Dominic Grieve and Harriet Harman on the Damian Green arrest

6.30pm update:

The Telegraph reports that Damian Green has been instructing Michael Caplan QC, the eminent solicitor who famously represented General Pinochet, when the former Chilean dictator was arrested on a Spanish warrant while visiting London for medical treatment in 1998.

---

Sky News has just interviewed shadow home secretary, Dominic Grieve, and Harriet Harman, the leader of the House of Commons, on the issue of Damian Green's arrest.

Dominic Grieve was pretty scathing about the interview given earlier this morning by his opposite number, Jacqui Smith. He said the most important question needing an answer was what she knew and why she acted in the way that she did. Significantly, he said that from his interpretation of her answers (or lack thereof) on the Andrew Marr show, "I think she knew there was an MP involved in this investigation and she decided to simply sit back on her hands," meaning that she therefore has a great deal for which to answer to Parlaiment.

He added that it was wrong of her to insinuate that there were national security issues at stake in this investigation and that his view was that the grounds for arresting Damian Green and searching his homes an offices were "flimsy and trivial".

Interviewed shortly beforehand on Sky News, Hariet Harman sought to give an assurance that she appreciated the "big constitutional principle" involved over the arrest of an MP in these circumstances. "As Leader of the House, I am in no doubt how deeply MPs feel about it... MPs should be able to get on with their job without the interference of the law," she said.

But she refused to condemn the actions of anyone involved and after revealing that she had disucssed the matter with the Speaker, she refused also to disclose the contents of that conversation. She did say, however, that the Speaker "might well want to review the processes by which authorisation is given to search the Palace of Westminster."

Comments

[christina Speight]

(Which of ther many threads here today to post this on? !!!)

This scandal has reached the point of constitutional outrage when the police act without any regard for the law and ministers appear to condone this. There is a remedy which I would suggest be used.

On Thursday the Queen opens a new session of parliament and sends Black Rod to summon the Commons to the Lords to hear the ‘Queen’s Speech’

At this point the door to the Commons is traditionally slammed in Black Rod’s face. He then has to hammer on the door to gain admittance. The Commons - or at least the Tories and LibDems - should prevent the door being opened until the Speaker accounts for his failure to protect them. This would make a major scandal, using traditional methods to protest, while being in no way disrespectful to Her Majesty.

GO TO IT ....... PLEASE !

[rugfish]

Well done Dominic!

"I think she knew there was an MP involved in this investigation and she decided to simply sit back on her hands"

Which is a clear but polite way of calling her a lying incompetent toe rag !

He's a barrister so he should know eh ?

Also,

Wazzaname Harman says that the Speaker "might well want to review the processes by which authorisation is given to search the Palace of Westminster"

I give her 5 out of 10 for beginning along the lines of an apology but minus 5 for not actually making one so she's back to zero with the rest of her cronies.

Dominic versus Harman and Smith ?

No contest I'm afraid.

[SuperBlue]

Can someone at a press conference not just citizen's-arrest Brown - the SYSTEMATIC recipient of leaks from 1992-7? Fellow offender Robin Cook, of course, is beyond the law now.

[TomTom]

Is this the same "Mad Hatty" Harman who was at NCCL as Legal Officer 1978-82 ?

[TomTom]

Is this the same "Mad Hatty" Harman who was at NCCL as Legal Officer 1978-82 ?

[YMT]

Does anyone know if its possible to find out if the Police have also sized Internet, Mobile, Text records form Greens suppliers?

[Cleethorpes Rock]

I think we're all outraged by this, but let's consider the tactics of taking Dominic Grieve's line of attack.

Most of Grieve's interview on Sky this morning concentrated on the ethics of whether or not police should be raiding an MP's office and whether it is constitutional. We need to go carefully here. Dominic Grieve is very intelligent but has the tendency to argue like a lawyer, getting into the minute detail. Labour are trying to turn this on us by portraying our criticisms as criticism of the police and will try to claim we are asking for "one law for MPs and another law for the rest of us". Going down the defence of parliamentary privilege route may not cut ice with the man on the street.

We should concentrate on:

- Labour's politicisation of the civil service and the police

- Labour suppressing information that may be embarrassing to them and using the police to enforce this.

- Abuse of "anti-terrorism" laws by using them on totally unconnected cases (Walter Wolfgang, Iceland, Protests)

- The government's attitude to criticism in general.

- To reopen the story about the illegal immigrants working at the Home Office.

Talk of parliamentary privilege, the rights of MPs and consitutional conventions is baffling to most members of the public, who don't happen to be political obsessives like us. It even sounds a little pompous, as if MPs think they are deserving of special privileges. We must not allow this Labour rebuttal to take hold.

This incident should be used to broaden a line of attack about how this government does business and how much the New Labour state is encroaching on our lives.

This incident should present an open goal to us, but we'll only capitalise if we lay it in the right way.

[James Robinson]

Something that I think has been missed in the argument over did whacky backy Jacky know about the arrest is that by asking that question there is an implication that she could have authourised the police to enter Parliament and raid Mr Green's Office.

This should not be the case but almost certainly is. I doubt that The Speaker would have the back bone to stand up to his own side. He should be removed immediately and replaced with someone who does have eyes to see and ears to hear only as Parliament directs.

[Moomintroll]

One thing i don't understand. Boris Johnson did know. So why didn't he stop it? In terms of chain of command he could of. He is Mayor of London.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"While not criticising the present Speaker directly, Mr Cameron pointed to the example of his 17th-century predecessor William Lenthall. who famously refused to give up MPs to King Charles I when he entered the Commons to have them arrested.

"Whenever I show schoolchildren around Parliament, I always stop before the painting of him bowing before King Charles I and tell them what he said: 'I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak...but as this House is pleased to direct me'," Mr Cameron wrote.

"Why is this image so important? Put simply, it shows in Britain, Parliament is sovereign. That's why I was so shocked when I got the first call from the police minutes before they entered Damian Green's office." Telegraph

Parliament ceased to be "sovereign" years ago. Cromwell took a more sceptical view of MP's when he ordered them out of Parliament as having sat there too long.

If the MP's do not like the laws they make then they should repeal them; do not blame police for trying to ensure that the law is observed. If police should be barred from entering Parliament to investigate MP's accused of an offence then make it unlawful - but it will not gain the agreement of the public and will meet stiff opposition.

When the the Conservatives are next in power they will, I am sure, remove unclassified leaks as an abuse of priviledge (those they dont like from the Statute Book) Wont they?

If Mr Green feels misused he is free to sue police for false arrest and imprisonment. I await with interest.

Blame the police, I say, and if you can't blame them then blame Bush (can't go wrong then, can yer?)

[David Boothroyd]

If you Tories want a situation where the police have to get the explicit permission of the Home Secretary before arresting a Member of Parliament, please say so.

If you do, I feel I shall have to point out the obvious reasons why this would be a very bad idea indeed.

[Sally Roberts]

Moomintroll that is a fair question - I too would like to know that. Perhaps Boris will speak out at some stage?

By the way it's could HAVE not "could of"! Sorry to be pedantic but.... ;-)

[Sally Roberts]

Don'tmakemelaugh you are are deliberately or obtusely missing one very salient point which is that Mr Green was DOING HIS JOB AS AN OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN. He has done nothing wrong and nothing criminal. The fact that members of the public who know little of history and even less of Parliamentary procedure may see little importance in the sovereignty of Parliament being preserved is simply a giant straw man you have set up. Shame on you.

[Sally Roberts]

"If you Tories want a situation where the police have to get the explicit permission of the Home Secretary before arresting a Member of Parliament, please say so"

Yes very clever, David Boothroyd to try and twist our words and our sentiments! I shall say it again and again.

Mr Green did nothing wrong. He was carrying out his duty as an opposition spokesman. This Government dislikes dissent and dislikes being embarrassed even more.

Secondly as others have said and I shall repeat again and again - Brown and Smith have both lied. They knew perfectly well what was going on and gave it their backing.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

As I understand, Boris and DC were only told about the raids about an hour before the police busted down the door of Damian Green's house and ransacked it.

[Malcolm]

Moomintroll,

I've seen on other blogs that he does not have the right to block such an intervention, remember that it is the home office that appoints the commissioner of the metropolis. What I guess he can do though is call the current commissioner before the London police authority to explain their actions and be questioned, hopefully for nine hours.

[David Boothroyd]

Sally Roberts writes "Mr Green did nothing wrong. He was carrying out his duty as an opposition spokesman."

You know that, do you, as a matter of 100% evidenced fact? Care to share the evidence with us? Can you prove that the Police had no reason to suspect Damian Green of any crime?

[meli]

Blame the police, I say, and if you can't blame them then blame Bush (can't go wrong then, can yer?)

Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh | November 30, 2008 at 14:03

Blame Bush? Oh why not! Very good plan indeed. The government have already blamed the USA for the global economic crisis. What happened to a democratic government being accountable for it's OWN actions? Unless you are insinuating we are not democratic at all and Bush is in charge of the UK. Somehow I must have missed his name on the last general election ballot!

[Sally Roberts]

Mr Boothroyd I am stating what I believe to be the case and if I am proved wrong then I will be the first to apologise. But at the moment I stand by what I say. Your defence of the indefensible is simply astonishing and I have to say, disgusting.

[pp]

A Trap for Boris?

Could this have been a trap set for Boris?

Hoping to trick him into acting outside of his competence - with headlines prepared 'Boris Blocks Anti-Terror Officers Search to Protect Tory Frontbencher' ?

The government were well prepared with their "We don't interfere with the Police" line... Would have been a good contrast if the tories had messed up their response...

The (rejected) DAF dontation would have sunk the tories if accepted because the circumstantial evidence would have been so strong...

Now this...

Smith may complain that this is in the land of 'conspiracy theories' - but just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean the aren't out to get you!

MPs need to recognise the power they have, and properly fufill the responsibilities that entails - parliament is above the law (not MP's, not parties, not government etc -just parliament), we entrust MPs to handle that responsiblity properly and to fully protect the soverignty that we entrust in them.

Get your fingers our lads (and lasses)!

[Jim Tague]

Elizabeth Filkin, Steven Moxon, Dr Kelly, Walter Wolfgang...(George Osborne - admittedly partly himself to blame)...Damian Green.

With the constant economic talk of a period of war time austerity and now this botched debacle, might I remark that the only things missing are the introduction of ration cards and the spectre of the Brown Shirts.

Surely a mere coincidence that the latest upsurge in this type of behaviour aligns with Messrs Mandelson and Campbell assisting at the helm!

[greg]

He is accused of a "crime" which the vast majority (if not all) of the media and other MPs see as obselete, which court decisions have shown to be pretty much unprosecutable, and which the vast majority of the legal profession see unlikely as even leading to a court case.

So it is not a case of MPs being "above the law", but of the police trying to apply a law to them which has little or no chance of leading to a conviction.

[David Boothroyd]

Sally, I'm quite sure you're stating what you believe. But that's not enough; if the police have reasonable suspicion of a crime, they have to investigate.

Along with many people I was quite sure that the 'cash for peerages' was complete rubbish that would never go anywhere - as indeed it turnout out. Yet somehow I think there would have been a lot of protests if a cabinet minister had ordered that inquiry to be ended.

[greg]

The question, David, is whether you expect every single future recipient of a government leak (or perhaps, to be generous, series of government leaks) to be preliminarily investigated (if not ultimately arrested) by the Police, with all that involves?

[Sally Roberts]

Mr Boothroyd as we can see is fond of setting up Straw Men!
He is also somewhat patronizing. This is very different from the Cash for Peerages case where no Member of Parliament was arrested, no Member of Parliament was held and questioned for nine hours, had house, Parliamentary and constituency office raided and wife and daughter terrorized. All these actions are the hallmarks of an overweening Fascist State and that is why I and so many others are angry and concerned. As I said before, your defence of the indefensible is both astonishing and disgusting.
As far as I am concerned my debates with your side are no longer civilized - this is all out war.

[Opinicus]

Call me cynical but I wonder if there is an alternative third explanation for Damian's arrest.
Brown and Smith would have to be very stupid to have ordered it - mind you they are proving to be be pretty stupid by not realising that the game and everyone's dander is up and rounding on the Police as a scapegoat,as DC has foolishly offered to let them do.
Even for the notoriously stupid Met, this is a career altering move. Can anyone remember the last opposition MP to be arrested for embarrassing the government, not this century or the last? Stephenson can whistle for the Commissionership after this.
This took place on Sir Ian Blair's last day, with nothing to lose and a chip on his shoulder over the lack of support from Smith that caused him to retire early and humiliated. I wonder if he sent in his minions deliberately, knowing the shock it would cause, to shaft Smith and Brown?

[JohnfromCamberley]

Boothroyd

There is a huge difference between cash-for-honours and the Green case.

For one, cash-for-honours was about what amounted to fraud; at the very centre of the accusations therefore was a matter that was a clear breach of the law. Not so with Green - Smith acknowledged today that holding the government to account using leaked documents was legitimate and a part of an opposition MP's job.

Another thing was that the higher profile events - interviews of prominent Labour people including the PM, searches of houses and offices etc., happened many weeks into the investigation. Take that together with the acknowledged lack of cooperation from a number of bodies, including the PM's office. The fact is, in that case, it wasn't just a matter of the Police "following the evidence", the higher profile events happened when it was more than reasonably clear that the evidence could not have been followed in any other direction. Put differently, there was a degree of certainty that the searches were appropriate in the cash-for-honours case. As far as the Green case is concerned, even the complaint was made barely a fortnight ago: it is hard to avoid the point that Green's arrest and the search of his homes and offices was therefore a good deal more speculative, or arbitrary, a fishing trip, indeed.

In short, though there are similarities in the headline facts, Cash-for-honours was different in a number of respects, one of the most important being the degree of care deployed to make Police action appear justifiable and accountable.

As an aside, I also do not recall counter terrorism branch officers being involved at any stage. Nor were there any breaches of parliamentary privilege.

I have seen comparisons with cash-for-honours raised so many times, indeed with a certain degree of consistency, over the last couple of days, as a justification for what happened with Green, and evidence for an assertion that in some way it was not "unprecedented" and therefore "alright", all of which is simply not factual. I am coming to the conclusion that these comparisons are being peddled in an organized way as part of the government smokescreen over the affair. Peddlars of this "line to take" (such as yourself) are therefore not to be trusted.

[David Stourton]

Stephenson was obviously too stupid to see the disaster that this would be for the police. Someone with so little political nous, and so little appreciation for democratic and constitutional proprieties is not fit to be Commissioner.

The one good thing that will come out of this is that he now won't be Commissioner, and an outsider will have to be appointed.

[JohnfromCamberley]

Jonathan

"Brown and Smith... proving to be be pretty stupid by not... rounding on the Police as a scapegoat,as DC has foolishly offered to let them do."

I'm not happy with the "foolish" bit.

Had Brown and Smith turned on the Police, it would have finished someone's career. Since we all know that there was at least some conspiracy between the Police and government figures (we just don't know exactly what, yet), that Police "someone" would have been going down on a lie. Since we all know also that the Met leaks like the proverbial seive, especially when they feel they are victims of injustice, we would pretty quickly have heard who the guilty men (and women) were - names dates and places, I should think. Along with some juicy headlines, maybe a cabinet resignation, maybe more still.

As a means of setting off this particular line of "story development", I thought that the opportunity that Cameron gave was rather clever - indeed dirty and devious, which we very much need to be these days - not foolish at all.

[David Boothroyd]

Sorry, Sally, your memory of the 'cash for honours' case is faulty. Lord Levy is a Member of Parliament (of the upper House of Parliament, as it happens) and was arrested.

All out war is it? When do you take over Heathrow to defend the interests of the privileged, like in Thailand?

[Sally Roberts]

This is not Thailand Mr Boothroyd. This is Britain. It used to be known as Great Britain but thanks to you and your ilk it is sadly becoming so no longer. People like you used to be hanged as traitors.

[SuperBlue]

Oh dear, there goes Boothroyd again, repeating "facts" that have been disproven.

[Eveleigh Moore-Dutton]

Posted by: David Boothroyd | November 30, 2008 at 14:21

Sally Roberts writes "Mr Green did nothing wrong. He was carrying out his duty as an opposition spokesman."

You know that, do you, as a matter of 100% evidenced fact? Care to share the evidence with us? Can you prove that the Police had no reason to suspect Damian Green of any crime?

Can I remind you that under English Law we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty! Long may it last!

The question that has not so far been addressed as far as I can see is this, "Why was it necessary for Damian Green to resort to the use of leaks/whistleblowers to expose the government's abject failures and deceits. These dangerous failings were being buried by a government department and the minister responsible either connived at this deceit or was simply not on top of his job!

[JohnfromCamberley]

Boothroyd is a Labour troll, sent here with the express purpose of getting us cross, disrupting the debate and turning in on ourselves in our anger. His masters wish him to achieve our destruction from within. We should ignore him.

As a matter of interest, do we send people in to disrupt Labour blogs?

Is there such a thing as a Labour blog?

[Sally Roberts]

"Is there such a thing as a Labour blog?"

There's a poor excuse for one called Labour Home. I wouldn't wish to waste my time there but I suppose if anyone wanted a little light amusement they might wish to go on a fact finding expedition!

[David Boothroyd]

'Hanged as traitors', dear me, now we are not so much in Zimbabwe as in Rhodesia.

What this all boils down to is that nowhere has anyone established that the police did not have the reasonable suspicion which they needed to arrest Damian Green. There is likewise no evidence that any Labour Party politician has interfered in the police inquiry in any respect whatsoever.

[Sally Roberts]

Thank you Eveleigh! You are quite right to point out the essential precious point of British common law that a person is deemed innocent until proven guilty. This is the difference between a long-established Parliamentary democracy and a totalitarian state.

[Sally Roberts]

All I would say in response to that Boothroyd is that if it turns out that either your precious Leader or his henchwoman have lied then you will not so much have egg on your face as rather stinking brown stuff.
Now go away and have a cup of tea - you are becoming tiresome.

[Paul D]

David, a quick yes or no. Do you believe Gordon Brown should be arrested over the huge number of leaks he received during the Major years?

[The Bishop Swine]

Harman is the most acceptable and Palatable of Labours front bench. She was more interesting for what she would not say. She should have been showing a deal more contrition. This is of course not a jumped up hanging of a man but it comes as close as we want in this country. We have had MP's around their leader pop off at convenient moments and scientist forced into suicide. This may not be the right issue but if an impeachment was made against Nu-Labour these would be issue to drag up and look closely into. For example where is Blair and why did he exit the house so completely.
If Labour want to start playing hard ball we will have to play back.

[bill]

Re "If Labour want to start playing hard ball we will have to play back." Agreed. And if the Tories get into power there should be a root and branch review and reform of all branches of the state which have been shown to be lacking under New Labour.

[The Bishops wife]

"Is this the same "Mad Hatty" Harman who was at NCCL as Legal Officer 1978-82 ?"

The very same one woman anti-vice loon.

[Sandy Jamieson]

Damian Green's Computers are now in the hands of Brown's Stasi- the anti-terorist squad. They must realise how this has panned out politically for them and for their political master: a potential disaster. But, these computers are now in the hands of some of the countries most skilled and devious computer operatives in the country with ability to download any material and date it on one or all of these pcs.

Be prepared for an announcement that in examining these computers, indecent images have been found on them possibily even images of those below the age of 16

If you don't think Gordon and Nulab would do that, where have you been living for the past eleven years?

[Sally Roberts]

Sandy I hope to goodness you're wrong, but I know there are no depths to which these Evil People will not sink!

[Sandy Jamieson]

I'm just watching Channel Four News. Scotland Yard are accusing Damian Green of "grooming" a Home Office Official. As Dominick Grieve has just commented, this is a very sinister word to use. In the world of computers, "Grooming" in the current public domain is usually a word associated with paedophiles contacting and conversing with young boys and girls with the aim of seducing them or otherwise.

Although I was not at all aware of the use of this phrase by Scotland Yard this evening when I made my 18.16 posting, I feel my initial suspicions have been re-inforced.

[Sally Roberts]

Sandy you're right! This is totally and ubelievably sick!! Don't tell me they are about to accuse him of being a paedophile? Now I know that there are no depths....

I am really frightened for us all.

[The Bishop Swine]

"Damian Green's Computers are now in the hands of Brown's Stasi- the anti-terorist squad"

The ease by which the Police can force the handover of such personal objects is in itself a sign of the times. There should be strict demands placed on them to only look for information pertinent to the case. He was also forced onto the DNA register, which is also extremely questionable. Its not a very nice thing for any person to be put through. Harman admitted to receiving leaked documents before entering Parliament. Since when has possession of non-secret material been a criminal offence. How ever you look at this case it stinks, its worrying and its happening in our Parliament.

[Eveleigh Moore-Dutton]

now you are frightening me...give it 10mins and that fear will turn to rage...

[Sally Roberts]

Right - I think we need to calm down for a mo! The word "grooming" COULD (I stress COULD) be simply legalese - this is the link from the Guardian story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/30/damian-green-arrest2

Galley (the young civil servant involved) apparently stood as a Conservative Council candidate back in 2004 and applied unsuccessfully for a job as Damian Green's researcher.

It would appear that he took the fact that his application was unsuccessful rather badly and clearly turned on his would-be boss in no uncertain terms! Revenge I suppose!

[Pyers Symon]

Here is a little conumdrum for everyone ... I hope that Damian had encrypted all of his computer data using something like SafeBoot (I think it ought to be compusory for all Tory MPs to do so from now on BTW)... How would the police force the password out of an MP?

[Matt Wright]

Wil Boothroyd provide an answer to Paul D @ 17.43? Do you believe that Gordon Brown should be arrested for the leaks he received and created as well?

[Sandy Jamieson]

[email protected]
Isn't with-holding encryption password details in criminal investigations an offence?

[meli]

Galley (the young civil servant involved) apparently stood as a Conservative Council candidate back in 2004 and applied unsuccessfully for a job as Damian Green's researcher.

It would appear that he took the fact that his application was unsuccessful rather badly and clearly turned on his would-be boss in no uncertain terms! Revenge I suppose!

Posted by: Sally Roberts | November 30, 2008 at 18:50

mmm I think you may be right Sally. Something seems very fishy about this. This guy has been an assistant private secretary in the Home Office for 4 years but applied to work for Damien Green last year? Isn't that a demotion of some sort? I certainly see it as such. Not to mention he applied and was turned down by others in the Conservative party, one a front bencher but not in the Cabinet. He ran for the party himself in 2004 so must have started working for the Labour government soon after loosing that election. I really do wonder what is going on here....

[m dowding]

Boothroyd, you are a member of the "most hated Government ever" supporters club. You display all the arrogance we have become sadly used to from a Labour Party of such utter mendacity, sleaze and corruption. As for dirty tricks, masters of the universe. Did you source the PhD thesis for Campbell's dossier on WMD? Do you conspire to suppress the appalling casualty figures of our troops coming home from TWO theatres of war, your lot have bankrupted us with?
I've said it many times before, this Government of all the trash, led by a monster and sick control freak is only there because of patronage and blackmail and a client state and benefit system. Well, Boothroyd, the money has run out. You are struggling to pay the wage bills and the mounting benefit mountain. Your discredited and atrocious Party is an affront to the early founders of Labour and are frankly disgusting beyond measure. For sure The Nasty Party big time.

[Dominic]

This Zanou Party Britain have been a collection of the most odious rabble that twist, deceive and are lacking any form of common decency there are no depths to the subterfuge they will employ to keep power and daily bring down the standards this once great country was proud of.
Just look at the individuals over the last eleven years that are incompetent have no scruples and really with a few exceptions are no better than the slime one would gather on one’s shoes.
The great British public are just about cottoning on to what they represent. It is time for the Conservative MP’s to start become passionate call a spade a spade and stop taking nonsense from third rate Journalists and hammer your points home just as so many in the Thatcher Government through the years did on a daily basis.
This is the last chance for our country to remain democratic and maybe this terrible injustice might spur our Politicians to rise to the occasion and expose what is happening all around us.
On another posting THE BISHOP SWINE espoused the virtues of Ken Clarke this morning and said “His Grammar School clout is sadly out of fashion with the utterly professional antics of the Eton Guys” I feel when you look at the opposition most would be a breeze in debate as there are so many muck ups to go for.
This is no time to wheel Letwin out he is far to polite and wet and as for Mr Boothroyd he really can not defend the damage his party has done in the last eleven years they are wounded and a dangerous laughing stock and must go .

[meli]

just another question on my earlier comment. Wouldn't the Home Office have done a background check on this guy and realised he'd run as a candidate for the other side? Though there is the question that maybe he was already working for the Home Office when he actually ran for the Conservative council seat up north. Can't really figure this out but it's really very strange somewhere down the line....

[Sally Roberts]

Dominic you are right - now is the time to wheel out the attack dogs! The time for being gentlemanly or ladylike is long gone. We are fighting for our lives and our way of life.

[Sally Roberts]

Actually I think "unleash" would be a better term than "wheel out" but I think you get the gist....

[WIlliam Blake's Ghost]

I believe we are now experiencing the 'death rattle' of the festering, maggot-infested corpse of New Labour. The putrid stench of this detritus now offends all but the most senseless.

Its toxic effluence now pollutes and taints the very depths of the once calm clear waters of British Democracy.

It's time this corpse was dispatched to the dark odour filled hinterlands of authoritarianism where it was contrived. It must be incinerated and the ashes disposed of as it were nuclear waste.

As it is disposed of the British people should mourn that there once was an honourable working man's party that existed in the place inhabited so unworthily by New Labour for far too long.

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

[onthejob]

i hope you are right i really hope you are right william blakes ghost

[StevenAdams]

Boothroyd,

you forget that this is not a court of law... we don't need evidence to state our beliefs here, as Sally was doing.

Moreover, she's right. Almost certainly, Jacqui S knew about the arrest. Why? Well, why would the police give DC and BJ the courtesy of a phone call but not seek political cover from the Home Sec? It's inconceivable and utterly ridiculous to suggest that she didn't know.

You're a blind party animal that believes everything you're spoon-fed... Cash for Peerages, WMDs no doubt and now this horsesh*t from Jacqui Smith.

Engage brain, Boothroyd.

[Pyers Symon]

[email protected]:03

It is part of RIPA BUT software like TrueCrypt has a function called "Plausible Deniability" which makes actually proving an encrypted file even exists very difficult. Have a look at the RubberHose File System....

[Malcolm Dunn]

On a previous thread I mentioned my suprise at the lack of lefties posting here today and mentioned David Boothroyd in particularas being someone who is happy to defend the indefensible. Well I was wrong about Boothroyd he has been posting vociferously today but right that he was as ever prepared to defend the absolutely indefensible.

[pp]

Doesn't this really sum up this government:-

Significantly, he said that from his interpretation of her answers (or lack thereof) on the Andrew Marr show, "I think she knew there was an MP involved in this investigation and she decided to simply sit back on her hands,"

A minister is interviewed at some length and somehow even after that, the basic fact of whether she knew an MP was involved or not is not clear!!

A person whose communication is so poor as to not be able to relay such a simple piece of information should not be allowed to be a home economics teacher, let alone a MP, even less a minister!

[Geoffrey G Brooking]

For those unaware an online petition demanding the resignation of the Speaker have been set up at
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/speakermartinmustresign/index.html

The petition will be handed to the Speaker on Wednesday morning, before the State Opening of Parliament!

[Tom M]

I haven't got the energy to find the exact quotes involved, but to deal with the various misapprehensions and outright lies being put about in these comments:

1) There was a comment very early on about how it would be dangerous for the Tories to be seen to be calling for one law for MPs and another for the rest of us. There already is a different set of laws for MPs, and that is one of the main points of this whole affair. MP's have unique rights in this country, and one of the key questions in the Green affair is whether the police actually had the legal power to do what they did when they entered the houses of parliament.
2) Boothroyd the pustulant is very keen to point out that Damien Green may have committed an offence, and so he may have done. One of the fundamental premises on which English Common Law is built however, is that everyone should be treated equally before the law. One of the things this implies is that the prosecution of the law should not be arbitrary or targetted at particular individuals. If there is a prima facie case for Damien Green to answer in this instance, there are equally compelling cases against thousands of other MPs and journalists, including our beloved Prime Minister in his opposition days. For the police to investigate a single case out of thousands is arbitrary, vindictive and wrong.

Two simple predictions - even if this case goes to court it will be laughed out, and the fall-out will result in the (reluctant) resignation of at least one senior Labour politician.

[The Bishop Swine]

"Isn't with-holding encryption password details in criminal investigations an offence?-"

Another example of how strong the state police have become already under Labour, its a nonsense of course we encrypt data because we don't want it to be read, and Labour cannot abide its citizens having secrets it cannot know. This Creeping State of Labours has gone mostly unchallenged and now we are starting to see how very dangerous these legal reforms have been.

When People say that this Election is a make or brake chance to reclaim our society before it is utterly destroyed, I tend (sadly) to agree. I was once a radical socialist until I fully digested the meaning of centralization, it sickened me then and it sickens me now.
There is no room for the individual in a socialist state, lets not forget that the nazi were a national socialist party.

[Adam in London]

It is now clear that Jacqui Smith does not in fact run the Home Office.

She has told us that the leak inquiry was not at her instigation or approval, but that of her civil servants who merely chose to inform her what they had done. She has told us that, despite Johnson and Cameron being told, the police declined to inform her or her Ministers that they were about to arrest Green and search his homes and offices.

I wonder who does run the Home Office these days if not the sock puppet 'Home Secretary'...

[Patsy Sergeant]

CleethorpesRock @ 14.15 - 'As I understand, Boris and DC were only told about the raids about an hour before the police busted down the door and Damian Green's house and ransacked it.'

Now I wonder why that was!? It certainly seems that as little time as could be allowed, to protect personal or other things, was felt to be necessary by the organisers of this raid!?

I think it is rich that Boothroyd, talked in one of his comments, on this thread about 'privileged people' with the usual Lab insinuation. Who does he mean precisely? A Boothroyd not privileged?? A Toynbee not privileged, a Harman not privileged, I could go on and on and on, Mr. Boothroyd, change the record, its hypocritical!

[JohnfromCamberley]

There is a post over on Guido's site which adds further interest. It's actually lifted from CIF, a lawyer writing in to the debate they are having over there.

I'll quote one particular paragraph. The rest is at http://www.order-order.com/2008/11/brown-confesses-to-procuring-misconduct.html (anonymous post at 1053pm)

6. The offence under which Green was arrested is a very arcane 18th century common law which is not going to be in the every-day lexicon of your average Met Police officer. I am a professional and even I had to go away and look it up to understand it fully. So there is no doubt in my mind that the officers in question had to have received legal advice from the CPS. Given the personage they were dealing with, I doubt it was some CPS minion who gave the advice, but someone further up the chain of command. In any event, even a CPS minion would have been aware of the potential political ramifications and would have raised alarm bells at a very early stage indeed. The notion that no ministers in the Dept. of Justice or Home Office knew of this is therefore preposterous.

[YMT]

This is becoming a crisis, if there is no satisfactory progress by the Queens speech I would lend my voice to calling for a cross party demonstration, a walkout or something that would have a powerful and highly symbolic gesture that the houses had been compromised and MP's no longer have confidence in the law and the protection to do their work without the threat of arrest. It comes down to the fact his arrest means that MP's are at risk of arrest if they receive information from unknown sources.

[sjm]

This Government brought in a law in 1998 to offer cover for those who leaked and used official information 'in the public interest'. They now appear to be bitterly regretting this (as per the Freedom of Information legislation).

The complaint to the Met was made by Sir David Normington, who will be chairing the Selection Committee to appoint the next Met Commissioner. Green's arrest was sanctioned by the acting Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, who would like to step into Ian Blair's shoes.

Far be it from me to descry any links here.

[YMT]

Would walking out the Queens speech be disrespectful in this case? I don't know but I hope now, as offending the Queen is the last thing I would want to happen. But a thought has occurred that she is the head of state after all, in matters where the integrity of her Parliament has been damaged is it not the Queen that the buck stops? I'm sure there is some protocol to follow in this case to appeal to the Queen that the ability of MP's to work has been curtailed.

[pp]

Boycotts have a short term 'shock' effect, but unless the boycotted entity colapses, then in the longer term the boycotters usually have to return to the fold - tail between their legs.

Asking the monarch to declare her hand would be an escalation - but maybe a good one.

Without the monarchy - Brown would be our head of state!!! as would have been Blair before him!!! and if the lefties need any persuasion - a bit over a decade ago our head of state would have been Maggie T...

If the queen wouldn't refuse to approve the libon treaty (without a public referendum) then the public have been wasting their money and faith all this time...

MPs must recognise that parliament is soverign (in our name), parliament is above the law - with great power comes great responsibility - and when that power is held in trust, the first duty is to ensure that the power is not 'given away', but returned to the people (at the end of the term) to be passed to the next trustee.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

CleethorpesRock @ 14.15 - 'As I understand, Boris and DC were only told about the raids about an hour before the police busted down the door and Damian Green's house and ransacked it.'

Where is your proof that police busted the door down? Police would have a right of forced entry if entry was being denied or unnecessary delayed.

Hey, you forgot to mention that police kicked the dog, strangled the cat and boiled the Green's pet budgie - as for the hamster? We dare not mention it.

I have been reading comments on this blog now for quite some time, but these comments take the biscuit - most are all hysterical utter garbage. And as for David Davis and his claim that Britain is now like living under Mugabe, how juvenile and insulting to the Zimbabian public can you get. But Davis always had the ability to recognised a bandwagon when it was passing.

And before anyone has a fit at what I have written, I regard myself as a traditional Conservative and many of the Tories as bunch of modernising, progressive, effete wets. Oh! BTW if it were possible I would like to see Blair, Brown and co banned from ever holding office ever again for what they have done to England and their pensions forfeited.

But I will save the real good stuff for tomorrow.
Nighty, night.

[Michael Taylor]

No, there is absolutely no chance that the police used the word 'grooming' without full knowledge, and therefore intent, that it had connotations of paedophilia and terrorism.

Corruption starts with corruption of the language, and is subsequently bolstered by it. This is a prime example, and a sinister one to boot.

So we've another name to add to the list of heads which need to role - the nasty little political apparachick in the Met who dreamed up this horrid, casual, off-the-cuff, obscene slur. Such an instinctual expression of contempt. . .

[meli]

Michael, that has to be the nastiest suggestion of all that has been made. These police are meant to be some of the best trained in the country and this is how they behave by insinuating extremely nasty things? I really don't know what to think about that beyond sadness and disgust.

[TomTom]

Sorry, Sally, your memory of the 'cash for honours' case is faulty. Lord Levy is a Member of Parliament (of the upper House of Parliament, as it happens) and was arrested.

Lord Levy is UNELECTED because he has no CONSTITUENCY and REPRESENTS no electors.

That is the principle Mr Boothroyd - that ELECTORS have a REPRESENTATIVE looking after their interests with respect to the Executive.....Lord Levy fails on all those tests.

You may recall historical ignorance notwothstanding the nature of THE COMMONS and its representational role and why Oliver Cromwell is so integral to its importance.

[Absolutely furious and Angry of UK]

Anonymous said...
So the police used powers granted to them by anti-terrorist legislation to arrest an Opposition front bench spokesman for making public leaked details of incompetence (and worse) at the Home Office. And - against centuries of Parliamentary tradition and legal immunity - the police also raided this man's offices in the House of Commons itself. And they did so with the foreknowledge and - presumably - the acquiescence of both the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Sergeant-at-Arms, whose first duty it is to protect Parliament - its traditions and privileges - and Parliamentarians themselves. And the best that the current Prime Minister can say is that all of this is solely a matter for the police. I see.

So....are the police now going to start holding Cabinet meetings? And how, precisely, should we address these new masters of ours?

And why haven't both the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons resigned in disgrace? Because a disgrace to their predecessors, to Parliament, to Parliamentary liberty and the security of MPs they most certainly are. I can see no good reason for them to still be retaining their positions. And furthermore, a Prime Minister who is likewise incapable of defending Parliamentary liberty and the security of MPs is equally unfit for office. For him to simply look the other way while the liberties and necessary immunities of MPs are trampled underfoot in this brutish and despicable way is an abnegation and a betrayal of duty for which he should resign.

The Prime Minister should go.

Posted by Jeremy on Coffee House, deserves a wider distribution.

November 30, 2008 9:35 PM

[Sally Roberts]

dontmakemelaugh, where is your proof that you are a Conservative? You are certainly not writing like one - though you may well be right wing.

[Absolutely furious and Angry of UK]

The Nu Labour back tracking, cover up and disinformation process has commenced

Don't let them off the hook.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/nov/30/damian-green-gordon-brown-police

[Absolutely furious and Angry of UK]

For those unaware an online petition demanding the resignation of the Speaker have been set up at
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/speakermartinmustresign/index.html

The petition will be handed to the Speaker on Wednesday morning, before the State Opening of Parliament!

[Absolutely furious and Angry of UK]

This lifted from a a Guardian Comment is Free "cif" thread, a lawyer makes some very important and interesting comments particularly points 6, 7 and 8:

---------------------------------------
BeautfilBurnout: :

I, too, am saddened by the "move along now, nothing to see here" posts which are very often backed up with "the Tories are bast++ds too".

This is not about party politics, believe it or not. This is about something far more serious, which could set a precedent for Members of Parliament being criminalised for holding documents that the Executive don't want them to have.

Some important points to take into account:

1. This is not about national security and state secrets. If it had been, the Home Office leaker and Damian Green would have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act. The Home Office official has not yet been charged, pending further investigation, and neither has Green.

2. While Bogdanov may well be right in terms of what is legal and what isn't, there is the matter of parliamentary conventions - which are not rules but "customs" or "codes of conduct" when dealing with parliamentarians. When an MP is accused of an offence it is customary in view of their position for them to be invited in for questioning first.

You may recall when Neil and Christine Hamilton were (wrongly) accused of sexual assault on a woman, they attended the police station by appointment for interview. In the cash-for-peerages enquiry, MPs were not arrested but invited to attend an interview. In fact, very many criminal suspects who are not public figures are invited to attend interview instead of being arrested - it is fairly standard procedure.

3. Nothing the police have done is outwith the law, but entering parliament and searching parliamentary offices does, in my opinion, breach conventions.

4. Had Green been invited in for questioning under caution instead of being arrested, the police would have had no powers to seize his property, documents, computers etc.

5. The police don't just sit there and read the news and say "oh look, that MP might be committing an offence" and go out and arrest them (unless there is a picture of said MP kicking someone's head in or dealing crack). The Home Office made a complaint, as yet unspecified in nature. We don't know if the complaint was made about the whistle-blower or Damian Green, and I don't suppose we will ever know unless there is a full enquiry. Which leads on to...

6. The offence under which Green was arrested is a very arcane 18th century common law which is not going to be in the every-day lexicon of your average Met Police officer. I am a professional and even I had to go away and look it up to understand it fully. So there is no doubt in my mind that the officers in question had to have received legal advice from the CPS. Given the personage they were dealing with, I doubt it was some CPS minion who gave the advice, but someone further up the chain of command. In any event, even a CPS minion would have been aware of the potential political ramifications and would have raised alarm bells at a very early stage indeed. The notion that no ministers in the Dept. of Justice or Home Office knew of this is therefore preposterous.

7. By arresting Green and seizing his documents, computers etc, this has effectively put any other information he may have held that would be sensitive to the Executive out of harm's way for some considerable time. He has been bailed to February.

8. There are ramifications concerning the content of his emails and computer discs, which will contain sensitive information from his own constituency, and which is now in the hands of the police. Anyone who ever emailed Mr Green will now be wondering if there was anything they might have said in private correspondence that leaves them open to investigation themselves. This undermines the whole relationship between constituent and MP.

If this precedent is set, it will effectively gag opposition members of any political colour and prevent them releasing any information they have had leaked to them for fear of being arrested and having their property seized. The Tories are the main people whining about this now, but that doesn't mean that this is anything to do with party politics at all.

Can you imagine what the position would be like if it was either the Tories or, god forbid, someone like the BNP in power in the future? And they would be able to point back to the 28th November 2008 as being the day the rules changed and New Labour allowed this kind of thing to happen? Opposition nobbled, police able to trot around parliamentary offices as they saw fit and seize what they wanted in case someone was encouraging someone else to commit misfeasance in office?

So no, this is really not sound and fury signifying nothing.

[TomTom]

So the police used powers granted to them by anti-terrorist legislation to arrest an Opposition front bench spokesman for making public leaked details of incompetence (and worse) at the Home Office.

I do not believe they did use Anti-Terrorism legislation; nor do U believe they had Search Warrants; nor do I believe they informed the Attorney-General or DPP.

I believe they used PACE and a Common Law Offence dating from the 18th Century. They could not use the Official Secrets Act because that would require the Attorney-General to define official secrets affecting national security as in the Acts.

So I think they used Special Branch now renamed Counter-Terrorism Police in SO15...but the point is still heavy handed - Damian Green is not a spy, nor an enemy of the Constitution - it is the Metropolitan Police that is the policing arm of the Labour Party and which sees its role as being to serve The Party

[Freya Sykes]

Pyers...probably in line with the rest of this debarcle of democracy...bamboo under the fingernails anyone??

I agree 100% with Sally Roberts comments and as for David Boothroyd's comments...hmmmmm...NuLab media puppet anyone? Only slightly used (by his NuLab spin masters that is!) ;-)lol!

As for this being a two fingered salute by Blair on his exit to the Government...could well be.

[Sally Roberts]

"it is the Metropolitan Police that is the policing arm of the Labour Party and which sees its role as being to serve The Party"

Quite right, Tom Tom - I remember that at the last General Election they even had "Vote Labour" slogans on the side of their vehicles.

[The Bishop Swine]

"For those unaware an online petition demanding the resignation of the Speaker have been set up at:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/speakermartinmustresign/index.html"

Prehaps for fairness we should be supporting the appoinment of a Liberal or Unionist MP to the role of speaker.

[The Bishop Swine]

^^ Can a Mod remove my email address please, my error but I don't want my addy online.

[pp]

I think choice of speaker is entirely for MPs.

It seems to me that many MPs already take far too little responsiblity for protecting our constitution and the supremecy of our parliament - interfering with their choice of speaker will just give them an excuse to drop another of their responsiblities!

Setting their own pay (and being open about it) is central to this -- if they can't be trusted to do it, or they cannot justify it, or they are unwilling to take responsibility for doing it then they shouldn't be there.

Setting their pay should be a regular showcase for MP's to explain to the public what they are doing for their money, and why they are worth it... If an MP can't look the public in the eye and justify their pay then they shouldn't be in parliament (or they should take a pay cut, to what they feel they can justify) - if they can, then maybe we have someone who has the strength of character to protect our constitution and parliament.

[James Maskell]

Jacqui Smith has been hinting that the leaks were of national security importance. If so the police should either charge him with the relevant offences or an apology sould be made by Smith in the Commons and an inquiry into police conduct made. Surely she has to know an MP was to be arrested.

The term grooming I very much doubt was meant in the pawedophile manner which we normally know the word. I think what they meant was that he was trying to persuade them to be come a regular leak. Lets not go over the top there on the word grooming. Groom or grooming mean a bunch of different things. Its just the sadly we hear the paedophile one probably more often.

[Sally Roberts]

"Jacqui Smith has been hinting that the leaks were of national security importance."

James Maskell - with respect and to quote Mandy Rice Davies - She Would Say That, Wouldn't She?!!!

As for charging Mr Green - it is interesting that so far the Police have not done so. I suspect they will find it difficult.

In any event, do you really think the Authorities would like Damian Green to go to trial with the highly embarrassing possibility that protests and organised campaigns would be organised on his behalf and that Her Majesty The Queen might well become embroiled in what will have become a constitutional matter?

[Victor M]

I am heartily sick of listening to words and you doing nothing relevant. ALL MPs of every party who still have an ounce of decency in them (and there must still be a few) should boycott the Queen's speech on Wednesday. I am certain that she reads the papers and knows what is going on so she will understand the personal 'disrespect.'
Let McBroon stand there on his own surrounded by his cabal. That picture will go round the world. In India they are resigning like flies due to to their incomptence, they at least in this world still understand there is proper behaviour to be followed shame that had to learn it from the Victorians they would learn nothing from the unpricipled rabble of today.

[resident leftie]

The Home Secretary could not apologise even if there were something for which to apologise, because that would prejudice the police investigation. Ministers are in a difficult position: the police raid was a surprise to them, and I suspect they aren't happy with it, but they can't criticise the police at this stage.

The police were heavy handed, as they often are, but I believe they behaved within the law. MPs are subject to the law, and there is no law which stops the police raiding an MP's office in parliament. It might be time for a short bill with cross party support which clarifies the matter, particularly in this information age.

My guess is that someone senior in the civil service some time ago asked the police to investigate national security leaks, perhaps at the behest of a minister, and that it has now come to this, much to the surprise of ministers.

I look forward to posters here jumping on other examples of police heavy handedness when it applies to people other than Tory MPs.

This government has conflicting threads; on the one hand it has introduced the Human Rights Act, the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the Freedom of Information Act. On the other hand, like all governments, it is not happy with being embarassed. It also has an unpleasant authoritarian streak, with ID cards and anti-terrorist legislation which is shared by half or more of the Tory party, though not, notably, Damian Green.

I find it laughable that posters here talk about police states and the politicisation of the police force. The only government in recent years who have used the police politically on a large scale was Thatcher, who spent billions of pounds destroying the coal industry using the police as her personal tool.

[Norm Brainer]

MPs are subject to the law, and there is no law which stops the police raiding an MP's office in parliament

That may be correct, but they should have been prevented from doing so.

I fail to see how the Thatcher reference is relevant - she didn't send the police into the miners homes or spy on them... or undermine our democracy using them.

[pp]

The Home Secretary could not apologise even if there were something for which to apologise, because that would prejudice the police investigation.

If what they did was wrong then of course she could apologise!

If the police beat someone up you would expect an immediate apology wouldn't you?

Smith clearly doesn't think that the police did anything wrong.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: pp | December 01, 2008 at 11:21

The Home Secretary could not apologise even if there were something for which to apologise, because that would prejudice the police investigation.

If what they did was wrong then of course she could apologise!

If the police beat someone up you would expect an immediate apology wouldn't you?

Smith clearly doesn't think that the police did anything wrong.

She cannot criticise them for following the course of a legal investigation. They do not appear to have broken any laws. This is separate to the fact that there is no evidence that she has anything to apologise for in any case.

Even in cases where the police have clearly beaten people up, the Home Secretary cannot comment in this fashion if the matter is sub judice.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: Norm Brainer | December 01, 2008 at 10:58

MPs are subject to the law, and there is no law which stops the police raiding an MP's office in parliament

That may be correct, but they should have been prevented from doing so.

So you think that the police should have bee physically and illegally prevented in pursuing a lawful investigation? I'm not saying that you are wrong, I merely want you to acknowledge it.

[pp]

Lefty - so as I said, she could easily apoligise if she thought they had done something wrong.

Parliament is above the law - that what sovereignty is - and that is what we entrust our MPs to be part of. For one of its members to be treated this way with out parliaments explicit consent shows a contempt for parliament by the police that is not acceptible.

[Peter O]

Perhaps for fairness we should be supporting the appoinment of a Liberal or Unionist MP to the role of speaker.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | December 01, 2008 at 09:30

Oh no, there's a MUCH better alternative to that.

"Speaker Damian Green" anyone?

[Sally Roberts]

"Ministers are in a difficult position: the police raid was a surprise to them, and I suspect they aren't happy with it, but they can't criticise the police at this stage."

It is often said that there are no dangerous dogs - only dangerous owners and there is a sense in which this applies here.

The Police are rather like a giant rottweiler who is fierce and very effective when trained and handled properly.

Ms Smith, sadly, is the owner who has never read any books on dog training, has never attended classes on dog training and additionally is too weak to control the dog.

Our Home Secretary, it seems, whilst able to yell "Seize Him Brutus" was quite unable to shout "Down Boy...LEAVE IT!!" and be obeyed.