« Previous | Main | Next »

The Speaker, Damian Green and warrants.

Eddie Mair | 17:05 UK time, Wednesday, 3 December 2008

What do you think?


  • 1. At 5:20pm on 03 Dec 2008, Carl Gardner wrote:

    You're quite right to press the point about whether search without a warrant was lawful - I think it was, under section 18 of PACE. It should not be assumed that a warrant was needed.

    The warrant business is a red herring. Jill Pay did the right thing by consenting, and the police did right to ask consent. The idea of a warrant is something thought up after the fact by the Speaker. Why didn't he insist in one last week, if he thought it necessary?

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 5:21pm on 03 Dec 2008, lbeagle wrote:

    There will clearly be two candidates fewer for the Met Commissioner's job. And presumably a vacancy for Serjeant-at-arms.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 5:22pm on 03 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    I think I already discussed it on The Glass Box where we discuss PM.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 5:26pm on 03 Dec 2008, 13eastie wrote:

    So the police searched the House without a warrant?
    The Speaker didn't know this?
    The Sergeant-at-Arms waived them in without question?
    And she didn't tell her boss the facts?
    Who is in charge?

    The police interfere in the democratic process, but don't see fit to tell the Home Secretary?
    Who is in charge?

    Do we have rather too many loose cannons on board?

    Or is it possible the the Govt and Met favour the interests of the Labour Party above our democratic values?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 5:28pm on 03 Dec 2008, sussexcynic wrote:

    Why is it that Ms Harman cannot answer a straight question, or am I expecting too much.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 5:29pm on 03 Dec 2008, Snifter wrote:

    The police don't need a warrant when someone is under arrest. Section 18 of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 permits a constable to enter and search any premises occupied or controlled by a person who is under arrest for an arrestable offence. These parliamentarians make the law but claim they are above it. The BBC will know the law but it does spoil a good story....

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 5:30pm on 03 Dec 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    I wonder whether the police would have been allowed to roll up without a warrant and search the office of someone who was a front-bench member of the party in government, as easily as they were allowed to walk in without a warrant and search the office of a front-bench member of the party in opposition.

    Somehow I doubt that the unfortunate Sergeant-at-Arms would have given them quite so ready a blanket permission if the parties' positions had been reversed. I simply do not believe that anyone does not know the phrase 'no entry without warrant' -- or at least I do not believe that somebody so woefully ignorant is appointed to be what amounts to an officer of the law! It's so basic to every TV series or book in which the police appear that one would need to have been asleep all one's life not to have encountered it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 5:30pm on 03 Dec 2008, Happyhomeworker wrote:

    I was starting to think that this matter had run its course until I heard what the Speaker said this afternoon.

    What was he doing? Why didn't he ask the questions which anyone else would have asked in that position? Because it was a Tory MP in the frame?

    On a wider point, our liberties are being gradually eroded, with the connivance of MPs, in the name of "national security". All in all, this episode has been a wake up call to MPs, who now see where these actions have been leading - ID cards, databases, now "prove your identity". They have spent too long listening to the police and doing whatever they say, without thinking where they were taking us. Time to do a u-turn before we end up in a police state.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 5:31pm on 03 Dec 2008, DavidMcCulloughUK wrote:

    Most (police) searches in England & Wales are conducted without warrant as the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) confers sufficient powers when a person has been arrested. The Act will need to be amended if Parliament want to be a special case (similar to journalists and lawyers). I don't know what is worse, the ineptitude of the Met or the froth the MPs have whipped themselves into.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 5:33pm on 03 Dec 2008, Happyhomeworker wrote:

    6 Snifter

    The issue about the search is "occupied or controlled" - Damian Green does neither in the House of Commons. Therefore a search had to be by warrant or by consent of the controller of the place - in this case the Serjeant, who happily signed the form before engaging her brain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 5:33pm on 03 Dec 2008, ourvoice wrote:

    I should imagine any high court judge would be only too happy to consider granting a warrant to search your office Mrs waffle, waffle, waffle Harman.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 5:34pm on 03 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    Hm. Sounds like the Serjeant at Arms (appointed, I note, by Speaker Martin after he fell out with her predecessor) is the nominated fall guy. But - if she rang the Speaker (as it would appear she did) for guidance, surely it was up to him - her boss - to direct her correctly?

    I have to say that I'm not impressed with our current Speaker. And I have the sense of a buck being rapidly passed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 5:36pm on 03 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    Oh dear. I see that, yet again, there is a general ganging up against Ms Harman.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 5:37pm on 03 Dec 2008, tombrown_a wrote:

    How long did it take the interviewer get any REAL information out of the leader of the commons - it really was like pulling teeth. Are government ministers always so incredibly cautious. It doesn't make good radio - its frustrating for the listener - it does the minister no good whatsever to have their evasive answers broadcast - I think the ministers must be trained in deaing with the media this way to mislead and put people off politics. It really was a grind listening to that interview.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 5:37pm on 03 Dec 2008, Vorkosigan5 wrote:

    Will we be able to get a guarantee from the Police that if there was anything on Mr Greens computers that relates to conversations with his constituents they will take no action on the contents.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 5:37pm on 03 Dec 2008, bankertothenation wrote:

    Eddie, great interview with harriot harmon - pity she couldn't hear your questions, still no answer is also an answer of sorts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 5:39pm on 03 Dec 2008, NapoleonBoot wrote:

    I think Ms Harperson was disingenuous when she claimed to have received linked information from her sister in her official capacity as Solicitor-General.

    As I remember, her sister was professionally censured for passing on the information, possibly even disqualified. The information passed on was confidential under Family Court rules.

    I think the rules are silly too, and that the information should have been passed on. But surely that is precisely the point that Ms Harperson fails to understand?

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 5:40pm on 03 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    sussexcynic: She's a lawyer, and lawyers rarely answer questions directly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 5:41pm on 03 Dec 2008, jackhigh2747 wrote:

    Why is it Harriet Harman has to not only speak drivel most of the time but has to start of every sentance with,' I think' this now appears to have now become her catch phrase.
    I thought Ms. Smith was bad enough but even she comes in second to Ms. Harman

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 5:41pm on 03 Dec 2008, wellblowmedown wrote:

    Talk about a stitch up! The most amazing shirking of responsibilty and buck passing has been shown by this speaker. He seems to suggest that it is all the serjeant at arms fault for not telling him enough. Does he not have a tongue in his head? Could he not have asked his junior colleague "Do they have a warrant?" or "Did you know serjeant that you do not have to let them in without a warrant." If on a matter so unusual and so fraught with obvious anti-democratic questions this speaker could not enquire as to all the relevant circumstances he should go. He should also be ashamed for insinuating the fault lay with a junior colleague. Can you imagine how this government would have reacted if the heads of the banks had come out recently and said it was the fault of all those people taking out mortgages they couldn't pay back as opposed to them not asking and checking they could afford them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 5:42pm on 03 Dec 2008, Marharg49 wrote:

    The Sergeant-at-Arms phones to say the house of commons is to be searched and an MP arrested. Is the speaker so disinterested in the job that he did not offer any advice or take any interest in the matter? Passing the buck springs to mind.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 5:49pm on 03 Dec 2008, ourvoice wrote:

    Big sis 13

    What do you expect when we all know what they refuse to say. They use proceedure to hide behind. When the proceedure is over they then say there is no need to comment anymore as the proceedure has said it all. This being the case, what exactly is their Job? What were they elected for?

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 5:52pm on 03 Dec 2008, justfloating wrote:

    MPs should never be arrested and their offices should never be searched.

    Should they be arrested on days when the commons vote?

    BUT MPs, of course, should end up in court if they break the law, but using other evidence. Even if this evidence is that they received secrets. But what is in the offices is outside police action.

    There should be some protection of confidence or how can we use our MPs to protect us. But maybe this is just another ploy by Brown to undermine the political system.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 5:53pm on 03 Dec 2008, tombrown_a wrote:

    So I'm guessing that this kind of 'no answer' from a government minister is fairly typical - its not that I've only happened to hear a few interviews like this recently. Can radio 4 not edit out the 5 minutes of 'no answer' and simply report 'The minister evaded my questions for 5 minutes and here is a 10 second answer I did manage to get out of them in the end'

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 5:53pm on 03 Dec 2008, Wiltshire_Ham wrote:

    Perhaps someone would inform Hazel Blears that 'the public' are able to hold more than one thought in their heads so, yes, we're worried about our mortgages and the economy, but we are also increasingly concerned at the overweening powers of the state and the police. It's getting like a rather chilly Zimbabwe here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 5:55pm on 03 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    BS 13, I think H Harman is quite nice looking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 5:56pm on 03 Dec 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Snifter @ 6, when was Green arrested? He was reportedly held for nine hours, and on Friday it was reported that he was 'being held last night'. I can't find evidence about the hour of his arrest and therefore cannot say whether he was already under arrest when the police were given carte blanche to search his office without a warrant, which I think was mentioned earlier in the PM programme as having happened at 7 am? In which case he would have had to have been released at 4pm or earlier, not exactly 'night'. Or did I mishear, and they went to the Commons at 7pm?

    in any case, I would have expected the Speaker to emphasise the fact of a warrant not actually being needed, if that were the case, since it would to some extent at least have served to exonorate both him and the Serjeant-at-Arms (sorry about mis-spelling her office last time).

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 5:59pm on 03 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    David: I think Michael Portillo is quite nice looking. Now, does that give me grounds to slag him off? ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 6:00pm on 03 Dec 2008, indaloman wrote:

    I do hope the newspaper coverage is more balanced than that I have heard so far on the radio and TV. Any solicitor working regularly in the magistrates court will be aware of the searches taking place every day under PACE. A House of Commons with a massive majority of people who call themselves 'lawyers' seems poorly informed about powers they gave the police.
    The Speakers comments about the consent issue beggars belief. There was a form to sign and advice was sought!

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 6:03pm on 03 Dec 2008, Peter Bolt wrote:

    Snifter @ 6
    I am not sure that Misfesance is an arrestable offence viz An offence that carries a sentence of 5 years or more.
    In any event it is not mandatory to actually arrest unless to prevent a continuing offence or the person(s) may abscond, give false details etc.
    Arrest is certainly convenient,espically for the Police.
    Nonetheless I cannot help thinking that the Police concerned seem to have had a exaggerated opinion of their own prowess.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 6:16pm on 03 Dec 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Chris (7):

    I seem to remember that when Celebrity Prime Minister Tony "I-was-a-rock-guitarist-me" Blair was questioned by the police, that was a much more civilised affair. I wonder why?

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 6:16pm on 03 Dec 2008, Omega_Cassandra wrote:

    Oh dear. Please try and keep up, chaps.

    May I respectfully inform all those who seem to be unaware of the fact: the Executive may do anything it likes to anyone at any time.

    This ancient right is enshrined somewhere or other among labrinthine legislation that has been carefully enacted over centuries.

    It is artfully embedded in so many different laws in so many different ways that not even senior members of the Bar (many in the Commons today) fully comprehend.

    One may be detained indefinetely (without arrest or charge). Judges may reverese verdits, coronors may restrict verdict options) and police can certainly enter premises without a warrant.

    Invoking "national security" seems to be over egging the pudding, but what the Hell!

    I'm sure (if you looked hard enough) there is still a legal way to publicly hang, emasculate, draw and quarter.

    And quite right too.

    That such draconian excess is not generally visited upon those who displease is more a question of good manners than good law.

    Under the dark mantle of anti-terrorism laws recently enacted we have significantly fewer rights and liberties than those won by Simon de Montford in the 13th century - and those still maintained at the height of World War 2.

    Are things really getting that bad? 'Fraid so. Ho hum, right-thinking people will just have to wait till a tipping point
    - and then, no doubt start cutting throats.

    Death to tyrants

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 6:17pm on 03 Dec 2008, Snafu_labour wrote:

    Harridan Harpy doesn't feel she needs to give a straight answer to anything because as she keeps reminding us everything she does is done "in good faith".

    Curiously, while arrogating this right to self-exculpation to herself she fervently believes that lesser mortals (ie men) should be held to the standards of "strict liability".

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 6:18pm on 03 Dec 2008, Snafu_labour wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 35. At 6:20pm on 03 Dec 2008, Chris Watts wrote:

    Who referred this matter to the Police in the first place? He or she is the real guilty party in this farce, because it was that person that was trying to use the police for political ends.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 6:25pm on 03 Dec 2008, Kippadee wrote:

    If Mr Galley had been working for a private co. or even a Civil Service dept outside Westminister he would have been given ten minutes to clear his desk and escorted off the premises by security or his manager. No arrest needed. For avoidence of such things as very public arrests The House should apply a similar system to deal with staff that abuse the trust that their posts provide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 6:47pm on 03 Dec 2008, Snafu_labour wrote:

    26 : I find her face very murine (not good) and during the spat about the wearing of a bullet-proof vest on walkabout her figure was revealed to be of most unfortunately barrel-like proportions. No wonder she's so charmless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 6:55pm on 03 Dec 2008, BoiledBunny wrote:

    Thanks for putting Harriet on the ropes.

    It seems like the BBC is the only effective opposition at the minute.

    I hope to hear Eddie and PM when the police raid the House of Commons over the 45 minute warning WMD Fairy Tale.

    So Mr. Tobin is convicted of killing vicky Hamilton, the relatives of a rapist from 1946 can be traced by DNA, but we have no idea who sold us a complete load of lies before invading Eye Rack?

    If the Bloggosphere doesn't get these inept, criminally negligent and not so say amateurs out then perhaps you can?

    Time for a German system where a separate court safeguards our democracy?

    Next election can we have a load of independents that pledge to safeguard democracy and set up a separate Court that protects and maintains our democracy.

    'Hello Johnny Foreigner, we don't do proper democrcacy, but here you are have this. It'll do you good'

    Well if Damien Green was in Saddam's Eye Rack he'd have been taken outside and shot? Here he just gets raided without a warrant?

    If the Sergeant in Arms woman doesn't know what her job is it just proves we need a separate system like the Germans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 6:56pm on 03 Dec 2008, Charlie wrote:

    Presumably, Black-Rod will no longer knock-on-the-door of the "Commons", but will instead, ask the Serjeant-at-arms for permission to run-riot.

    Which permission, it now appears, will be given...

    Come back King Charles I, all is forgiven! Oh, and perhaps, just in time for your namesake Prince Charles to...

    Y'know, the "Old-sayings" survive because they're true. In this case, I'm reminded of "Those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it..!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 6:58pm on 03 Dec 2008, ordinaryandanxious wrote:

    Defending the Met's actions, Harriet Harman said "defendents" have the right to answer accusations against them.

    What "defendent" would that be?

    No one - not Damien Green and not the hapless civil servant involved - has been charged with any crime. No-one is on trial.

    How dare Ms Harman imply that criminal charges have been made and a trial is to follow.

    This disgraceful twisting of the truth is one reason why the public is so alienated from politics and politicians.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 7:08pm on 03 Dec 2008, BoiledBunny wrote:

    The lack of a warrant could be a Red Herring, but at the end of the day the information leaked doesn't endanger us, unlike the fact that thousands of unvetted, possibly illegal immigrants that we don't know from Adam are employed as security guards. How do we know they're not related to, or know the people that were well out of order last week in Mumbai?

    We don't do we?

    I fail to see why I should be hassled by the police for ID just because we have no border controls whatsoever.

    you can't keep 'insurgents' out of Afghanistan. Without effective border controls how do you keep them out of the UK?

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 7:31pm on 03 Dec 2008, alanparker wrote:

    I don't often post here, but I just got home from a wretched drive on the M5 and I have to say the interview induced cringe and annoyance at Harriet disHarmony, and quiet wonder and admiration at Eddie's persistence in the face of and persistently unanswered question.

    Fellow queuers may have been able to lipread the extra word that crept into the phrase "just answer the question" as I flailed my arms in wild gesticulation.
    Or should that be josstick-ulation, seeing as I was so incensed?

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 8:11pm on 03 Dec 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Listening to the speaker's statement, it basically sounds like some wee Glasgow ned whining, "It wisnae me! Some big boys did it an' ran awa!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 8:46pm on 03 Dec 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Hmm, the Guardian has a good background piece about the current Serjeant. Apparently, instead of being an ex-police or ex-military officer she's an ex... manager. No wonder she doesn't know how to do what is basically a policing job.

    Also, Speaker Martin appointed her after he fell out with the previous Serjeant. Odd, since that post is supposed to be appointed by the Crown.

    Looks like it's ultimately Martin's fault.

    Bring Back Betty Boothroyd!

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 9:08pm on 03 Dec 2008, londonlaw wrote:

    Wonderful interview with Harriet Harman and, no, neither Eddie or the audience had the wrong end of the stick regarding the leak of papers by her sister.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 9:31pm on 03 Dec 2008, BoiledBunny wrote:

    Eddie got Pax on her ass! ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 10:21pm on 03 Dec 2008, Dogs_breath wrote:

    I am really pleased that the search occurred. Not because it happened, because it shouldn't have. But because it is an example of what can happen to any of us with the current laws. So if the powers that be do not want it to happen they should change the law for all of us and not just for those with parliamentary priviledge. Politicians please remember that you will all be in opposition at some stage in your careers and the tools of dictatorship are only effective if you are in charge.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 10:28pm on 03 Dec 2008, Dogs_breath wrote:

    Boiled bunny (41 above) asks "you can't keep 'insurgents' out of Afghanistan. Without effective border controls how do you keep them out of the UK?
    " and it's really quite easy: You make it illegal not to carry an electronically read ID card. Then you put sensors in anything electrical throughout the land so that it is read remotely. Anything will do such as street lighting, shops, garages, car parks, traffic signs, bridges, and of course - telephones and computers. The person without a record must be illegal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 10:33am on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    BS 28, I have a very old article about Portaloo and Peter Lilley (our former MP).....

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 10:38am on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    O_C 32, I would like to respectfully inform you that I stopped reading your post after seeing the words 'respectfully inform'. Wod-r-u, a politician?

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 10:40am on 04 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    David: I made a rash confession above to finding Mr. Portaloo attractive (it's that jolie laide type of thing a la Jean Paul Belmondo) - and I'm only referring to his looks, not his politics! However, I'm well aware of the rumours (including that involving Mr. Lilywhite), so wouldn't expect the attraction to be mutual ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 10:57am on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    BS 51, Although I'm a Lib Dem, I always found Lilley to be a very nice person. He lived across the street from a pub we used to go to and dropped in occasionally. Usually at election time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 11:18am on 04 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    Did he pay for the drinks, David?

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 11:34am on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    BS 53, No, he is a Tory. But then, Lib Dems can be a bit tight-fisted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 11:35am on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    BS 51, I'll bet it was Portaloo's hair you liked.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 11:40am on 04 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    No, David, it isn't the hair in particular (though he does have a full head, which is always nice ;o)). I'd say it's more to do with his eyes/nose/mouth - I did mention Jean-Paul Belmondo, didn't I?

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 11:41am on 04 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    Actually, he's better looking than JPB, but there is something quite sexy about that kind of look.

    I now await a welter of protests!

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 11:48am on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    BS 57, I hate blubbery lips.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 11:52am on 04 Dec 2008, Big Sister wrote:

    I wouldn't expect you to find him attractive, David - in fact, I'd be quite worried if you did. The lips? well, there's only one way to find out what they're really like, and I'll never get that chance, I guess.

    I do watch This Week, when I get a chance. I like the exchanges between Diane Abbot and MP - they're such unlikely friends, and people who, in the past, I've had no time for, yet somehow, on that programme, it seems to work.

    Mind you, I'd rather Eddie was at the helm. Then we wouldn't have to keep looking at Mr. Neil's rug. ;o)

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 11:53am on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    BS 57, But then, I think Ruth Kelly is kind of cute.....or was it Grace Kelly.....or Gene Kelly.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 12:10pm on 04 Dec 2008, strangerodger wrote:

    I wonder if plod would have had such easy access to Gordon Brown's office.
    I would be equally interested in the reaction if Mandy had found a policeman rifleing through his drawers, as it were.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 12:48pm on 04 Dec 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Dogs_breath @ 49, you forgot to mention some essential things about this scheme.

    The ID card should contain 60 or so unique identifiers for the individual, incluuding DNA, retinal scan, NHS information, bank details, and so forth, to lessen the likelihood of forgery.

    None of these should by even the remotest chance have been entered incorrectly in the first place, and nor should the individual's name and address (the present system will not, according to the Minister running the scam, be incorrect in more than one detail for more than ten per cent of the population).

    It is ensured that nobody has the ability to forge such a card.

    In the case of the last requirement, I understand that in the event of ID cards of this type being made compulsory in this country, it will probably be possible to obtain an undetectable forgery within 24 hours if one is a journalist, rather more quickly if one has the right criiminal contacts.

    Your passport details, if you have the new breed of passport, can be read by someone using a scanner from a distance of more than thirty metres, so that bit of the tech is clearly working well. As to who is holding the scanner, your guess at any given moment is certainly as good as anyone else's.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 1:56pm on 04 Dec 2008, Nigel_N wrote:

    I agree that MPs should not be above the law, but in this case the response of the police is totally out of proportion to the alleged offence. The attitude of both the police and government ministers suggests that we have a police force who have forgotten their purpose.
    But, shame on MPs for not speaking out until one of them has a problem. The police have been getting heavy handed for a number of years now, but MPs have not made a fuss. It is certainly a bit rich of Ms Harman to complain about politicisation of the police after her party's behaviour of the past ten years. The police need to be reminded that they do not run the country.
    Apart from the hurt to individuals when such over-the-top raids take place, would anyone like to guess how much this police investigation into the leaks will have cost by the end. And on top of that there is the cost of all the investigations over what the police did wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 2:10pm on 04 Dec 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Chris (62):

    It's worth pointing out that the 10% of the population you mention is 600,000 people with *more than one* error on their cards. That's acceptable according to the government, even though those two or more errors may render the card unusable or worse, call into question the identity of the holder enough to have them detained by the police...

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 3:24pm on 04 Dec 2008, oldgifford wrote:

    I noticed that last night the World Tonight seemed oblivious to the proceedings in Parliament and instead gave time to "Chinese chef serves up three Michelin stars". Yet another attempt by friends of ZANU Labour in the BBC to protect them?

    I also noted Eddie's excellent conversation with Ms. Harman who seemed to have conveniently forgotten that her sister passed confidential papers to her and by so doing her sister was held by the judge in the case to be in contempt of court.

    I therefore must warn Eddie to keep looking over his shoulder from now on as there will no doubt be machinations to emasculate him, as he seems to be one of the very few in BBC radio who is attempting to satisfy the BBC's Royal charter. " We believe it to be in the interests of Our People that there should continue to be an independent corporation..."

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 4:13pm on 04 Dec 2008, Humph wrote:

    TSSCat (64) Assuming that the ID card is going to be used nationally, rather than just in London, 10% would be 6,000,000. Even more worrying!


    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 4:40pm on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    Had a bit of trouble getting J Smith to answer about warrants, didn't they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 5:09pm on 04 Dec 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    SSC, H, come, come, don't exaggerate. The population *over the age of 18* isn't 60 million. Thus it will be fewer than 6 million whose ID cards are inaccurate in this way. A perfectly acceptable number to this government, I expect.

    The *good* news today is that the police are being required to erase the DNA records they are holding on completely innocent people whose DNA they simply swept into the database because for example the individual whose DNA they have taken might have been (but was not) a witness to a crime and was taken to a police station for questioning at the age of fifteen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 5:18pm on 04 Dec 2008, David_McNickle wrote:

    C_G 68, It's a bit early for hitting the booze, innit? That second paragraph needs a bit of work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 5:58pm on 04 Dec 2008, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Humph (66):

    Thanks, I knew there was something wrong with my calculations, I just couldn't spot it. You're right of course it would be 6 million.

    Chris (68):

    I'm sure I heard some minister or other making a case for ID cards for children. Sadly their argument was so fatuous I've forgotten it.

    David (69):

    Chris's second paragraph looks okay to me, albeit designed for someone with larger lungs than me to read out loud...

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 11:08pm on 04 Dec 2008, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    DMcN, I don't *hit* the booze, what would be the point? I *drink* it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 5:44pm on 08 Dec 2008, iansgibson wrote:

    Please, stop carping on about this matter. The Police in this country are, de facto, above the law. I was falsely arrested in 2005 and, because I was innocent, essentially ordered not to have anything to do with my three daughters. In the mean time, while they were under PC 644 Perry's care, two have left the country and the third has taken her life. Guilty until proven innocent, and then punishable, anyhow. Get used to it, House of Commons. This is how the Police treats other innocents, as well.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS


Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.