyone else that they don’t have a warrant, unless they are so asked. If the police turn up at your door and ask to search your house and you consent, that is your look-out. In a nutshell, the police didn’t have to say to Pay: “We would like your written consent to search Green’s offices becuase we don’t have a warrant”. It’s just the fact that they didn’t have a warrant means they had to let her know that they couldn’t search without written consent.

But this warrant business in one big red herring anyway. All this talk of what the police did and didn’t say about warrants is being used to create the impression Pay thoguht she was *obliged* to let them search. Except this can’t stand up. She must have known she wasn’t obliged as she was *asked to sign consent*. If someone is asked to give their written consent to something, by definition they must be aware they are under no obligation. It’s inescapable logic whether the police mentioned they didn’t have a warrant or not.

Pay knew she could refuse i.e. not sign consent, but chose not to. If you want to blame someone for Green’s offices being searched, blame her.

The initial reports said the police told Pay the raid had been authorised by the DPP. That would explain why she (foolishly) did not insist on a search warrant. But then the DPP then popped up and said he had done no such thing.

When are you going to drop this one, Mrs Ben? For “initial reports”, read “one report,” so far as I’m aware. If the polcie had told Jill pay that the raid was authorised by the DPP, I’m pretty certain the Speaker would have mentioned that on Wednesday. It would cover his and Pay’s arse in quite a big way, so I think you can take it as read that the polcie said no such thing.

anyone who wants to blithely go along with the idea there is nothing to worry about, like Brownie

What are you talking about? I think HM’s opposition running party activist moles at the heart of the civil service is deeply troubling.

Well the story about the search being approved by the DPP surfaced in the Guardian (not a right wing rag…)

Also this letter appeared in the Times today from Geoffrey Robertson questioning the legality of the police action:

Sir, Maurice Frankel (letter, Dec 4) identifies the most serious aspect of police proceedings against Damian Green, namely their decision to search and arrest on charges of conspiracy and aiding and abetting in relation to alleged “misconduct in public office” of his source in the Home Office. Were this charge to stick, it would mean that any “public watchdog” — editor, journalist or MP — who enthusiastically receives a leak from a civil servant, would be liable (incredibly) to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, without any public interest defence.

Charging these common law offences in respect to leaks of merely “confidential” information would be a clear breach of the Home Secretary’s assurance to Parliament, given during the passage of the 1989 Official Secrets Act. To charge them in a case where (so Sir Paul Stephenson has hinted) leaked information has “potential” security implications, would circumvent section 5 of that Act, which applies to recipients of such information but protects them by requiring the prosecution to prove that any disclosure of the information would be damaging to the interests of the United Kingdom. No such defence is available to the common law charges.

The offence of “misconduct in public office” was invented by Lord Mansfield in 1783 to convict a deceitful army accountant. It has been superseded by more modern statutory offences of bribery, corruption and theft. The common law has no clear definition of “misconduct” and the crime is now mainly used against police who recklessly fail in their duty.

It has never been used against a “watchdog” until R v Kearney and Murrer. The latter was a local newspaper journalist charged by Thames Valley Police with “aiding and abetting misconduct in public office” — the very charge copied by the Met for use against Mr Green. On November 25 her trial collapsed because the judge held that the prosecution had breached the Article 10 free-speech guarantee in the Human Rights Act.

Two days later the Met Police arrested the MP (and obtained entrance to Parliament) on a charge they must therefore have known was legally questionable. The CPS did know, because on that very day a decision was taken not to appeal the Murrer decision.

So why didn’t the Met police take advice from the DPP, who heads the CPS, before their rash decision to enter Parliament and arrest an MP on a charge that is probably incompatible with the Article 10 right to receive and impart information? Their blunders demonstrate the necessity of police to obtain authoritative legal advice from the DPP at the beginning, and not at the end, of controversial operations. The police are only entitled to operational independence if those operations are conducted according to law. ”

Geoffrey Robertson, QC

Ho Hum Guido just printed the full text of the letter from Asst Commissioner Quick to the Home Secretary.

Summarised - on 26th November the Serjeant at Arms was informed by police that they wanted consent to enter and search the Parliamentary Offices of an MP who would be identified to her on 27th November when the police would return to carry out the search subject to obtaining consent.

The Serjeant told the police that she would seek legal advice in the interim and inform the Speaker. When the police returned she provided both a signed standard search consent and a letter signed by her giving consent and and the police assumed that she had taken advice.

This account bears no relation to the Speaker’s version. It is hard to believe the SatA consulted no one in the interim, and took no legal advice either. What the f–k is going on?

Interesting, Mrs B. Martin’s position looks less and less tenable with each passing day.

Is it the colour of his shirt?

I’ve defecated in my pants and I’m smearing it on my computer screen. Can you smell my bum?

I am a complete twat; it’s best if you all ignore me.

Moronic drivel.

More mornoic drivel.

I have rather less sympathy for Clive Ponting. He leaked to the Guardian, hardly a pillar of parliamentary democracy. The information was leaked to a Member of Parliament and his position, and the position of all other MPs, has been attacked by the behaviour of the police and of those appointed to protect Parliament.

Mrs. Ben:
I assume the police went after Green because they needed more evidence to actually charge Galley. But as they were not sure what information had been passed they had to go for the relatively obscure law they chose and not the Official Secrets Act for example. In fact there was a week’s delay between the two arrests anyway, time enough for Green to cover his tracks if they needed covering that it, I should have thought.

Indeed. My suspicion is that they went after Green purely to embarrass the Conservative Party, knowing it wouldn’t go anywhere. It’s revenge for Boris Johnson forcing Ian Blair’s resignation, the police warning the Tories that they won’t sit still for political interference in professional matters.

Joseph K:
Labour supporters cannot whine about a politicised Civil Service when it is the shabby practices of their own party that have brought it into being.

Oh, please - it was (quite explicitly) Thatcher who politicised the civil service. As with every other thing, New Labour’s crime is how consumately Conservative it is.

Indeed. My suspicion is that they went after Green purely to embarrass the Conservative Party, knowing it wouldn’t go anywhere.

Oh, please! So the guy most likely to get the job queers his own pitch weeks before his appointment? If anything, the police had more reasons to soft pedal on Tory connivance in misdeeds.