Serious questions to answer
The fanfares, the ermine robes, the tiaras. She's seen it all before. Her Majesty has delivered the Queen's Speech no fewer than 56 times but never has there been a day quite like this - a day when the monarch didn't just open Parliament - she was visiting the scene of an alleged crime.
This year - as every year - MPs slammed the door in the face of Black Rod - the man sent to summon them. It's a historic symbol that no-one tells our elected representatives what to do.
"Hats off strangers" is the cry when the Speaker's procession goes through the Commons. It's appropriate given today's revelation that the Serjeant at Arms - a senior Commons official - and the Speaker himself appear to have simply doffed their hats when the police came to raid an MP's office, to seize his computer, his phones and private correspondence.
It is now clear that the police have some very serious questions to answer about the way they behaved. So too the Speaker and his officials. So too ministers who were involved in launching the inquiry.
Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years.
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
It is my understanding that the position and responsibilities of the Sergeant-at-arms were scaled back at the time of Jill Pay?s appointment. So far as I understand matters, she is responsible for the security of the Commons? chamber only. If that is correct, what right did she have to give permission for the searching of Damien Green?s parliamentary rooms? Surely, that was a matter for which only the Speaker could give permission?
Complain about this comment
Are we expected to believe that the speaker of the house did not ask to see a warrant for the search of Mr Green.
Does he not watch TV everyone asks for a warrant when a search is going to be carried out.
Does he expect us to believe that the police should have told him a warrant was needed.
I think the time has come for him to step down.
Complain about this comment
crikey nick
you have to slide that last sentence in eh? At least you show that you know old blue eyes will win the next election, which should be called before ths stupid plan for mortgage underwriting comes into effect...
I weep and worry, does this PM have any idea of what he has done to this once great country?
Complain about this comment
Nick that last sentence, I am sure you are winding us up and want the page impressions. There can be no other explanation otherwise. Unless you suggest that this is entirely justified to stop leaks? In which case, I probably won't bother reading your blg anymore.
Complain about this comment
Systematic leaking over 2 years of information they wanted to keep hidden but was in the public interest - now that should have been the question. If the department is that incompetent, the incompetent running it needs to seriously look at what is going wrong or be replaced by someone a little less incompetent!
Complain about this comment
Why is the Speaker wearing a bib? Is he on his way to the trough?
Complain about this comment
Whoever's in Government will not want their civil servants leaking so called sensitive information, however if it's in the public interest then it has to be disclosed by whatever means especially if it's being 'hidden' from the Opposition, media and the public.
In the case of the Home Office they have been breaking their own laws by employing illegal immigrants (thousands of them!!!). A business caught doing that would be prosecuted - has the Home Office? Thought not!
Damien Green and the civil servant in question have done us all a favour by exposing this morally corrupt Government
We live in a democracy don't we?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So, we're playing attack of the stiff necks, eh? I can see it now: some huge and expensive enquiry just cuz someone left the biscuit barrel on the table and the neighbours kid reached in through the window and helped themselves. Then there's going to be the botty smacking but it's only dad hitting the chair when mum's out of the room. A bunch of pretend tears and the nasty kid from down the road not coming around to play again. Righty, ho.
NEXT TIME, PUT IT IN THE CUPHOARD!
Supremacy of parliament? Oh, pleeze.
Complain about this comment
God how pathetic...Cameron rips into the government and was devastatingly on target with everything he said and all you can comment is the weasel words of your last paragraph...read it back to yourself, are you comfortable in your position of propaganda merchant for the government? Really? It is beyond a joke.
Complain about this comment
Come on Nick, get real. There is absolutely no need to end almost every report by coming down on the governments side. The question about David Cameron being happy with leaks if he was the Prime Minister is a blatant attempt at diversionary tactics which fools only those who want to be fooled. I'm sure it doesn't fool you but maybe you have reasons why you don't want to upset the labour spin machine. Surely Alistair and his men don't hold any sway regarding feeding you little juicy titbits if you behave, do they? Any attempt by labour (no longer "new") to paint the tories as law breakers for receiving leaks , or even touting for them, is highly hypocritical. They have the master in Gordon Brown who owes his career to leaks and was probably very proud of them at the time.
Complain about this comment
Mr Green summed up the position admirably when he said that "An MP endangering national security would be a disgrace. An MP exposing embarrassing facts about Home Office policy which ministers are hiding is doing a job in the public interest."
Mr Green was doing a job in the public interest and the Govt, the police and the Speaker through his officials were seeking to prevent Mr Green doing his job. The Govt, the police and Speaker have serious questions to answer. It is a disgrace to our democracy and freedoms that they are trying to gag MPs right to expose embarrassing facts about Home Office policy which should in any event be available under the Freedom of Information Act
Complain about this comment
Nick, why continue on the path of tory trumpeting? remember there is still an on going investigation.
Surely Cameron and co are not asking the civil services to openly commit to breaching there terms of employment, are the tories also saying that the police-force should also have political allegiances and only carry out investigations with political favour?
You see, the real questions here, are, that DAVID CAMERON is a pure novice, rather than respect the Independence of the police
and the out-come of the investigation, he has wrongly chosen the novice path of political intervention and in the long term has damaged the parliament and the police.
Complain about this comment
This govt has eroded civil liberties in a way that any tinpot despot could only dream of. It is high time that the draconian "anti-terror" legislation is repealed, that the MET is re-structured completely from the top down and made to stop behaving like a bunch of bullying thugs.
By putting a bogeyman in the front of a media frightened public, the Govt. has managed to curtail the freedoms we have to hold them to account, with this act, they are showing that even our elected officials can be bullied and abused. Well, it is time to stop.
If we let them get away with this, then a day will come when the ordinary man will be wary of hearing the step of the jackbooted policeman walking up to his front door.
The speaker has also shown he is weak and incompetent, any householder would ask if the police had a warrant before allowing them to enter their property, if this man can't even do that obvious step he was either in collusion of incompetent, and needs to go forthwith!
Of course, by posting this on here, I am probably next on their list... Is that a car coming up the road...
Complain about this comment
Dying to read my bedtime story from CEH
Hopefully on this one he will save us the constitutional/Labour lecture and tell us at last his honest opinion as a common human being.
Gordon didn't know ...
Jacqui didn't know ...
The Speaker didn't know ....
Who is running this COUNTRY?
Complain about this comment
Nick,
One of the questions the police certainly do not have to answer is why they searched Green's room without a warrant. simple the S@A CONSENTED. End of story.
Listening to the MPs today many , perhaps too many, have little or no clue about the extent of their Parliamentary Privilege. And the S@A seems to have no idea of the importance of a warrant. Not bad for the legislators eh?
t
http://retiredrambler.typepad.com/tonys_ramblings/
Complain about this comment
Nick
At least you at last admit all the officials involved have very serious questions to answer. They have shown themselves unfit and incompetent to hold their offices. As a result, they should now go.
As to your final point, it is a non point: no PM or government would feel comfortable with such a series of leaks lasting over two years. Launching an inquiry and dismissing the civil servant(s) involved would be done, and justifiably, by any government.
BUT: that does not justify arresting an opposition MP under a law which has NEVER been used before for that purpose simply because he made public embarrassing leaks which have occurred since time immemorial, and then searching his Commons office WITHOUT a WARRANT and IMPOUNDING his effects WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
It was particularly weak and unedifying for the PM to refuse even to regret that correct procedures were not followed: he is ultimately responsible for ensuring that they are.
Complain about this comment
Clown's administration is corrupt from top to bottom and has institutionalised lying to the voters.
When the executive as no mandate and is using a scorched-earth policy to wreck things for the next party in power, it's the *duty* of those with inside knowledge to bring it to the attention of the public.
Of course, as the politicised police are 'in' on Clown's schemes, the only options is to use the press and/or opposition party.
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
Oh well Nick, I suppose you had to put that in for "balance", but you know, any leak is disconcerting for a government. They just have to get used to it. Us proles who voted them in do have rights too.
Except of course, real security matters which none of the leaked stuff in this instance was.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
The questions to David Cameron are as irrelevant as they are hypothetical and misleading. Neither he nor his colleagues would appear to have done anything wrong (apart that is from bringing to the public attention matters that ministers wold rather keep quiet). We are continually told that the government will not answer hypothetical questions, why should he?
The rest of your log is precise and to the point. All the other agencies, including the ministers and other authorities have serious questions to answer.
This matter should be pushed as far as it will go. Heads should roll, and it is not sufficient for the speaker and others to blame minnions for their actions whilst not providing them with the support they need.
The timing of this is also very suspicious and shouldn't be forgotten, as it occured the day after parlaiment was prorogued.
Complain about this comment
Surely the speaker and his officers are culpable for allowing the offices of a member of parliament without the same protection that would have been afforded to him in his own home. In giving consent to this search they have acted negligently. The speaker weakly saying I was not informed is not sufficient defence. He admits now that it was his responsibility to assure that the proper legal process was followed.
Complain about this comment
Just out of interest, how is it that comment #17 from bluntjeremy is moderated before comments 1-16?
No problems with bluntjeremy's comment, we are broadly in agreement, but this moderation sequence seems strange?
Complain about this comment
your getting better Nick, compared with drwing parallels to the cash for honours arrests
An oppostion politician being arrested for misconduct in public office over something trivial with the government denying all knowledge of the arrest is a story to be found repeatedly in the pages of the Harrare Herald and this is in fact the right comparison
What are the odds of the famously partisan speaker martin saying yes if it were a labour MP? practically none and if he any concept of his duty he would have said have you got a warrant.
what were the police doing searching somewhere without a warrant ?
How come the police used anti terror laws to arrest an MP accused of, at most a civil offence, of taking abetting someone whose conduct was something that should be dealt with under internal disciplinary measures not criminal law
the offence itself would be a matter of supreme indifference to anyone but the facists who rule our country and had this been pursued before it would hve seen the whole cabinet arrested including Gordon Brown
I just hope that after the regime has denied knowledge of the whole thing and lied repeatedly some other mole leaks proof of what we all knew to be true that the Home Secretary is behind the whole thing.
This business could simply never have occured without the full cooperation indeed active encouragement of our rotten government
next theyl be taking another leaf out of Mugabes book by rigging the next election, then our transformation from free country well run by honest people under the rule of law to vicous authoritarian dictatorship run by incompetent thieves will be complete
Complain about this comment
Nick,
The Speaker seems to have placed MPs above the normal law to which the rest of us are subject. Under PACE section 18 once a person has been arrested a constable can make a search to find property and material relating to a crime without a search warrant. Is this extra right for MPs justified?
Complain about this comment
Nick, why the need to jab one to the leader of the opposition here? Surely if a government - any government, red or blue - wasn't lying through their teeth, this kind of 'leaking' wouldn't be necessary in the first place.
We've had yet another catalogue of failures by government and the Parliamentary authorities, and yet the 'searching question' upon which you end is irrelevant and biased. Disappointing.
Complain about this comment
The mind boggles. I saw the Speaker's inept performance on BBC Parliament today and, when he said that the police did not have warrants, I gasped with disbelief.
Speaker Lenthall defied Charles I and a band of soldiers - Speaker Martin let the police in without even a warrant!
David Winnick and Douglas Hurd both called for the police officer in charge to be called to the bar of the House to explain his actions. Now, that's as strange a partnership as one can imagine, but they're right.
If Speaker Martin won't do it, then he should resign in favour of someone who will...
Complain about this comment
#17
Wow! Blunt, all this has done, may I add in a climate where real uncertainies are, Is Strengthen the case against any future investigation into an MP.
Hey! will the tory party give a job to Mr Galley, How is paying for his top notch lawyer?
No one is above the law/ unless their an MP,
Jeez! great!
Complain about this comment
when they are so obviously unconcerned about our rights!
are we so concerned about their privileges?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
You conveniently omit that Gordon Brown was asked again and again for his opinion on the matter, which he sidestepped - as usual.
Complain about this comment
The question of Cameron's feelings over the leaks is a red herring which smells more of Gordon Brown than fish. There have always been leaks, and if civil servants , of whatever political persuasion are alarmed by the dishonesty of their political masters then it is right that they leak such information. The fact that the leaks were happening over such a long period and with such regularity suggests that a very great amount of information coming from the home office to the tax payer was to say the least not quite accurate; to be more succinct it in the main probably bore very little relationship to the truth. This beggers the question; how accurate is the information coming from other government departments where the public does not have the luxury of a mole. To use the expression coined by former Home Secretary John Reid (who would know.)," this government is not fit for purpose. "
Complain about this comment
Great to see that Speaker Martin is following that time-honoured tradition, beloved of the managerial classes everywhere, that when something goes wrong :-
A/ Blame a woman
B/ Blame an underling
C/ If possible do A and B at the same time.
He is shameless and incompetent and should remember the old adage 'The Buck Stops Where ?..'
Complain about this comment
It seems quite clear that when put under pressure by Police officers, the current Serjeant at Arms buckled, failed to ask any questions or refer the matter to her superiors.
It's hard to imagine any previous Sjt at Arms giving way like this - after all they were always former Senior Military Officers.
As for the Police, it looks like they pulled a stroke here, taking advantage of an inexperienced Sjt at Arms and not explaining the situation properly.
"Gorbals Mick" cannot escape blame : he is ultimately responsible and was told in advance that the raid was going to take place.
Surely he should have asked whether there was a warrant ?
In the circumstances, he should surely take responsibility and resign
Complain about this comment
Michael Martin must be pulled before the committee of 7 and interrogated over his apparent lack of interest in ensuring that the Police were acting within the law. Why, when he became aware that the Seagant at Arms was handling an issue with the police over the possible arrest of a member, did he not say at that point that they (The Seargant at Arms) should defer the issue to him immediately.
Michael Martin has lost the confidence of the opposition benches and he has proven himself inadequate at protecting the democracy he is paid to preside over.
His resignation should be presented once the committee has reported and the debate closed, regardless of the result.
Complain about this comment
Where is the incisive questioning to find out why the Speaker did not ask to see a warrant? You are the man on the inside, so to speak, where is your insight to educate those of us who do not have access to the corridors of power?
I see your anti Conservative bias comes out again with your last point. You seem to miss the fundamental point that as voters in a democracy we, the people, are entitled to hold the government (whatever persuasion) to account.
No government has ever got everything right and I'm sure this Prime Minister has received plenty of leaked information when in opposition. Call it karma if you like.
Civil servants leak information, whatever the party in government, to the irritation of the government. You know this. Stick to reporting rather than spinning.
Complain about this comment
Having said that though, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron is about the only question that doesn't really have any bearing on the current situation and is about as worthwhile as asking a turkey if it would vote for Christmas.
There are far more questions that do have a real bearing that remain to be answered.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Re your last comment re David Cameron. The question answers itself. Of course no one would feel comfortable in that situation.
But isn`t it one that Gordon Brown has created for himself by failing to be honest and open with the great british public - as he promised to be when he took over the mantle from TB.
Do you not worry about the ever pervasive Peter Mandleson. This unelected member of the cabinet has never been off screen since his third coming.
Mandleson has taken over as chairman of UK PLC and down graded Gordon Brown to the role of Chief Executive.
Mandleson is now running our lives. He dictates govt policy, undoubtedly writes most of Gordon`s speeches and controls what the cabinet is allowed to do or not do as the case maybe.
He was obviously not happy as to how things were unfolding for him with the Damien Green story and tried to spin it in Labour`s favour.
Mandleson is just one great contol freak and that will be his undoing. Just how long he will last this time is debatable; but sooner or later Gordon & Co will get feed up with his controlling ways.
Things are not going well for the Govt. The bank bail out is not working, the measures in the PBR have fallen flat and the Queen`s Speech contains nothing but hot air. (Even Prince Phillip was seen looking in Jack Straw`s bag to see where the rest of it was).
When the Polls return to some sort of consensus, not the erratic way they are at the moment, Labour will then restart its internal politicing and Mandleson will probably be given his P45 - again.
No one is strong enough to reign him in and he will therefore self destruct.
Complain about this comment
Or the question that was put forward to Gormless numerous times this afternoon.
"Do you regret the searching of an MP's office witout a warrant?"
Which he too refused to answer.
But I wouldn't have expected you to pick up on that one!
Have you got any serious questions to answer, Nick?
Complain about this comment
Labour's favourite excuse!
No one takes responsibility. We'd better have an enquiry to give us time for them to forget about the issue.
I lost count of the number of times Gordon Brown was asked whether he agreed that an MP's office in Parliament should be raided by police without a warrant.
He seems to have a bad allergy about answering questions.
This time he has upset a lot of MP's including his own so he will have to come up with the right answers and fast.
This is one issue that won't go away for it could affect all of us whether we like it or not.
Complain about this comment
David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years.
An easy question for Cameron to answer.
On entering government the Conservatives should review the working of the Freedom of Information act.
This isn't working at the moment. Gordon Brown, for instance, has blocked requests for years regarding advice given before his disastrous gold sell off.
There may need to be some sort of tiered access to information.
The public can't expect unfettered access to everything. Maybe diluted responses to queries can be released - which have been assessed by a board who manage requests regarding sensitive data?
Cameron could also give a straight answer to a straight question in PMQ's.
No wonder people want to leak information at the moment. It is the only way to force the truth out of Labour - however trivial the query might be.
Complain about this comment
Nick
On what basis have you concluded that there was "systematic" leaking - a word used by the Labour Government to try to tarnish the Tories by suggesting that they induced the leaks?
Unless you have evidence that the leaks were systematic, and not only where the public interest justified a leak, you are posing a "When did you stop beating your wife" type question.
To ask the alternative question, does the Government consider it is right to systematically hide from the electorate anything that would cause the Government embarrassment, and use legal processes where the information is leaked as a result?
Complain about this comment
So too ministers who were involved in launching the inquiry
So Ministers have a lot of questions to answer. I ain't holding my breath. I don't expect a lot of answers.
We only ever hear the truth once it has been dragged out of Labour, kicking and screaming. Normally after someone has leaked something.
We will get half truths and obfuscation and promises of plans and reviews which we will be told "are the right thing to do".
Don't get your hopes up.
Don't expect anything from the Gordon Brown and the "Lame Duck party"
Complain about this comment
Gorbals Mick has finally been found out.
Inept and entirely unsuited to high office; this pompous and vain nonentity has been indulged for far too long by the Labour nomenklatura. He has failed to exercise proper oversight of his own office and has provoked a major constitutional scandal by his incompetence.
He must resign or be sacked!
Complain about this comment
At all levels, national and local , we are increasingly seeing government versus the people rather than governance on behalf of the people.
Just how can any party be claiming to govern with the consent of the people when that consent is only based on what the government decides we should know rather than what we have a reasonable right to know?
There would appear to be some similarities here with the famous "Clive Ponting" case when a civil servant was prosecuted under the official secrets act for leaking the information that "The Belgrano" was actually sunk when sailing away from the Falklands exclusin zone during the conflict. The government wanted this hushed up and even the judge in the trial appeared to give a biased instruction to the jury who promptly ignored him and found Ponting "Not Guilty".
The people can soon tell a real security threat from when a government is up to no good trying to avoid embarassment
I wonder if anyone has considered that a prosecution in this current case might be just what is needed as I the chances must be high that a jury would come to a similar decision. Where then would the governments stand re the current and numerous abuses of anti terror legislation if it was clear that chances of a conviction for anything other than real security issues was remote?
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years"
Remember smug G. Brown being interviewed by Frank Bough- well what goes around comes around.
Complain about this comment
The last paragraph is pointless so why add it at all? It is just obsequious in the extreme. New Labour lacks a message and so do their messengers it seems. You do not pay attention to the comments on your blog so I for one will just go away and discuss real life with real people.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This whole furore rather spoilt Gordon Brown's attempt to steal the limelight by announcing the headline grabbing 2 year deferment in mortgage repayments for those who have lost their jobs in the present credit crisis. (Ed Ball's face was a picture of smugness as GB was making the announcement). I may be economically ignorant but how are the Building Societies going to recoup the lost revenue from these payments which they need for new lenders? More handouts from the bankrupt Treasury perhaps. As a housing expert said these poor unfortunatess might be better off selling their homes rather than stay in a property that is going to lose 30 - 40% of its value over the next few years anyway. Why postpone the inevitable?
Complain about this comment
Can you ask when the government knew that the police didn't have a warrant? I am very very interested to find out at what point this was told to Gordon. Both him and the Home Secretary must have known this last Friday.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
But who leaks things more than this discredited and shameful government? Who leaked a potential freeze on stamp duty? Who leaked most of the provisions in the Pre-Budget Report? That's right, Gordon the Golem and his little minnions.
Clap them in irons I say. Let's see if the police can search No 10 sans a warrant.
Complain about this comment
18 J.J.Carter
Absolutely correct - Labour are institutionally deceitful
They have moved so far on from the days of 'spin' which seems almost an innocent form of deception compared to what they get up to these days:
1. Anyone remember Brown answering a question from an opposition politician in PMQs?
2. Brown blusters clear lies concerning "boom and bust", "best placed for the recession" - largely unchallenged by the media.
3. Brown makes up false scenarios which he attacks and pretends are opposition policies or views. At its most extreme he blurts "do nothing party" - which he knows is a lie.
4. Mandelson - what happened on that yacht? He's not saying.
5. E-mails to manipulate the speakers statement
6. Dodgy dossier
7. I'm a pretty straight kind of guy (who we since find out lied about the Eccelstone affair)
8. etc, etc, etc, etc........
Labour have forgotten how to tell the truth.
It is no wonder people feel the need to leak information.
This crisis is a direct result of Labour's rejection of honesty with the public.
Complain about this comment
Fact: The Police do not need a warrant to search any premises where an appropriate person has given consent for the search.
In this case the Sgt at Arms after consultation with Mick Martin gave such consent. The issue therefore IS NOT the absence of a warrant but whether in law the Sgt at Arms is an appropriate person.
The Police believe she is, has this been contested ?
Secondly what was written on the form which she signed as this would inform her about the nature of a consensual search.?
I assume she read it!
Why did Mick not ask the obvious question ?
Both Sgt at Arms and Mick should have demanded a warrant before allowing a search. The Police would then have to have either withdrawn or applied for one.
I suspect it would have been refused on application.
That said , they asked for and got consent, so the search is NOT ILLEGAL as some claim.
What this does show is that by not asking obvious questions Martin is unfit for office and should step down.
BBC STOP REPEATING THE gOVERNMENT SPIN ON THIS ISSUE, it is not about the lack of a warrant!
Complain about this comment
re: 48, sicilian
This whole furore rather spoilt Gordon Brown's attempt to steal the limelight by announcing the headline grabbing 2 year deferment in mortgage repayments for those who have lost their jobs in the present credit crisis
As with all Labour policy, it's badly thought-out and the only reason it exists in the first place is to distract from a previous mistake. Anybody with any sense is going to see it for what it is: a scam designed to deflect our attention from the truth. Labour are trying hold off the incoming tide with a bucket and spade.
BTW peeps: [my username] at blogspot dot com. Check it out.
Complain about this comment
"....the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
The right answer to this is that he nor any other prime minister should be comfortable about leaks that indicated that a government department was not working properly and the way to avoid it would be to run the department properly so that there was no need for the leaks to occur.
If the government was running the country properly and the electorate had some trust in what the government told them the leaks would stop.
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
And of course he failed to answer.
Nonetheless, it is immaterial. Happy or not, leaks will happen so long as there is something to leak.
The best, and possibly only, defence against leaks, systematic or otherwise, is to do your job properly. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
There couldn't be any embarassing leaks if the government had nothing to be embarassed about.
Complain about this comment
Nick,,Lets not forget -"The question put again and again to David Cameron whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
The answer as you and all the rest of Labour already know is "No"
The reason you and the rest of Labour keep on asking it is to provide a smoke screen and to conflate the two issues.
Complain about this comment
The timing of the Sgt-at-Arms discussions with the police lead to some interesting questions. Did the Met tell her the day before they were going to search and ask if she would authorise access? Why didn't she think to consult her legal advisers then, the day before, of the implications?
Also did the Met apply for a search warrant for Greens parliamentary office but were they refused, and therefore had to effectively bluff their way in?
Complain about this comment
The questions keep on coming!
First, the warrant, 3 different high-level police officers today on Radio Five Live gave 3 different 'interpretations' of the Law:
1 a warrant is needed to enter a 'crime' scene
2 not needed if an 'arrest warrant' has already been issued
3 n/a if it's Parliament - another is needed
And then there's the question of where the Speaker was when the Sargeant at Arms signed the consent form? Was he in breach of his duties? Sleeping? Was the Sargeant at Arms too inexperienced in her post - in which case, why did she sign?
And last of all: has a crime been committed?
To Be Continued..... :)
Complain about this comment
I would expect the government to put the best spin on this they can but that is no reason for Nick to repeat it when it's so lame.
The most depressing site today was some of the Labour back-benchers who would rather grovel to the Labour leadership than stand up for their constituents and their own rights.
Pathetic!
Complain about this comment
In the web video of the search someone,presumably a police officer, seems to insist on the camera being turned off and the Conservative official leaving the investigative scene. If there was no warrant, given that he didn't seem to be impeding anybody, was that an appropriate instruction?
Complain about this comment
Good grief, where did that last sentence come from? I hope no-one has leant on you to show 'balance'?
Complain about this comment
Oooops Mr Robinson
You almost forgot the brief from your party bosses.
Just remembered to add it in the last paragraph didn't you?
You're getting to be an embarrassment!
Complain about this comment
Par for the course for The Government back benchers to introduce red herrings to try and extricate their Party out of a hole. Whether or not David Cameron as P.M. would be happy to accept Department leaks is neither here nor there and nothing to do with the present issue. If he runs his Departments properly there will be no need for embarrassing leaks. If he doesn't then he deserves all he gets in terms of leaks.
Complain about this comment
Why on earth did you have to add that last sentence? You just can't resist it. This matter is about the basic freedom of speech which has an extraordiny amount of support from all parties.
As far as I am aware, though I am sure I'll be told otherwise, it is NOT the job of the leader of the Opposition to answer hypothetical questions.
Just about every MP from all the main parties who spoke during the Speaker's address were in agreement on the main point that the police and indeed the authorities at the commons were in the wrong. The fact that it has now emerged that there wasn't even a search warrant, defies belief, we are talking about the House of Commons, not Alice in Wonderland.
The PM has completely lost the plot, the Speaker has no comprehension of history and the fact that it will be the government that will word the motion to be debated, quite frankly, stinks.
This no democratic solution and the quicker the Speaker is removed along with this useless government the better. I trust that the incoming government will insist on a non political BBC.
Complain about this comment
Having read various blogs on different newspaper sites, there seems to a common belief that the police have become politicised under New Labour. Recent events appear to confirm that, along with a partisan Speaker and Ministers who are being extremely economical with the truth. The Speaker has to resign and be replaced with a non-Labour appointment. The Home Secretary has some serious questions to answer and her position has to be in doubt.
The Stygian Stables need flushing out - we need a General Election now and a new Government. The present mob in power hasn't got a clue and is corrupted by power up to its armpits.
Complain about this comment
I think we should have camera teams following all ministers. That way we won't have the need for whistleblowers.
The issue is what is the government allowed to keep to themselves. Oh and for good measure camera teams should follow all MPs.
That way we can have paralysed government and everything can be discussed by Ant and Dec or Davina McCall.
My point is what limits to be want to place on confidentiality and if the answer is 'none' think where it might get you in a few years.
Complain about this comment
mandybrown what a double act for democracy, into the gutter once again how can this unelected nasty pair continue to run this once decent country, a lecture from mandelson on right and wrong!!! stop your support of them Nic you end every session with a possative for ZANU NULAB.
Complain about this comment
#50 ceedoubleu
Yes! absolutely, when Mr Galley is hung out to dry and gives his story to the press, inducments and all, we shall see where the cards fall.
If there ever is another conservative government, then by their actions they will have to legislate for a new constitutions,
now! Cameron has already said he wouldn't stand in the way of an Independent Scotland! and the tories have said that their position on Scottish MP voting on British issues, is something the tories would legislate against.
So, it is more than probable that the tory unionist would break up the uk, I guess a tory victory in 2010 would be music to Alex Salmonds ears .
Of course I wouldn't see a PROBLEM WITH THE CONTINUATION OF SCOTTISH LABOUR.
Complain about this comment
Do you think when he finally does the decent thing shortly, the Member for Bolsover will throw in: "Taxi for Mr Martin?"..... and wife.
Maybe not, but I bet a few on the other side will be calling it.
Complain about this comment
#7 - Bickers
"We live in a democracy don't we?"
No - not any more you don't.
Complain about this comment
At last Nick - you've acknowledged that there are serious questions to be asked about this incident. Pity you weren't asking them right from the start.
Pity about the dig about the Tories at the end.
Complain about this comment
Why have their been leaks in the Home Office??
Here is an example where the Statistics Commission points out to Sir David Normington that the Government have been manipulating Home Office statistics to deceive the public.
This government are Institutionally Deceitful
Is it any wonder people leak when this government are so dishonest?
Complain about this comment
Parliament has been around for 200 years and still the 'learned' members do not appear to know its status under the law - and half of them are lawyers - allegedly.
Complain about this comment
#69 -
I suspect ther are plenty of English who would like to give Scotland their independance after the mess Brown has made, they would be delighted to see him kept up in Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
why has the BBC in general and Nick and Robert in particular become the unofficial wing of the labour party. every blog is now an apology for independent journalism. as others before me have pointed out that last paragraph was totally superfluous and also meaningless as Cameron is not in government and if he was and managed government departments as badly as the present shower then leaks would be the consequence. The pure hypocrisy of GB who made his name on leaks is awesome. He then attempts to bury the news with yet another headline grabbing housing announcement, remember 3 million homes to be built, remember ten eco towns to be built, the media fall for it every time....as with all GB's announcements the devil is in the detail, remember he said "a percentage" of interest will be deferred...1%, 5%, 10%........lets wait and see!
Complain about this comment
re: 74, warblers
Parliament has been around for 200 years and still the 'learned' members do not appear to know its status under the law - and half of them are lawyers - allegedly.
Parliament has been around for 200 years and still the 'learned' members do not appear to know its status under the law - and half of them are liars - certainly.
Complain about this comment
#75
I suspect there would be plenty of Scottish
that wouldn't want another tory government.
Complain about this comment
Almost eighty posts and nobody's made a joke about Black Rod yet?
Complain about this comment
Nice of the speaker to stand by his junior. Still (if you pardon the pun) I guess you get what you pay for.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone see the report on C4 news tonight? The reporter said that Labour has been focus grouping on this and isn't too worried. So that makes it OK, then.
Given that broadcasters have been carrying street interviews with people who seem to saying that MPs should be treated just like us etc, either we have an electorate which is less politically aware than many of us had been willing to believe or they genuinely don't care about any democratic accountability or even know how our Parliament functions.
What these interviews have been showing is how far our society has moved from healthy scepticism that at least has some grasp about events to rank ignorance. If this is so, that means that many people, possibly even the majority wouldn't actually mind if any form of ultra authoritarian government was in office. How worrying is that and crucially, what would stir them out their inertia?
Maybe, we're only being shown interviews which match the social aspirations of the BBC/ITV focus groups. Maybe anyone who can put a sentence together or doesn't drop 'h's' gets edited out. Maybe this is why any political interview only lasts a couple of minutes in Britain these days. Would say, a batch of interviews in a French street elicit so much ambivalance (Sarhozy voodoo doll and Villepin arrest being current issues)?
Are we, the people who're contributing to these comments in such a small majority that we might become the first ones to be locked up because we do care?
Is it a failure of our media to so isolate individual events because they have such a low estimation of the audience that no connection can now be made between events, accountability and outcomes. having helped a University student understand a film studies question, I've discovered that sentence analysis and logic are no longer taught., so what is being taught in the way of analytical tools to our citizens these days?
Complain about this comment
I've followed this case from the first and was determined to see the speaker of the commons expain his position . Notwithstanding all the points concerning the alleged criminal activity of an MP and the Police behaviour afterwards, I was astonished to listen to this man and his hestitating response to allegations against him.
Whatever else the speaker of the house of commons is- he's no speaker!
We know Michael Martin had a tough upbringing, shipyards etc.
However, his speech was absolutely dire! Slow, inarticulate and lacking in confidence. the man seems inept in more ways than one. Is this the level we now expect from such people and in such high positions in this land.
I've heard teenagers with learning disabilities speaking with more confidence, charm and delivery than this man.
Like her or loathe her, at least Betty Boothroyd had charisma, and confidence and was imbued with charm. All the qualities lacking in the current speaker ( and for that matter his master- the PM!)
Complain about this comment
#36 twoapenny and others
Having said that though, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron is about the only question that doesn't really have any bearing on the current situation and is about as worthwhile as asking a turkey if it would vote for Christmas.
The question put to David Cameron is about the only pertinent one being put.
If he would not be happy with a Labour activist infiltrating his private office when he is PM and then breaking the law by systematically leaking every single document they come across and with a senior Labour minister encouraging it, why is he so apoplectic with rage about this incident?
Remember how every big Treasury announcement over the past year or so has been pre-empted by the Conservatives by about 3 days, allowing Osborne either to get his retaliation in first and shape the media narrative in response to it, or claim Labour's policies as his own and say it is just copy-catting? This is the direction I suspect the investigation will turn.
It would be a serious embarassment for Osborne if there was proof that actually he was the copy-cat.
Complain about this comment
I could go on and on about BBC bias but it's all been said before and, to my mind, the only solution is to take away the money. If 1 million stopped paying the licence, Nick is silenced along with the ZaNu Labour mouthpiece.
But my real worry is the lack of backbone and decency of Labour back benchers. This is now 'spinning' compltely out of control and our democracy is seriously at risk. This is not helped by the announcement today of the proposed new law making it compulsory to tell any organ of thr state your ID.
Surely there are 30 of these men and women with enough backbone to actually realise that the country is more important than a Labour government at any price.
I hope but I am not holding my breath. Pigs, snouts and troughs come to mind.
Complain about this comment
81. At 8:17pm on 03 Dec 2008, micromj wrote:
"Did anyone see the report on C4 news tonight? The reporter said that Labour has been focus grouping on this and isn't too worried. So that makes it OK, then."
Did not see the report, but it does not surprise me - our schools have been teaching ignorance for years and our media dumbs down to the level of single celled organisms.
What really brings it home to me is the ignorance most people exhibit on Government borrowing. Brown spent all the income from the boom and more - he was deficit spending throughout the boom years, leaving this country in a terrible mess now we have hit bust. But try explaining that public borrowing now represents future tax rises and/or future spending cuts to the average citizen. This country is screwed and Brown is largely responsible, yet he gets credit for being in charge when the mess he has created comes back to bite us. I give up!
Complain about this comment
#27 derek
Cameron implicitly admitted the Conservatives were paying for the lawyer in the House today by side-stepping the question.
Probably right they are paying for the lawyer though - after all, they are the reason Mr Galley is in such a pickle
Complain about this comment
When the government are kicked out - they are going to have to do a lot of paper shredding.
Brown's government is currently covering up how the Hutton Inquiry was mislead.
Freedom of information requests are being ignored.
Gordon Brown cover up of dodgy dossier
Now that the Met Police have practice - and the Speaker knows the drill - maybe it is time to start a criminal investigation asking this question:
"Did the government mislead the Hutton inquiry?"
We can't rely on leaks to people like Damian Green to find this out. Many of the documents, although fictional, are still classified.
Complain about this comment
@ 13 - Derek, what are you on? Ah, I see : everything you've posted is correct, except that you've wriiten 'tories' when you meant 'labour', and 'David Cameron' when you obviously meant 'Brown, Smith, Martin, and the rest of this corrupt and immoral excuse for a government'...
@ 27 - you forgot to add '... an MP like Gordon Brown' at the end.....
@ 75 - again, you mistyped 'tory' when you obviously mean 'labour'...
Please don't bother to thank me for correcting your otherwise meaningless, misguided and inept postings - it's a service we provide, don't you know.
Complain about this comment
#40 jonathan
The public can't expect unfettered access to everything.
Any why not? I thought systematic leaks of every document the Government holds was in the public interest? Isn't that the defence to why Galley did no wrong?
Follow the logic - why should everything just not be published? It's in the public interest, apparently.
I thought a wise council of Opposition members had the final say over what is and isn't in the public interest (e.g. it's in the public interest for the Opposition to steal policies from the Government through advance leaking by sympathisers, pass them off as their own and criticise the Government for copying them).
Complain about this comment
But Nick, David Cameron has already expressed his opinion that the public should be kept informed of this type of information.
If Labour are embarrassed by their own ideas, plans and policies, then that's their problem.
They shouldn't be so sneaky.
Complain about this comment
Nobody ever resigns under this government - utter disgrace
Complain about this comment
Nick you are an intelegent man why do you fall for it every time Gordon Brown spent his time in opposition leaking.I would expect him and the labour party to do the same again.When in opposition next time.We need the opposition of whatever party to keep the government of the day honest.That is what we call democracy
Complain about this comment
#81
I saw that interview and wondered also.
Then I thought about the number of comments to this weblog, across the various entries posted by Mr Robinson over the last few days, which must total about 2000 now, almost all expressing the same view in their different ways.
I have also seen comments on each of the Guardian, Telegraph, Times and Mail websites, which also show huge numbers of people writing in indignation.
Taken altogether, I couldn't understand that comment- I just put it down to spin, as indeed the commentator seemed to be saying ("we're onto real issues about mortgages etc, let them carry on talking")!
I'll be interested when the next lot of polls come out, although they seem to be abit all over the place at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Sometimes it is extremely hard to produce a balanced blog - the government is just wrong here.
Of course post Gilligan (proved substanially right) and David Kelly (proved completely right) the BBC runs in fear of the powers of Westminster. It is time the British public had a media to protect them, a media to expose corruption and scandal, a media with bite !
Complain about this comment
The Official Secrets Act is the most heinous piece of legislation in statute law. The sole function of this legislation is to hide the malfeasance, maladministration, corruption and incompetence of Government Ministers. It affords no protection against the intrusiveness of foreign countries. It is designed to hide the truth from the British public.
Under every form of constitution, Stalinist, Fascist or Democratic, the most hated and persecuted people are those that tell the truth. Mr Christopher Galley (whistleblower) is a national hero.
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years"
No, let us indeed forget it because it's a stupid, stupid question. Of course he wouldn't be happy with it, any more than Brown or Blair were (except the ones they were doing themselves of course) or indeed as Major was before them. However, the difference between all of them and ZanuLabour is that they didn't send in the stasi to intimidate those involved, unless the leak was of Official Secrets, not just something they'd rather keep private.
I think you should also point out the sheer hypocrisy of posing this question to Cameron given Labour's own flip-flop from leak-exploiters to leak-despisers since getting into power. Why do you feel this is an important question for him, but not one for Gordon Brown, that ace leak-user of the 1990s?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
For what it's worth, I'm still waiting for evidence that either Green or Galley committed an offence. Though I am quite sure Galley broke his terms of employment.
In the absence of a crime, the house of cards which is practically everything said in public, everything said to have been leaked by the Police, and everything that has been insinuated by the Labour trolls here and elsewhere, comes tumbling down in a hideous mess.
I foresee a cabinet member's career finishing before this story is through.
Complain about this comment
At what stage did the BBC become a party political broadcast for Labour. I don't think the BBC even pretend to be neutral anymore. Or could it be, like blog 81 suggested, the BBC think that the average person doesn't care and believes anything that is reported on the news without question. ITV's headline news covered the story about today's incident but it was way down on list for the BBC news. Instead, the BBC's headlines glorified the Prime Minister's mortgage help plan and his pledge that the overall priority was the economy. Where will the money come from for that plan and wouldn't it be better spent on creating jobs rather than creating or adding to the benefits culture. What occured today was surely worthy of full coverage and detail.
The PM's response to the incident was not only hypocritical, it was unacceptable. The man appears to be inhuman. What happened to the 'man of integrity' 'man with a moral compass'? It was all part of the Labour spin and it's never been clearer what a load of spin that was. First we have the inhuman response the tragic case of Baby P and now his refusal to condemn the way in which Green was arrested.
Blog 81 struck a bit of cord when mentioning that those who care could be the ones who get a knock in the night. Will all dissenting voices be silenced. I used to think 1984 was science fiction but I'm not so sure now.
When a major TV broadcaster becomes a vehicle for political views, I think we are in trouble.
Complain about this comment
#77 power-to-the-ppl
Only half?
Complain about this comment
I didn't hear the prog on R5 3 but just so that people know per the comment from a psoter who repoted what they understood was said by 3 different senior police officers :
"1 a warrant is needed to enter a 'crime' scene" - completely wrong and bizarre - you need a warrant to enter the scene of a murder? - many searches are conducted under PCEA (Police and Criminal Evidecne Act)S.32 search of place where person was arrested, PCEA S.18 search of property under control of person arrested - both of these are without warrant; search by consent
"2 not needed if an 'arrest warrant' has already been issued" - arrest warrants are usually only issued by a court for a matter that is already in court
"3 n/a if it's Parliament - another is needed" - not sure what this means - there is no type of warrant special to Parliament - most warrants are under PCEA, Proceeds of Crime Act, or anti-terrorism laws.
I think the comment by someone above that everyone knows from TV you need a warrant is illustrative of the true basis of many people's
knowledge of the law!!
Complain about this comment
"I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here".
So said Speaker Lenthall in 1642 to King Charles when he attempted the arrest of 5 MPs for treason, with a company of soldiers.
How times have changed, when now the police are allowed access without a warrant to raid an MPs office, on the back of an obscure common law pretext, connected to nothing more than the leak of embarrassing information. The current Speaker is an impotent puppet before the police, rather than the guardian of constitutional rights and liberties that date back almost 370 years.
Speaker Martin must go. And so must the Serjeant at Arms. They should be the guardians of the rights and privileges of parliament. This episode is a shameful constitutional disgrace, and a nail in the coffin of the governance of the UK by "the Queen in Parliament".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"What Green did was a crime. It doesn't matter if it was in the public interest or not."
Nick - who leaked the story about VAT being reduced to 15% BEFORE the PBR was published? Who leaked the contents of the Queen's Speech before she gave it?
I don't hear the BBC or Labour clamouring for those people to be arrested and tried! I don't see any police dawn raids on 10 or 11 Downing Street, taking away Alastair Campbell's PCs.
So why did Nick not ask those questions, but feel the need to have a go at Cameron? Perhaps because if he doesn't then ZanuLabour won't leak stuff that is GOOD for them to the BBC??
Let's face it - you journalists are only too happy to take leaks from the Labour party, and are more than happy to have a go at Cameron because HIS party is willing to accept leaks too.
I can't wait for a new government to cast the BBC adrift and sever the ties with the leftists who currently run its news service.
Complain about this comment
It is going to be so funny when the police see this investigation through to the end, and explore the HMT moles connections too.
It will be interesting to see what THE RAGE makes of it (actually, I can answer that, it will no doubt be that Mandelson has been judge and jury over the investigation and fabricated any evidence).
Interested if an unscrupulous newspaper can incentivise the mole to talk too.
Complain about this comment
Disappointing end to your blog. Especially as:
1 ) it has no relevance to anything that proceeded it and
2) David Cameron actually gave a straight answer to it. He clearly said of course he wouldn't be happy, but there is a difference between being unhappy about leaks and carting the offenders of to the nick.
However let us not forget the question that was asked again and again of the prime minister whether he believed it was wrong for civil servants to leak information. A question he quite painfully and cringingly dodged time and again by stating he didn't want to prejudice an ongoing investigation.
A bit of an ego on him if he thinks just saying whether something is wrong or not would prejudice an investigation. I wonder if we can get an answer from him whether robbery is wrong? oh, hang there are some active robbery investigations going on at the moment so we?ll have to wait for all those to conclude before we can get an answer.
Complain about this comment
I have read numerous posts on various sites and have to say the general level of debate is poor. I have seen so many posts talking about Greens arrest under terrorism legislation or under the Official Secrets Act, neither of which are true.
As for the Speakers speech this afternoon, it was laughable.
The power to search Greens offices at Westminster were under s18 Police and Criminal Evidence Act - when a person has been arrested certain premises may be searched for evidence of that offence or similar offences (paraphrasing here). This is authorised by a senior police officer and no warrant is required.
The speaker made a very dramatic 'issue' of there being no warrant to gasps of horror from the house. He then implied that police had 'conned' their way in and fooled the sergeant at arms into signing consent.
The fact is that no warrant was required and neither was consent from the sergeant at arms. I am just amazed that with so many lawyers in the house so few of them knew the legal position since it was MPs who passed PACE in the first instance.
Complain about this comment
Incidentally I find it interesting that no-one has pointed out the irony of a Tory spokesman on hard line law and order subject such as immigration being arrested - maybe when in power he may have a bit more empathy for those arrested? Of course who are the biggest enemies of Human Rights legislation - the Tories - maybe now they will change their tune!! Also as a future PM with the responsibility that has in terms of supporting policing, it ill behoves Cameron to make the comment that why did the police need to arrest Green - they knew where they could findand could have invited him in - the refrain of every defence solicitor called toa police station at 8am after a resepctable businessman (and major drugs importer) has had his door stoved in at 5.30 by an arrest team - but then is it one law for one, one for another. The idea that the police are pro-Labour is daft - anyone in the law enforcement world can see that the writing is on the wall for Labour so in one sense what would they gain by acting under Labour orders (most policemen are natural Conservatives anyway!!)
Complain about this comment
jonathon_cook 87 brings us back to a fascinating subject. Was it ever demonstrated whether a battlefield chemical weapon could be assembled and used in under 45 minutes...you know, like they used to do on Tomorrow's World?
paper shredding ...using the Fawn Hall model or is shredding in the hands of a quango, Qinetiq, perhaps-no, no, not the drone, oh please, no...quick, call Michael Bentine, now, now.. Ministerrr......too late
(all sing) another dodgy dossier bites the dust
Complain about this comment
Nick suggest you look at the debate again, Cameron actually answered the question if he supported systematic leaking.
Answer Of cause Not.
Time to get a grip my friend your fast becoming a joke
Complain about this comment
"I used to think 1984 was science fiction but I'm not so sure now..."
Sadly 1984 isn't a work of fiction it is a reality. It was the year between 1983 and 1985 and it was as awful as all the other years in the 1980s.
Oh you mean the book! yes that is a work of fiction. No one is interested in watching right wing faux civil liberties bores through their telly. So I wouldn't worry about it.
Complain about this comment
PS - ref the Official Secrets Act - I can't see how people can argue that Galley did not break the law - whether you agree with it or not its the law and as civil servant he was bound by it - he clearly had a political agenda in the way he acted - we can't just abide by those laws we agree with - next thing people will start deciding to say leak the details of people on say the Sex Offenders Register because the feel its in the public interest
Complain about this comment
This might help. It is from www.parliament.uk today and technically could be updated in the Official Report which is published at 8 am tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a statement to the House about the arrest and entry into the offices of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) last Thursday, 27 November, which raises a subject of grave concern to all Members of the House.
In the past few days there has been much pressure on me to make public comment about these matters, but I felt that it was right and fitting that I should make no comment until Parliament reconvenes, because it is this House and this House alone that I serve, as well as being accountable for the actions of its Officers. I should emphasise from the start that it is not for me to comment on the allegations that have been made against the hon. Member or on the disposal of those allegations in the judicial process.
I should also remind the House, as stated in chapter 7 of ?Erskine May,? that parliamentary privilege has never prevented the operation of the criminal law. [Interruption.] Order. The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in its authoritative report in 1999 said that the precincts of the House are not and should not be
?a haven from the law?.
There is therefore no special restriction on the police searching the parliamentary precincts in the course of a criminal proceeding?nor has there ever been.
On Wednesday last, the Metropolitan police informed the Serjeant at Arms that an arrest was contemplated, but did not disclose the identity of the Member. I was told in the strictest confidence by her that a Member might be arrested and charged, but no further details were given to me. I was told that they might be forthcoming the next morning.
At 7 am on Thursday, police called upon the Serjeant at Arms and explained the background to the case, and disclosed to the Serjeant the identity of the Member. The Serjeant at Arms called me, told me the Member?s name and said that a search might take place of his offices in the House. I was not told that the police did not have a warrant. [HON. MEMBERS: ?Ah!?] Order. I have been told that the police did not explain, as they are required to do, that the Serjeant was not obliged to consent, or that a warrant could have been insisted upon. [Interruption.] Order. Let me make the statement. I regret that a consent form was then signed by the Serjeant at Arms, without consulting the Clerk of the House.
I must make it clear to the House?[Interruption.] Order. I must make it clear to the House that I was not asked the question of whether consent should be given, or whether a warrant should have been insisted on. I did not personally authorise the search. It was later that evening that I was told that the search had gone ahead only on the basis of a consent form. I further regret that I was formally told by the police only yesterday, by letter from Assistant Commissioner Robert Quick, that the hon. Member was arrested on 27 November on suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in public office and on suspicion of aiding and abetting misconduct in public office.
I have reviewed the handling of this matter. From now on, a warrant will always be required when a search?[HON. MEMBERS: ?Oh!?] Order. If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish?I have waited for four days. Some have been able to go on television; I have not had that luxury. I have not been able to speak to the media. A warrant will always be required when a search of a Member?s office, or access to a Member?s parliamentary papers, is sought. Every case must be referred for my personal decision, as it is my responsibility. All this will be made clear in a protocol issued under my name to all hon. Members.
Lastly, I have decided, myself, to refer the matter of the seizure by police of material belonging to the hon. Member for Ashford to a Committee of seven senior and experienced Members, nominated by me, to report as soon as possible. I expect the motion necessary to establish this Committee to be tabled by the Government for debate on Monday. I also expect a report of the Committee to be debated by this House as soon as possible thereafter.
Complain about this comment
#105
Indeed Balhamu, I'm even sure family members may wise to broaden their views?
Is it not strange that those who are pertaining the voice of free speech, cant stand the real truth and refer you all the time.
Complain about this comment
Re:112 - largehyweldda
"I can't see how people can argue that Galley did not break the law - whether you agree with it or not its the law and as civil servant he was bound by it"
He hasn't broken the law because he hasn't been tried and convicted of anything!
Also I think you'll find a recent court case has found that if you leak facts that are in the public interest then you're covered by the HRA.
The same HRA that you were so keen to refer to in #108
Complain about this comment
Quite ironic that the main story is full of "police sources said ...." why don't we have a new vocabulary instaead of the ubiquitous "sources" ......police leaks : "pleaks" ; government leaks "gleaks" ; brown's own leaks "boleaks"...
Complain about this comment
All these corrupt Labour, I am waiting for the knock on the door ,police state posts - so when the Tories get in, will it be free pot and libertarianism all round - so much of the Tory position on this is grandstanding - I wait with interest to see them repealing anti-terrorism laws, requiring all searches to be under a court warrant, making it law that middle class people can only be arrested after they voluntarily attend the police station, disarming the police etc
Complain about this comment
I would doubt that PACE applies in the Palace of Westminster since it is a royal palace and thus exempt from many laws - like the need for Employers' Liability Insurance. I am not sure that a warrant would have been enough for plod to force an entry. I would have thought that the Speaker as the representative of the Crown in Parliament (hence the mace) is the only person who can give permission.
Gorbals Mick has to go. He should not have been there in the first place but as some chippy zanuNL MPs busked the usual trend of alternating the Speaker between the two major parties they have only got themselves to blame.
Complain about this comment
Just when I thought this farce could get no worse, this bombshell is revealed. Even the most naive would have thought to ask to see the warrant but not the Sergeant at Arms, how the great roles of state have been dumbed down.
Words fail me.
Complain about this comment
"It is now clear that the police have some very serious questions to answer about the way they behaved. So too the Speaker and his officials. So too ministers who were involved in launching the inquiry"
Is the bbc going to resource some experienced investigative journalists to do this story justice.
where are the british bernsteins and woodwards ?
not at the bbc obviously. we have to make do with "churnalism"
Complain about this comment
Barker wrote @ 78:
#75
'I suspect there would be plenty of Scottish
that wouldn't want another tory government.'
If they were granted independence they wouldn't have to worry would they. It would be a straight fight between SNP and Labour and we would conveneniently lose Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and a gaggle of other Ministers.
Complain about this comment
and now that poor Mr Miliband's mate, AK Thaci 's mob are demonstrating against the EU. God, we bought him a suit, taught him how to spell democracy and even bombed some of the most beautiful churches in Europe and now he's thanking us like this.
Poor David, one week it's flies in the Congo, then it's getting booed in Beirut even though we're donating to the $443m rebuilding scheme of a refugee camp which is bound to be blown up again soon by those ungrateful Palestinians who continue to insist on inflicting their problems on the innocent Lebanese and it'll soon be time to start eating big meals in Bruxelles again because the Irish say they can't re-hold their referendum because their people might say No again...oh dear, bad year ahead, methinks.
(later that same day) .taxi! Salisbury, please I mean Harare...
PM David,wait! I'll go, you stay here and do PMQ's whilst Harriet and I take a break
that'll be Zimbs250000000000000000000000, sir,
PM Harriet, lend me a fiver till we get to the bank.
Complain about this comment
#102.
Wish I had put it like that.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
81. At 8:17pm on 03 Dec 2008, micromj wrote:
good point. we are the canaries it seems. centuries old liberties count for nothing.
take away our freedom and in return give us strictly come dancing , cheap beer, fags and petrol.
Complain about this comment
"Even the most naive would have thought to ask to see the warrant but not the Sergeant at Arms, how the great roles of state have been dumbed down."
Could not agree more. It is a classic example of "we must make all posts open to everyone" as imposed by the current Speaker. These roles were filled by people from certain backgrounds as the people selected by this method had been proved to be ca[able of the job. The Serjeant-at-Arms was traditionally an ex senior officer in one of the armed services. Generally a staff officer who had half a clue about how to run things. This role is much snaller than it used to be and yet the incumbent has not even shown the nouse of anyone who has ever seen an episode of the Sweeney/Z cars/Softly Softly/The Bill or even Heartbeat.
You want in, you get the right paperwork and speak to the rigfht people otherwise no way jose.
Complain about this comment
@ derek
I didn't offend you. I didn't label you. Why insult me by incorrectly lumping me in with the BNP? I have nothing but contempt for that orgamnisation, and since you bring them up, your post allows me nothing but contempt for your attitude.
Wake up and smell the New Labour Coffee - you will find (like the majority in this country have aleady found) that it stinks.
Complain about this comment
ref 115
Always ready to correct myself - the police arrested him on suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence - so yes you are right that he has not been convicted in a court of law of breaking the Official Secrets Act - it is true too that in the UK justice system works on a presumption of innocence - of course as with life nothing is simple - the police do not arrest people because they presume they are innocent and equally people accused of serious offences are held in custody for months even though they are technically innocent in the eyes of the law.
I repeat though my point that if every civil servant decides himself or herself what to leak in the public interest then you will have chaos.
Complain about this comment
#118 - you say that you doubt whether PACE would apply to the Palace of Westminster since it is technically a royal palace and thus exempt from many laws.
The Speaker however states - 'There is no special restriction on the police searching the parliamentary precincts in the course of criminal proceedings, nor has there ever been'
His assertion that, in future a warrant will always be required will need a change in the law, he does not have the power to alter Police and Criminal Evidence Act just to suit politicians.
Complain about this comment
Extract from Today's debate.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): When the Prime Minister was in opposition, he adroitly used information that public servants gave him, which he believed it was in the public interest to know, and placed it in the public domain. Does he believe that a Member of Parliament doing exactly what he did when he was in opposition should be arrested?
The Prime Minister: I notice that Conservative Members do not want to talk about the economy. [Interruption.] That is absolutely true. I uphold the right of Members of Parliament to pursue their duties in a way that is necessary for the public interest. Today, the acting police commissioner has said that the police are investigating a substantial series of leaks from the Home Office potentially involving national security.
So just for clarity, 2 points of note put on record by the PM.
1. He upholds the right for MPs to pursue their duties re leaks in the public interest
2. The Acting Commissionaire said the investigation potentially INVOLVES NATIONAL SECURITY!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
All the above is not to say that if I were in the MPS and involved in this matter, I would not have been wishing that I had taken the week off to paint the house, clean out the garage or even assist the wife in Christmas shopping
Complain about this comment
If Mr Martin was having a cup of tea in his kitchen at home and somebody shouted that police are at the door and want to search the house, he would, like everybody else, shout back "Ask them if they have a b****y search warrant!"
How very strange that this simple and natural reaction did not cross his mind when the house in question was THE HOUSE!
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
Oh, come off it, Nick. Of course he wouldn't; no PM would. But why on earth should he give Labour the satisfaction of answering their incredibly loaded question? It's like the classic 'and when did you stop beating your wife?' question.
The real issue here is the ineptitude of the Michael Martin, Jill Pay - yet another Labour stooge if ever there was one - and the extremely over the top actions by the Met carried out by Jacqui Smith's favourite copper and, apparently, based on false leads from the Cabinet Office. Add to this the serious doubts about just how much both Smith and Brown knew, and we've got a situation that's a thousand times more important than whether Cameron will answer this stupid hypothetical. Grow up.
Complain about this comment
The whole thing stinks.It is symptomatic of the contempt in which the people (as represented by parliament) are held.
The only circumstances in which the police need to be involved in the Political process is when National Security is at stake.
Bursting into parliament without a warrant is unacceptable.
You could see the fear in the Home secretaries eyes when confronted by Andrew Marr!.
But as usual no-one will stand up and be counted,the whitewash brush will come out and a little bit more of our freedom will go.
Complain about this comment
112 - the Official Secrets Act has nothing to do with this. And even if it did, you are not acting in contravention of the OSA if the information you disclose is not harmful to the UK or it's interests. Note the important fact there - the UK and its interests - not the interests of the Labour party. What motivated Galley is absolutely irrelevant; if there is no harm caused, there cannot be a breach. And, again, the OSA is not relevant here. At all.
Complain about this comment
This isn't your private blog Robinson.
In your role as BBC political editor You work for Us.
A portion of this BBC (Licence payers) blog may be taken up by jousting between New Labour supporters on one side & Conservative supporters on the other.
The rest of us are innocent civilians who see our country being destroyed, and the state broadcaster letting them off the hook.
If this one gets censored then so much for the right of temperate free speech on a blog that I pay for through my licence fee.
Complain about this comment
# 83. balhamu
"The question put to David Cameron is about the only pertinent one being put."
Please. I feel embarassed for you with this question. I would think you would be more interested in the chasm of silence of the Great Leader on this issue. He can't say anything contructive or intellegent; just attempt to blame the Cons for everything(again). YOu know, I bet Cameron actually kicked down Green's door himself....
Equally, how transparent your attempts to link law-breaking with this incident. We now know that no law was broken, the police are trying to disengage, and we recently found out that the cabinet office dangled the carrot of national security to make a politicied police (or should that be 'Please') service jump to tune. I hope you would join in calls for this attempt to pervert the course of justice to be thoroughly investigated?
"Remember how every big Treasury announcement over the past year or so has been pre-empted by the Conservatives by about 3 days, allowing Osborne either to get his retaliation in first and shape the media narrative in response to it, or claim Labour's policies as his own and say it is just copy-catting?"
Now you really are in fantasy land. Given that Labour's Big Idea was to allow the housing bubble to inflate to make it look like the UK had an economy they needed to steal all the ideas they could. I think you'll find that the Crash Gord leaked all the stuff from the treasury for his own ends.
Complain about this comment
It seems that everyone is forgetting that pretty much every time this government are challenged on the scope of new laws the insist that they will "only be applied in limited circumstances".
Got that? The police have vast scope over how they choose to apply the law...
It is the way our system works.
"Following wherever the evidence leads" is easy to say, but the police are expected to be rational and proportional.
The police decided to do what they did - the were not obliged or forced to do it.
p.s. Nick, Mandy/Oleg - any update?
Complain about this comment
Nick is right that today raised more questions than it answered.
And for what it's worth, I really don't think that Nick is fundamentally biased.
But is Nick - as some would say about the current Speaker - much too lightweight to do his current job?
I do not know the answer, but I think we should be told.
Complain about this comment
Police have questions to answer? Possibly, but anyone wanting to get at the police will have to go through their boss first and that is of course.....
Well a person who having let Mr Speaker take the rap pro tem for what that was worth and may be rather short of someone else to take it from here on. She dropped him in it. Does she think she can drop the police in it? Will she learn different?
Complain about this comment
Nick well done this far more represent what happened. Untill we get to the last sentence, which you had to put in after Hutton or you would have Mandy & Ally on your back.
But still not up to the standards of ITV and Tom Bradby ( Must be said he did the same "Over Playing their hand." Not realy fair after the first invasion of Parliament in 100's of years).
I've always been a BBC man but its been a downward sliding slope up till now.
We will soon have the Labour Rebutall Team on trying to reduce the true ballance of opinion on the blog.
You haven't said anything about the banks not having agreed to the rabbit policy by the PM. Can we have something on that?
What happend to David Davies he was the dog that didn't bark?
Complain about this comment
If we're quoting from the mid-seventeenth century then how about this (paraphrsased since there was no Hansard then) from Cromwell to the House of Commons in 1653:
"You have sat here too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Not sure whether that should be applied to the Government or journalists, though?
Complain about this comment
Dunno. I remember people talking only a year or so ago how they were fed up with big companies and high rollers getting away with things. Now the police are proving effective it's odd those same people are, now, screaming against that change because it took a slice out of their own hides.
Let's be honest: After Thatcherism broke the consensus Britain has become an openly corrupt and selfish country. The party had to end sometime and now is as good a time as any. If people can't recognise limits or play fair then, unfortunately, some means of enforcing that becomes necessary.
People have aspirations and self-image but reality is not necessarily in line with that, but surveys have suggested that most folks want British politics to "get real". I can't see how that's bad. As the Tao comments, the natural is the best form of being. Anger and self-pity may stamp their feet but this is merely withdrawal symptoms.
Smile and pretend you enjoy it.
Complain about this comment
Hey! what happened to the "arc of anarchy"
post, did young naive Camera On Cameron have it removed?
I wont venture out this weekend, some young ones are taken the Cameron view of our police.
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
Mr Robinson,
If you cannot tell the difference between a leak which endangers British national interests and a leak which exposes incompetence in high office, then I suggest that you resign your position as chief BBC political commentator and make way for someone who does understand these nuances...
Complain about this comment
This period of Labour government went from public acceptance to public rejection precisely because it holds the UK population, our insitutions - Parliament, the Monarchy and civil liberties in complete contempt.
We are simply "units of state productivity".
They - equally as public school and publicly-funded university alumni as the Tories - must "obviously" be right, because they tell us they're right.
Frequently in the past, the Serjeant at Arms was a senior figure, carrying weight, often from an armed services background. In those people's lives they'd been obliged to understand the balance of rights and responsibilities.
What we have now in that job is a person who was a deputy director of a bit of a ministry. Maybe a person of quality in her own right (within the limitations of her background), but never having to face truly critical decisions.
I'd like to see one of the major parties offer Sir Richard Dannett a safe seat at the next election. Then immediately have him elected as Speaker.
I bet he'd ensure that PMQs became more interesting. After all, PMQs is supposed to offer the opportunity of questions being posed to the PM - which he SHOULD ANSWER. Haven't heard any answers for years and years...
And, by the way, don't you think it was completely uncouth for Brown/Mandelson to fail to include that little "bombshell" announcement about helping people in mortgage difficulties within the Queen's Speach?
If he feels it is so important, he should have ensured her Maj got to mention it.
But, since - like all Brown's financial claptrap - nobody seems clear about what it really means, maybe he was too embarrassed to get her to spout the words.
Look out for the small print.
Sounds like it is simply piling up more problems for a future government.
Oh, well.
Brown will go down in flames. But at least he will have scorched the UK for a couple of decades to come.
Remember "Things can only get better"?
Well, at least they didn't say in which century that would occur.
Complain about this comment
balhamu #83
I've been reading anad contributing to this blog for a long time now, and I was just wondering why in recent times you have become so rabid?
Is this post really a serious attempt to further the discussion? You said
"If he would not be happy with a Labour activist infiltrating his private office when he is PM and then breaking the law by systematically leaking every single document they come across and with a senior Labour minister encouraging it, why is he so apoplectic with rage about this incident"
So lets look at that statement. Was the mole in someones private office - no. Is it against the law to whistleblow - no. Did he leak every single document - no. Has Green been shown to be encouraging it - no.
Furthermore, have you complained about the systematic leaking of documents to GB during his time in opposition (well documented elsewhere in these blogs) - no.
Finally, is it the Conservative's fault that the number of embarassing documents showing the Home Office covering up their blunders seems to be so large? Of course not. The only people to blame for that are the ones supposedly running the place.
Complain about this comment
this government is so full of spin or lies take your pick when you a labour politician skinner thinks its ok to joke in front of the Queen this man is ignorant he is a disgrace but it tels you a lot about brown and Wye should mandlson an unelected person be running this country Wat happned to democracy when Jacky smith says papers get leaked is she sure they have not bean left on a train i think you all should vote anybody but labor jim oldham
Complain about this comment
balhamu #86
"Cameron implicitly admitted the Conservatives were paying for the lawyer in the House today by side-stepping the question."
Really, is that the line you want to take? So by side-stepping a question a person implicit admits what the questioner is asking? So where does that leave us with the master shoe-shuffler himself, GB, who is yet to give a direct answer to any non-planted question in over a year of being PM? I guess everything that the opposition parties have been asking about must be true then, if we follow your argument that is.
Complain about this comment
I think the Labour tactic to keep referring to issues of national security is thoroughly repugnant.
This will turn out to be a smokescreen, an attempt to muddy the waters and save face in what is clearly a disgraceful attempt by the cabinet to smear the Tories.
I'm glad the police were so seemingly incompetent as now the whole sorry episode has backfired spectacularly on Labour.
The Speaker should go, the SAA should go, the police officers involved should be disciplined and more importantly an independent inquiry should establish exactly who knew what and when.
Brown and his Home Secretary's behaviour since the incident have been unacceptable.
What a vomit inducing pair they are.
Complain about this comment
Surely the most important thing to take from this is.
SECRET POLICE DON'T STICK YOUR NECK OUT FOR THIS GOVERNMENT.
WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH THEY WILL CHOP YOUR HEAD OFF.
The whole of the government's departments must not know which way to turn. I think this will lead to more leaks as they know that everyone is now expendable.
Complain about this comment
Speaker Martin is a weasley self serving hypocrit. He was aware as to the wishes of the M.Police and hoped for a political advantage in not asking the questions he should. He has proved himself to be unworthy of the post as he is incapable of impartiality.
Complain about this comment
Tories new slogan
"COMMIT A CRIME AND BECOME THE GOVERNMENT"
Complain about this comment
Define "harm". Harm doesn't have to be a single critical failure but can be more subtle and indirect, whether at home or abroad. A better understanding of quality and context, and hard and soft power may give you clue.
In this case there's a question of proper authority and social cohesiveness. The Tories have driven a truck through proper form and social harmony for they own narrow gain. While the leaks may be mere tittle-tattle, the loss of reliability and increase of tension created by this affair is, by definition, a national security risk.
Britain is in a hole and the world can be a dangerous place. By playing fast and loose with the economy, the Baby P affair and, now, confidentiality and politicisation of the Civil Service, the Tories are looking less fit for government every day to the point where they're looking dangerous.
An expert martial artist would tend to avoid fights if possible but could do a lot of damage if they had to. Most amateurs spend most of their time showing off and would only hurt themselves. It's one thing for the nasty party to implode but if they ever wish to form a government it would be nice if they were good enough not to drag everyone else down with them.
Complain about this comment
Re 133 "If Mr Martin was having a cup of tea in his kitchen at home and somebody shouted that police are at the door and want to search the house, he would, like everybody else, shout back "Ask them if they have a b****y search warrant!" and they might well reply - "we don't need one sir - this search is under Section 32 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PCEA) as we are locking you up at the same time/ we have just arrested your son/daughter and can search with an inspectors authority under S18. of the PCEA"
Inall this I am not saying I agree with the police action - but the mixed messages going out about searches etc do not help people on day to day basis if they get from all this that you must have a warrant to do a search
Complain about this comment
Labour do not care if we believe them or not.
We are dismissed and lied to at every turn.
They realy do see us as easy to control, throw us a few crumbs of comfort and then hit us with the bill, (plus interest).
The police raided parliament and nobody was there, no one thought to ask for a warrant, no it is not believeable.
But as I said Labour do not care, they will tell us any old twaddle.
Complain about this comment
89 Balhamu
The Home Office leaks only concern stories of government mismanagement .
There are no secrets at stake, or the arrests would have been made under the official secrets act.
Nobody knows what the Treasury Mole is leaking, but if that mole is leaking classified documents - then it is inappropriate.
The public should not be provided unfettered access to Government information as part of Freedom of Information requests. That would be mad.
Complain about this comment
I am a teacher..If I had as many complaints about how I performed as you (Nick) I would have been sacked a long time ago.
That aside....do you ever reflect on the tenor of your 'observations'....all things being equal, you do seem like a slightly more sophisticated arm of the Gov's spin machinery.
For the record..I wouldn't vote for either of the main parties...time to give the LibDems a chance to wreck the country..things can only get better from here on in...hopefully!
Complain about this comment
136
Well having looked up quickly OSA then the national interests clause would limit its scope which is interesting (so say leaking offenders addresses to the papers would be hard to catch within that definition perhaps) - but there must be some rules - otherwise surely every single civil servant can decide what he believes is in the public interest re every piece of paper coming across his desk - we have seen how the papers use public interest to breach peoples privacy willy nilly
Complain about this comment
Sorry to be tardy on this blog but I have to wait for sunset.
#107 describes what I thought to be the reason why Green was arrested rather than be asked to help with their inquiry. It is the simple fact that if arrested then the police can hold you for a long period and they do not need a warrant to search your house, office, etc. Whereas if you are 'invited in for a chat' then you can get up and leave as you wish and warrants have to be obtained with all the hassle that that entails.
At least that is how a Lawyer described it on the Radio earlier.
Complain about this comment
#138 putmeincharge
Cameron has clearly implied that he thinks that Green and Galley have done no wrong.
Let's start with the facts accepted by both sides:
* Mr Galley is a Conservative Party member, who stood for election for the Conservative party for Sunderland Council
* Mr Galley was a junior civil servant in the Home Office
* Mr Galley had ambitions to work in Mr Green's office and had an interview concerning gaining employment within it
* After this interview, Mr Galley began a systematic process of leaking every single document he could get his hands on to Mr Green
Ok. Already we are at the stage where Mr Galley has committed a criminal offence, unless he can successfully claim a 'public interest' defence under e.g. the Public Disclosure Act 1998. Mr Galley admits this, and his lawyer has said this is the defence he intends to use.
As I've already stated in a previous blog, Mr Galley will have some trouble in suggesting that a) The information leaked comes under any of the categories with which he can claim to be a 'whistleblower'; and b) Even if he could do that, he will have trouble claiming that he went to the appropriate authorities to raise his issues internally first.
That's based on the 4 documents that reached the public domain. What we don't know is if the 16 documents that Galley admitted he leaked that have not reached the public domain are related to national security issues, which will cause further problems to Mr Galley's defence if they are.
The police have noted that there is grounds for suspicion that Mr Green encouraged Mr Galley to systematically leak documents in this way. It is apparent that Mr Galley thought he would help further his career by passing on documents in this way, but that is beside the point really. It's a difficult thing to prove without hard evidence - hence the arrest of Mr Green and the confiscation of computer equipment, which could hold evidence. If you look at the order of events (and even without knowing exactly what Mr Galley said in his statement to police) it is clear why the police may think this.
And remember, we are only receiving hard information from one side in this debate - the defending side - who are trying to stop the inquiry in its tracks by manufacturing a lot of false outrage (e.g. heavy-handed anti-terrorism police, "grooming" is a word that cannot be used, alleging Mr Galley was used to try and trap Mr Green which Mr Galley's lawyer - paid for by the Conservatives - said is untrue today). Some of THE RAGE raises good questions (e.g. why aren't Conservative MPs above the law). Though even these are made to look a bit tenuous by THE RAGES behaviour during the Cash for Honours investigation).
Now, it could be that Cameron believes all of this is acceptable. In which case, he should confirm that he would have no objections to Labour members acting this way in opposition and cultivating Labour Party activists within his and his minister's private officers to systematically leak things, and to civil servants leaking things willy-nilly for political advantage. And also confirm that under a Conservative government no legal action will be brought against any civil servant who leaks information. He has drawn the 'public interest' defence so wide as to make it cover every single document that could be released.
If he thinks that Government can operate like this fair enough, he's entitled to his view.
But why did he not answer the question posed to him in the house? He could have ended suspicions that some have that he is just politicking by doing so in the affirmative. Next time Cameron talks about the importance of the "rule of law" and "playing by the rules" it's sure to bring a chuckle though.
Complain about this comment
Seems to me that MPs pass laws on laws they do not undersatnd, then cry wolf when implemented, just shows how low the standards have dropped in public life.
No one shouted out when councils used the acts they passed to catch Terrorists, on meter theves or snooping on School location cheats (who were innocent)
they should go back to the drawing board, but this time THINK
Complain about this comment
130 Eatonrifle
You have fallen for the smokescreen I'm afraid.
If this was a matter of "national security" then the arrests of Green and Galley would have been under the official secrets act.
The leaks are just embarrassing cases of government mismanagement. (Given that criteria - it is a wonder there have been so few leaks!)
Complain about this comment
My recollection of Constitutional Law, which I did study at University (years ago), is that the issue of warrants is completely beside the point. Parliament is its own authority and would be quite entitled to refuse access to anyone, whether or not in possession of a warrant. The Speaker or Serjeant at Arms cannot just absolve themselves of their responsibility to consider police requests on their merits by taking comfort in the fact that a magistrates court has issued a search warrant. Nor should parliamentarians put up by their parties to speak on these issues, such as Dominic Grieve or Chris Huhne, who I just saw on Newsnight, be ignorant of this fundamental principle. What hope for democracy when the strongest case they can make is that a High Court judge should be involved? NO! Parliament, should govern itself!
Complain about this comment
As I understand the law, s18 PACE 1984 states that after arrest the Police have the power to search WITHOUT warrant any premises controlled by the arrested party.
If they feel that delay would lead to evidence being lost/ detroyed.
Bearing in mind the chair of the MPA was so concerned that he phones the arrested party (after trying to dissuade police from investigating in the first place) I think there is a reasonable chance of this happening.
Legislation applies to All England and Wales and does not expempt Parliamentary buildings.
Considering the place is chock full of barristers, they should know this...
Interesting as well to see Domenic Grieve on newsnight railing on about Proportionality and Necessity, both concepts enshrined by The Human Rights Act, a piece of legislation the Conservatives are vowed to repeal.
One rule for one?.....
Complain about this comment
Oh, and #138 Put Me in Charge
We now know that no law was broken, the police are trying to disengage
Er, come again.
How do we know that?
Because the defence lawyer said so?
Because the Conservative Party caught with their pants down said so?
Remember Cash for Honours? Did you take Blairs word for it when he said no laws had been broken? Or did you push for it to be investigated, and for No 10 computers to be searched and aides arrested?
No-one in this country ever breaks any laws - listen to the lawyers and the family of people accused of crimes. Don't investigate alleged crimes - just take the suspects word for it. That seems to be what you are saying.
Also, Galley has admitted guilt to doing things that would be breaking the law unless his 'public interest' defence washes (and assuming there are no documents that would break the Official Secrets Act in the 15 not in the public domain). So grounds for investigation no?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@133
"If Mr Martin was having a cup of tea in his kitchen at home and somebody shouted that police are at the door and want to search the house, he would, like everybody else, shout back "Ask them if they have a b****y search warrant!"
How very strange that this simple and natural reaction did not cross his mind when the house in question was THE HOUSE!"
Perhaps Mr Martin would have done so. Most of the rest of us would not - let the Police in nicely and mind your manners and the house will be searched. Give them that sort of lip and all sorts of things might get broken accidentally, and all sorts of extra things will have to go into the Police van.
This perhaps was indicative of inexperience or lack of confidence on behalf of the Serjeant at Arms. It was a serious handicap, and was doubtless worse at 7 am (which is, of course, why police searches are done at the time of day).
In future a training course might be required, since the job is clearly no longer a purely ceremonial one.
BTW There's been very little comment on the fact that this was all set in motion just as Sir Ian Blair left his post - so no one can ask the top man at the Met to take responsibility for this one. I'll bet he's chuckling, and throwing darts at pictures of another senior Tory!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
No Nick no PM should feel comfortable that they have seen fit to keep important information about there incompetence quiet.
There credibility is in tatters trying to silence people in this way is just way beyond their remit.
It really is time for the people of this country to stand up and kick out these dictators they are ruining our country.
Complain about this comment
#148 grawth
Is this post really a serious attempt to further the discussion?
Yes. But I know that THE RAGE won't engage with it, as the fact serious allegations have been made and there is strong evidence of criminal behaviour in the case of Galley and circumstantial evidence in the case of Green is unimportant and by-the-by,
Why don't the Conservatives want this investigated? They can clear their man surely - a court case where the Government is proven to have victimised opposition politicians by making groundless claims would surely help their cause? Unless it isn't groundless of course, and the Conservatives are surprisingly not releasing damaging information about their actions into the public domain.
See the continual attempts to move the agenda away from alleged law-breaking by the Conservatives and from the presence of a Conservative Party activist with strong links to Mr Green engaged in what, if done by a foreign power, would be called espionage towards apoplectic rage.
So lets look at that statement. Was the mole in someones private office - no. Is it against the law to whistleblow - no. Did he leak every single document - no. Has Green been shown to be encouraging it - no.
The Mole was in Jacqui Smith's Private Office - yes.
It's not against the law to whistleblow, no. The point is this isn't whistleblowing (at least 2 of the leaks in the public domain and who knows how many of those not in the public domain will not fit within the 1998 Public Disclosure Act definition, and Galley clearly took no action to raise things internally in any case).
Did he leak every single document - who knows.
Has Green been shown to be encouraging it - who knows.
There are strong ground to suspect Galley has flouted the law. There is circumstantial evidence to suspect Green has broken the law by encouraging the whistleblower.
In situations such as this, where a crime is suspected, it's common-place for the police to investigate it. As I say above, if we took your attitude to criminal offence, everyone accused of a crime is innocent if they, their family and their lawyers say so. The police should not bother to investigate crimes if the suspect denies it.
Now - if you believe that there is no possibility whatsoever that any law has been broken, why won't Cameron and others confirm that they would find similar behaviour by Labour Activists with strong links to Opposition Spokesman invading their offices with the sole purpose of leaking sensitive documents acceptable. And why won't they push for an investigation that will so obviously in the view of the Conservative narrative clear their man, and leave the government really embarrassed
Complain about this comment
Nick
Re your final paragraph, no way will Cameron agree to the proposition that, if in government, he will be happy with Civil Servant leaks to the opposition.
Equally unlikely is the idea that Gordon Brown would commit the Labour Party, if in opposition, to an undertaking not to put information into the public domain which was obtained via leaks by Civil Servants.
Surely ?
Complain about this comment
Nearly right Charles. Just one small tweak and you're spot on:
Britain is in a hole and the world can be a dangerous place. By playing fast and loose with the economy, the Baby P affair and, now, confidentiality and politicisation of the Civil Service, Labour are looking less fit for government every day to the point where they're looking dangerous.
The rest of course is complete nonsense, but then you knew that, didn't you.
Complain about this comment
This current Westminster irrelevance is of no interest to me.
I just want to use this opportunity of singing Nick Robinson's praises. He is the most grounded, natural, honest political reporter in the country.
I would take his word on Scottish affairs before the word of any Scottish politically biased unionist journo from any section of our media (with the exception of Iain McWhirter and a very small handful of others e.g. Paul Hutcheon.)
Happy Christmas Nick, keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
#158 jonathancook
The Home Office leaks only concern stories of government mismanagement .
Including the one about the list of MPs likely to rebel against 42-days?
Including the 15 leaks whose details are not in the public domain?
What makes you say that? Because the Conservatives say so, so it must be true.
That's just weak.
Complain about this comment
#159
We are all teachers in our own ways, however we do split at ends on responsibility and principle
Complain about this comment
#154
Tories new slogan
"COMMIT A CRIME AND BECOME THE GOVERNMENT"
Irony. Pure Irony.
You're not to blame.
It's the smarter ones like BalhamU and magimix (where he - ed?) that are culpable. They do know better.
You, Eatonrifle and CEH (if they're not all the same person) don't know any better. You (they) are blameless.
You are, like Martin, Smith et al. Just out of your league.
I pity you and I hope you live long enough to realise the error of your ways.
I hope that you and your children don't die of cholera wondering why the UN doesn't pull it's finger out.
Complain about this comment
#98 jrperry
"I foresee a cabinet member's career finishing before this story is through."
What, you mean like Lord Mandelson's?
Complain about this comment
#150 grawth
I think it's a case-by-case basis. We know politicians are slippery customers.
Do you think the Conservatives are not paying for Mr Galley's lawyer?
And why didn't Cameron take the opportunity to deny it? Or even engage remotely with the question?
Michael Jabez Foster: What the right hon. Gentleman needs to tell us is who is paying for the civil servant?s legal fees with Bindmans.
Mr. Cameron: This is quite extraordinary. The approach that the hon. Gentleman is taking, and that some Labour Front-Bench Members seem to be taking, is that Members of Parliament should not release information that is in the public interest and that they should be pursued and arrested for doing so. If that approach had been taken when the Prime Minister was in opposition, he would have spent most of his life in prison. [Interruption.] Well, he laughs about it now, but he produced leak after leak after leak, all of which he claimed were in the public interest.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab): The right hon. Gentleman would like to become Prime Minister one day. Is he really telling the House that as Prime Minister he would be perfectly relaxed about a civil servant committed to impartiality entering into an arrangement with an Opposition spokesman to release information on a continuing basis in breach of the civil service code?
Mr. Cameron: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what I am not relaxed about. I am not relaxed about a Member of Parliament being arrested for doing his job. I am not relaxed and, incidentally, neither is Mr. Speaker, about the police coming and searching offices in Parliament. I am not relaxed about nine anti-terrorism officers going into the house of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and reducing his family to tears. I used to think that the hon. Gentleman believed in standing up for Parliament. I must say that yes, I do have ambitions to be Prime Minister, and I hope to take his seat in the process.
Very slippery.
Complain about this comment
"It is now clear that the police have some very serious questions to answer about the way they behaved. So too the Speaker and his officials. So too ministers who were involved in launching the inquiry."
Nick, isn't it at least possible that a certain Conservative MP and a Civil Servant also have some very serious questions to answer ? I don't know of course, because the police investigation isn't complete. It has been horses before carts all week.
Complain about this comment
#173 onlyjocking
But I'm sure Brown will commit to not encouraging Labour activists to infiltrate the private offices of Conservative ministers with the sole intention of systematically leaking every sensitive document they came across.
Maybe Cameron can ask Brown at the next PMQs? Or maybe it'll be too embarassing when Brown says this?
I don't know the full facts of the leaks Brown received in opposition to form a judgement on if they were whistleblowing leaks from a variety of civil servants or cultivation of a mole.
Complain about this comment
As I said on your blog the other day Nick the police should have arranged a search warrant and then they would have had to submit their reasons to a magistrate.
Why the speaker thinks that a high court judge is required I dont know. I can tell you that the police have to give good reasons for a warrant and I doubt whether the source of the information placed and the reasons would have stood up to scrutiny.
Complain about this comment
By the way -- I see "THE RAGE" mentioned now and then - what or who is "THE RAGE" ?
Complain about this comment
How on earth could the police possibly believe that anybody other than Damian Green himself had the authority to consent to a warrantless search of his office? The ability to physically grant access is not the same as the authority to consent to a search. The police could not ask your neighbour for consent to search your house, even if you had left a key in their possession for emergencies; this is exactly the same. If the police are going to rely on this being a consensual search, I think they are going to be in big trouble and rightly so!
This whole thing stinks. The police are being very careful not to dispell any misconceptions that he was arrested on suspicion of breaching the official secrets act. He wasn't! He was arrested for conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office. This is a common law offence relating to really serious breaches of the public trust in an official capacity, such as accepting bribes. How can releasing data to the public be considered a breach of the public's trust?
I really can't see why the police are involved in this at all. Keeping their dirty laundy private is an internal disciplinary matter for the home office and the Labour party, not a criminal matter in any way. This is the such a flagrant abuse of power by the Labour party that heads really need to roll over this. The home office is talking about the "sensitive nature" of the information that it deals with making this a criminal matter. So why hasn't he been arrested and charged under the offical secrets act, which directly pertains to such leaks damaging to the UK's interests?
There is so much wrong with what has happened here that it is really important that it is not allowed to simply die down and fade away. New Labour cannot be allowed to get away with using the police to bully the opposition. This episode has genuinely frightening implications for the way this country is run.
Complain about this comment
Nicky boy why can you not take McCavity to task even he has now jumped on the national security band wagon? Both Damien and the young man in question would have been arrested under the Official Secrets Act if classified information was to have been passed over and especially if it had been leaked. So to stop repossessions on his watch I will have to pay the mortgages of people who in two years time when McCavity is no longer in charge and the Tom hits the fan he can say well we never had that many repossessions on my watch. Why put off the pain for two years, he screws up we and pay up.
Complain about this comment
I find it quite troubling that the defence of the police action is that governments dislike leaks. What this confirms is that a) the police were acting for political, not criminal reasons b) ministers approve, in general if not in the specific c) the Speaker was happy to go along with it. It is truly strange when our concept of the appropriateness of police action is whether we approve or not; not whether they are upholding the law or not.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Lets not forget when GB was a back bencher.... he was King leak, the bobbies would have been knocking on his door every day!
I see this another load of Labour bull, Harriot Harmon and GB won't say this is right or wrong nor even condemn they way the search was carried out stinks... I wouldn't be surprised if they was behind it all never mind not knowing anything about it
Sooner this lot kicked out the better, at least we 'may' end up with a PM that can tell right from wrong and a Home Secretary that know what is going on.
Do I believe Micheal Martin.... like hell I do.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Cameron can ask Brown at the next PMQs? Or maybe it'll be too embarassing when Brown says this?
Oh, be serious.
Who would trust a single word that dribbles from Brown's mouth.
Embarrassed by Brown? Ha ha ha ha. Only in Brown's surreal imagination, a beautiful mind which is unencumbered by the banal realities of life. Or economics.
Complain about this comment
Is the consensus now, that if my MP has broken a law it is alright for the police to trawl through my private correspondence with the MP
His guilt leads to my privacy being null & void
Truly a Magna Charta moment.
All I can say is, we have troops dying every day. We have millions of graves throughout the would of 'less sophisticated people' who lost our live to safe guard the sanctity of Parliament.
EARTH MUST BE MOVING THROUGHOUT THE WORLD BY THE DEAD AS THEY SPIN IN THERE GRAVES.
We truly are not worthy.
Complain about this comment
Do you think the Conservatives are not paying for Mr Galley's lawyer?
So what? Who's paying for the prosecution?
The government. With unlimited resources.
And nice touch by the Tories to use the same lawyer the Labour suspects ran to in the cash-for-honours doncha think?
Complain about this comment
Almost everyone seems to be focused on the specifics, known and unknown, of this case - ably led by Nick and the rest of the media whom we already know have a vested interest.
I am wondering why this current fiasco has occurred now, why so suddenly and in enough of a hurry that the whole operation has been so sloppy. Why not immediately after the latest of those leaks or, indeed, any of the previous ones. Alternatively, if timing was not that significant, why was it not a slower, methodical, more efficient operation.
Every leak from Mr Green, that we know about at the moment, has highlighted a deal of incompetence within the Home Office and brought considerable embarrassment to the government; but their day in the headlines had been and gone - until this collective cock-up revived them.
Call me cynic if you like - maybe I listen too much to politicians like Gordon or read too many hacks like Nick - but it seems to me that the Home Office are in some panic and that causes me to wonder what is it that has not yet become public knowledge that is scaring them so much.
What is needed is a good investigative journalist with balls. Anyone know one?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"the Rage is the ultimate expression of the anger of millions of innocent people at the injustice of their condition ? and it?s infectious, filling all who come into contact with it with pure, murderous rage"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Human
Complain about this comment
#178 u.......
What league are you referring to?
would that be the tory league of elitist Gentlemen?
Jeez! the United Nation and the target to end poverty and hunger by 2015?
Cholera in Britain, Hmmmm 1850-60's
John Snow played his part in the sanitation
of our waters.(did you know that)
Are you suggesting that immigrants bring diseases to Britain (TB) (cholera) ??
Look, kid, dont make half points, you only confuse and undermine your-self.
Complain about this comment
So what if the conservatives are paying for his legal costs? As legal aid has been pretty much destroyed in this country by GB, he would be served to the dogs if he didn't have good counsel. Surely this hero should be allowed a decent defence team as we, the good people of this country, have learnt the failings of a failing department, and also that the government tried on many occasions to cover them up. Surely a cover up is a far greater crime against the national security!
Complain about this comment
This case and the de Menezes inquest have two things in common: however virtuous the motives, the reality is a serious assault on the civil liberties of the realm by the anti-terrorist police, and a consequential deliberate buggers muddle of responsibilities resulting in nobody being held responsible for the death of an innocent man. This points the way towards the same let-off for those responsible for the Parliament intrusion as has just happened in the de Menezes inquest, despite the open admission by the Inspector responsible for having lied on oath.
Many correspondant simply propose dismissing those involved, in some permutation or other.
Effectively, none of this will do, as there is no accountability. If any link in the chain had held, then neither incident would have happened - but nary a link held, each is as weak and corrupt as the next, and we must do away with the lot, from top to botttom, and not stop there, but examine each action for illegality, and prosecute accordingly, for these actions have done great harm both to the reputation of Parliament and to the credibility of parliamentary democracy as a whole - I recall Plato's comments that democracy declines into tyranny and anarchy.
The Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, notably gave a vote of no confidence in both Speaker and Serjeant at Arms this evening, despite Paxo spelling things out in words of one syllable, and much the same can be held true of the Conservatives who tried to find out what was happening, browbeaten by an assertive copper.
Should we also pursue the police? We already know that they had an inkling of needing authority, as they first approached the Serjeant at Arms the day beforehand and were granted approval of sorts to undertake the search, so their entitlement to a presumption of innocence in their pursuit of their objective is thoroughly compromised by their own deed. They may yet have a case, but they must make it now, prevarication is no longer an option as a direct consequence of their own act, they cannot leave the population in doubt as regards their legal relationship with their representatives - the question put to the Serjeant at Arms was not in relation to a specific MP, it must be recalled, but could have been equally applicable to any and all MPs.
Then there's the question of whether the Serjeant at Arms was the competent person to give such an authority - would a tea-lady or cleaner have sufficed, one is forced to ask, and conclude that they would not be? The BBC has a studio in the building, and its journalists would take a dim view of the freedom of the press being compromised in such a manner. From the images of the office in question, it appears to be in Porcullis House, which at least saves the need to respect the constraint of searching a Royal Palace such as the House itself - unless Portcullis House is legally part of the Palace.
Today we will have the undoubtedly painful experience of seeing the Home Secretary squirm, making up interpretations of legislation on the fly when she has had nigh on a week to prepare (we know this because the Speaker was forced to set up on his own authority the Seven Samurai, which may perhaps be more accurately likened to the Minor Council of the Venetian Republic, which means there is no effectual legal direction coming from the Ministry of Justice who would undoubtedly have formed something much more legal-eagly - I reserve references to Snow-White and the Seven Dwarves for later). We might presume that Alan Campbell, Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office with responsibility for Crime Reduction and charged with the Parliamentary Business lead, should have a number of rather interesting questions to ask himself - like Poobah, the Lord High Everything Else, he appears to have mutually contradictory responsibilities.
Does it stop there? Not necessarily, we have of late seen a general incompetence in the administration of the realm. This smacks of poor education, at best, and more likely of personnel policies throughout the Civil Service which are as far removed from Confucian practices of selecting the best as can possibly be imagined.
There is much to do, and little time to do it. The Conservative Party must either put up or shut up now: it's all very well appearing to be dignified in accusation, but with it goes a loss of dynamicism needed to bring the bacon home on this one.
Complain about this comment
154. At 10:59pm on 03 Dec 2008, derekbarker wrote:
Tories new slogan
"COMMIT A CRIME AND BECOME THE GOVERNMENT"
Well it worked for Gordon Brown didn't it?
Complain about this comment
Wow
this is massive as an IT crowd bod I have just heard that the anti terrorist police got access to the parliament. ?THAT IS EVERY MP's e-mails. Once into the e-mail engine they have access to everything even the PM's e-mail. MP?s if you are having an affair the police now have the evidence
Nick if you have been talking to anyone in the Gov wow.
BE AFRAID BE VERY AFERAID
Anti terrorist Squad RESPECKT 'you got root'
Source BBC Newsnight
Complain about this comment
can someone from the BBC please ask the Home Secretary, why, if investigations are to be allowed to be followed wherever they lead, the BAe corruption enquiry was stopped by the government.?
Complain about this comment
Its a non-question to ask whether that now there is a "mechanism" to prevent the need to leak means that there should not have been a leak.
What has the mechanism ever produced i.e. is this just a cosmetic procedure that actually reveals the utterly cynical nature of new Labour and not the Tories.
I actually vote Lib Dem by the way.
Complain about this comment
Imagine the boot on the other foot even if the Conservatives are in Opposition. Not quite the same (I know that some leaks, though not necessarily those given by this mole, are in the public interest)
A Labour Party activist manages to get themselves into a position as an official in the Conservative Party where they have access to sensitive political information concerning future strategies, the manifesto, questions Cameron is to ask at PMQs, .media strategy, policy announcements etc. They even find out about the various skeletons buried deep within opposition spokespeople's cupboards.
Gordon Brown is at the centre of it, and has given explicit instructions for this political espionage to happen.
Brown seems to be doing well, fed as he is by this mole. There are a series of scandals involving Conservative MPs putting them on the back foot. The public love it - and clearly see that it is in the public interest that they know all of this juicy gossip.
The Conservatives find out.
Even with no illegality of this, I can imagine the reaction.
I can even hear Cameron apoplectic and spluttering with rage as I imagine.
Complain about this comment
I find it quite troubling that the defence of the police action is that governments dislike leaks
Who's defending the police action in this way? Cameron is pretending that is the reason for the police action to say it is wrong.
But there is a lot of evidence of criminal behaviour in this case. It is not about Government's disliking leaks.
Do you suggest that the police do not investigate criminal behaviour, provided that the Opposition says that it is wrong?
Complain about this comment
Ok Nick after you're failure to ac t like a serious analytical journalist you've finally got me to engage
You are a journalist responsible for holding those in power to question and debate, in the same way as the opposition are trying to do.
Speculation on how the opposition might feel in this situation is frankly irrelavent.
This is a significant issue in the history of our unwritten constitution. As the only political blogger on our only funded national news site you seem to be more concerned in being balanced rather than being direct
Leaks have existed as long as parliament. If you didn't have sources you wouldn't have much to report.
We have ended up in a very bad place where questioning is being portrayed as the wrong thing to do.
You seem to glory in the trivial get a grip or go and work in the commercial sector.
Complain about this comment
It is reported that "Mr Martin told MPs he knew in advance about the search of Mr Green's office but was not told that the police did not have a warrant"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7762005.stm
So, apparently knowing in advance that the police wanted to search an MP's office within the Palace of Westminster, it seems the Speaker apparently left the matter in hands of the Serjeant At Arms.
Given the unprecedented nature of this situation, would it not have been better if he had personally taken charge of the situation?
These days, the buck always stops somewhere else.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
I hav esaid before that if any figures are collected by the government then those figures must be published. Whether or not they prove or disprove the point that the government wants to prove. Full disclosure, I pay for the statistics to be collected, publish and be damned. No problem. Lock and load.
Complain about this comment
#201
With reagrd to BAE systems then just look at the money paid by Balfor Beattie over a contract they had in Egypt. You are just so not keeping up to date. Project Griffin.
Complain about this comment
Nick
DEBATE ON THE QUEENS SPEECH
This topic is now old hat - Gordon Brown seems to have got himself off the hook.
Battered and bruised and heading for certain defeat on points - the Prime Minister delivered a stunning knock out blow in the final minutes of the debate .
The announcement of a plan for helping those facing repossesion of their homes - took everyone by suprise. Yes, EVERYONE - including it appears those seated next to him on his own front bench. Just check out the video recording.
The usual smiles from the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer when such glad tidings are usually announced were missing. They were sitting glum faced - clearly they were not expecting it.
Gordons reward - it has made the headlines in all todays leading newspapers.
Now let's just hope he can deliver it.
Complain about this comment
81 micromj
When a group overthrows an existing govt, it either seizes the centre of broadcasting to control it or destroy it.
History is rewritten and children are taught what the govt prescribes.
The people are given bread and circuses to keep them happy.
Public assembly is outlawed.
The people are united in support of the govt against a common enemy, in this case terrorism.
The govt obtains additional powers to control the population through a force it pays for - police
The army, which could counteract the police is underfunded, under equipped and kept very busy fighting outside the country.
And in case anyone thinks of copying the Thais, the Queen's Speech mentioned additional security measures at airports.
Is anyone still happy?
Complain about this comment
# 193. My sentiments exactly. Timing is everything. What is it that has upset the government right now, what are they trying to hide? Or is this all just to check if we are awake whilst they take more of our freedoms?
Complain about this comment
27 derek & 86 balhamu
Why are you so interested in who's paying for the lawyer? Is this tomorrow's smokescreen? We'll see won't we.
Since person in question is young, probably has thousands in education loans to pay back and is now presumably unemployed, he may be eligible for whatever's left of the Legal Aid scheme after all this government's cutbacks.
Typical, create over 3,000 new laws and then make sure that very few can get help to pay for legal representation.
Complain about this comment
#206 You'd think so, especially as the duties and role of the Sergeant at Arms was scaled back when the new one was appointed. Surely his first question should have been, do they have a warrant?
Complain about this comment
#212
On your first question Pammy, It would suggest an underlying deep concern?
The said person! was aware of his actions
and a conservative activist?
Do you know what his civil service salary was?
Pammy how much will it cost for the representation of O'may?
Will the tory party give Mr Galley a job at the rate of his previous post or better?
Complain about this comment
if it is a principle that investigators must be left to carry out their investigations wherever they lead without interference, why was this principle abrogated in the BAe bribery investigation?- one rule for Saudi princes and another for MPs?
Complain about this comment
we note that GB only referred to a "potential" threat to national security and explicitly stopped short of saying there was a real threat to national security, which we all know there is not and was not. he was just hiding the fact that Home Office civil servants were using the Met as their own private attack dogs to protect their poodle Jacqui Smith threat to national security my left foot!
Complain about this comment
Given that Nick's blob entry is focused on the role of the Speaker and Serjeant at Arms in this affair, I thought I might try and stand up for them. In the Speakers statement, he said that the police did not give the Serjeant at Arms the appropriate guidence about her right to refuse consent for the search of Damian Green's office. Most people jumped on this saying that she should have been aware of the Parliamentary procedures and not need the police to guide her.
I'm not a lawyer, however, I think what the Speaker was referring to, is not specific Parliamentary procedure but rather the [B]Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code of Practice[/B], a code for all police in dealing with the majority of criminal investigations.
In Chapter B, which discusses issues relating to searches there is a section that reads,
[I]5 Search with consent
5.1 Subject to paragraph 5.4, if it is proposed to search premises with the consent of a person entitled to grant entry[/I] [B][presumably the Serjeant at Arms but this is not absolutely clear][/B] [I]the consent must, if practicable, be given in writing on the Notice of Powers and Rights before the search. The officer must make any necessary enquiries to be satisfied the person is in a position to give such consent.
5.2 Before seeking consent the officer in charge of the search shall state the purpose of the proposed search and its extent. This information must be as specific as possible, particularly regarding the articles or persons being sought and the parts of the premises to be searched.[/I] [B]The person concerned must be clearly informed they are not obliged to consent[/B] [I]and anything seized may be produced in evidence. If at the time the person is not suspected of an offence, the officer shall say this when stating the purpose of the search.[/I]
It would be good for the 'Notice of Powers and Rights' used in the search to be made available to MPs right away so they can see what information it contains and what is missing.
These codes are derived from the legislation and, as everyone keeps saying, nobody is above the law; that applies to MPs, ministers and the police.
Please note that I had to quote a version of the code, found on the Home Office website, that expired at the start of this year because the most recent version has mysteriously become corrupted and won?t open. Probably too many geeks like me trying to open it.
Complain about this comment
154 derek
"COMMIT A CRIME AND BECOME THE GOVERNMENT"
Spot on Derek, that's how Gordon did it, by the leaking which you call a crime. Have him arrested.
Complain about this comment
161 eurofever
Are you a vampire?
Sorry, couldn't resist that.
Complain about this comment
166 londonmarkie
"after trying to dissuade police from investigating in the first place"
I think you'll find he was trying to dissuade them from arresting, NOT investigating.
Complain about this comment
Tom Levitt a Labour back bencher got short shrift from Nick Ferrari on LBC this morning when he sugested that Damian Green was preventing the proper function of Government by systematically exposing embarrassing informaton through a series of systematic leaks. To use an annoying well worn phrase 'They just don't get it do they?' Back in the day Gordon Brown's nickname was 'Leak Central'. Okay for him but not Damian Green then! The information leaked was embarrasing but hardly a security risk. The fact that the Government were exposed on certain serious issues was in fact a security help.
Complain about this comment
Once again, you finish your piece by trying to deflect attention to Cameron. Nick, you've got to stop doing this - it is becoming very transparent.
I would say the point was not whether Cameron would be comfortable with leaks under his premiership. Surely more important is that Gordon Brown refused to say whether or not he felt the police needed a warrant before the search, or whether they would need on in the future.
Later in the day, Harriet Harman also refused to confirm the necessity for a warrant.
This is incredible, and it is obviously the government line that a warrant may not be necessary in the future - and this could easily happen again.
Please concentrate on the behaviour of those who have power.
Complain about this comment
Robinson, biased as ever, has to get a quick dig in at Cameron to try and deflect attention away from the Labour Party who are trampling roughshod over our freedom and liberty. This Government is consistently doing things that the majority of people in this country do not want. The BBC and Robinson are helping this along and should hang their heads in shame.
Complain about this comment
Hi all, this is my first posting so please be kind!
I remember reading about Watergate and someone said that the crime was not that bad, what destroyed Nixon was the cover up and lies.
The stupid thing about this is that if politicians had been more honest, it would never had blown up into this situation.
if Jackie Smith had said something like "Yes I was informed about this, but it is a police matter and as a politician I cannot interfer in ongoing investigaions" she would have been a lot safer than the situation she is in now, laying smoke screens and slicing words until they can mean anything.
The same with Harriet Harmen last night on newsnight. Again a politician answering he question that was not asked rather than the one that was and replying with endless blather to a question that only needs a yes or no.
Do they think is is clever? Are they not aware of the utter contempt that these supid verbal outpourings create in people's minds?
The police commander who sent his "lads" in without a warrant needs to be identified. That was sloppy policing. Even the most stupid hoodie knows to demand to see a warrant and our great leaders roll over!
Complain about this comment
162. balhamu
What law was broken? No inducements (of employment or otherwise) were offered or accepted.
If there was real evidence of criminality do you not think the police would have attempted to use that law, rather than an arcane law so far used only to prosecute police officers guilty of not-quite-appropriate conduct, or to harass and divert innocent journalists from a 3rd rate newspaper for 18months. (on an aside; why such a poxy newspaper? Could this be a fishing trip to test out this law to stop journalists in a manner deemed newsworth safe??)
"Grounds for suspicion" Don't make me laugh; do you want to add another qualifier to that? Spoke to civil servant = grounds for suspicion. Do you drive/cycle? If so I have grounds for suspicion that you have broken traffic laws. The point of needing a warrant to turn over your house to prove it is that appropriate judicial review of the evidence is required to grant one.
Can't you see that this is a sulky teenage catch-all police response to attempt to indicate improprietry where there was none when they got found out? So they went to a magistrate to get a warrant with these grounds? No? They would to raid you or I, so clearly this was because they would not get one.
I bet they couldn't believe their luck when the speaker and SaA rolled over and asked them to tickle their tummies.
Finally, you still haven't answered why Crash has not commented on this- at all!! Some of his leaks really were veeeery close to national security and yet you are silent. Given that he "occupies" the highest office in this country I would think that would be significantly more pressing to direct your energies to investigate that...
We can agree to disagree. the SaA will lose her job, the leader of the house refused to endorse Martin on natiaonal television last night. If it can be shown by the 'inquiry' that the cabinet office mislead police in stating the nature of the material going missing then they should be dealt with under perverting the course of justice. No charges will be laid to Green. Harassment operation of the opposition before an election? Complete SIR!
Finally (finally:) note how keen the ministers are to attempt to assert the independence of the police (albeit many years too late!) - who was it that stopped the SFO investigations into the Saudi-BAe affair? Which is it, independent, or not?
It's the hypocrisy that is so contemptable.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you are certainly consistent in your attacks on the Conservatives who are performing a great service to the public by opposing to this catastrophically failed and failing Government.
Your comments on the revelations regarding yesterday's statement by the Speaker should have solely concerned those principally responsible for this debacle. Those are the Sergeant-at-Arms Jill Pay, the police, and in particular the Speaker, Michael Martin himself.
Martin is ultimately responsible for the shocking revelation that the Police performed an unlawful search of Damien Green - unlawful because the Speaker said that the Police failed to advice Pay that she had the right to refuse access as required when they seek consensual access using the Notice of Powers and Rights (i.e. the of right to search) document. This demonstrates that he is unfit for this critical Parliamentary office and should resign.
Furthermore we had to endure Martin's despicable and shameful attempt to pass responsibility onto Pay, the Police and other officials. He outrageously sought to avoid responsibility by saying that he was not told that there was no warrant and did not think to ask ...
Given the above, to close your blog item with a cheap shot against Cameron demonstrates highly questionable judgement. Cameron and his party have made it clear that they would try to stop leaks. The repeated questions were sidestepped because they were futile attempts to deflect attention onto the Opposition. You have sadly, yet again, aided them in that endeavor.
Complain about this comment
Nick-Gordon Brown can hardly complain about these leaks, as leaks got him into power in the first place ; "live by the sword,.........."
Complain about this comment
Oh dear Oh dear Nick. It was all going so well until the last sentence. Can you just not help yourself? You spoilt a very good blog by trying to mitigate the situation and turning the attention back to David Cameron. Will you never learn?
Complain about this comment
Just joined- has anyone asked the Tories if they remember Sarah Tisdall or Clive Ponting?
Complain about this comment
Quote Nick: "Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
Well if he makes sure that his departments are run properly in the public's interest, then there would not be any politically embarrassing information to leak, would there?
What is worse? that an employee felt that he needed to expose wrong-doing and failure in the department that the public who pay for it all have a right to know how OUR money is spent on our behalf? Or that there was serious failings at the home office and the law was breached and ministers and the public put at risk by those serious failings?
As other's have said. If the department was run properly and efficiently and effectively by a competent Home Secretary and a competent team, where the priority was the public good, and not politically correct political targets, then there would be NO EMBARRASSING SECRETS to leak.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick
TIME FOR THE LEVELLERS OR DYKE BREAKERS TO COME FORTH,
THIS IS A HUGE COVER UP AND THE HEADS WHO ARE GOING TO ROLL ARE
JACKIE SMITH
THE SPEAKER
AND THE SERGEANT AT ARMS,
THE SWORDS ARE OUT.--- WHERE BE WALSINGHAM/
Complain about this comment
"2. The Acting Commissionaire said the investigation potentially INVOLVES NATIONAL SECURITY!"
Well, yes, there is presumably some information of national security somewhere in the Home Office so a leak investigation there could potentially involve it. It doesn't mean there's any actual evidence or suspicion that any leak of such information was involved here or that any breach of the official secrets act is suspected.
It's a bit like saying an enquiry into Gordon Brown's leaking of Budget information could potential involve national security so we should send the heavy squad round to numbers 10 and 11.
In fact, why don't we do just that? It's "national security" you know!
Complain about this comment
Nick
How about getting answers to three big questions:
Who first suggested that this was a national security issue?
Why did they think it was a national security issue?
Is there currently any suggestion that it is a national security issue?
-
Given the answers you got to the mandleson/oleg/eu-tarrif discussions I don't hold out much hope for you getting (or even trying to get) answers to these basic questions - but who knows, maybe you will surprise me.
Complain about this comment
#219
It was interesting to note the Conservatives chose Michael Howard to lead out, though...
A relevant fact not really brought out here is that Michael Martin has of late been responsible for a significant reorganisation of the functions of the Serjeant of Arms. His responsibility is not therefore a circumstantial lacuna, but a direct one, for dismantling structures which worked for centuries. Surely other Parliamentary authorities should have been involved as well, or was this the act of a single well-meaning, if not thoroughly competent, individual? Does anybody know?
As regards the relative merits of the Conservative Party, I personally remain unconvinced that they will do much better either. There's still too much of the Bullingdon about them, prefering well-meaning buffers over competence and experience.
Perhaps I'll end up with the Monster Raving Loonies, as the only party with the honesty to name the political system as it now stands accurately.
Complain about this comment
Why has no one asked the question, if there is a connection between, Ian Blair leaving office and a few days later the police investigating the Tory MP David Green?
Complain about this comment
I think it is worth noting that it was already known that no warrent was used to raid parliament.
When interviewed by borises boys, the big cheese said "warrents were issued for (blah), (blah), a diferent proceedure was used for the house of commons".
Also, the speaker originally said "there is a proceedure and that proceedure was followed".
What seems to have gone wrong is:-
The Sgt @ Arms is only responsible for the security of the Chamber - this does not include the MPs offices (speaker martin make it so when the current Sgt @ Arms was recruited), this does not give her authority to give consent to search MPs offices !!
So the police consent form is invalid unless the speaker gave the Sgt @ Arms authority to sign it on his behalf !
Further as the Sgt @ Arms was not told that she could refuse, or insist on a warrant it would be invalid even if she did have martins authorisation!
On top of this newsnight said that the police were given access to the House of Commons main computer system -- so giving them access to every single MPs email !!
Everyone in the country who has raised matters with their MP should be worried.
p.s. Nick can you add to your original comment, Camerons reply to the question you imply was left open...
Complain about this comment
The FT is not usually a supporter of the government (?!!) but the below is worth reading:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3b96baf2-c1a3-11dd-831e-000077b07658.html
Complain about this comment
This is looking more and more like a Labour stitch-up.
t's not hard to imagine a senior Labour minister, frustrated at information getting out, asking "Who will rid me of this troublesome leak?" and matters getting out of hand from there, with everyone saying "Not me, guv."
Complain about this comment
Nick, it seems pretty obvious now that both the Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms should both resign for not performing one of the major elements of their duties.
It also shows that we all need protection from the police, who will try and get away with whatever they can if left to their own devices.
By the way, did Damian Green have his DNA taken when arrested?
Complain about this comment
"This is a disgrace and we should all question whether or not a Party that will willingly indulge in such an act can be trusted with anything. This wasn't somebody standing up and revealing information as a matter of conscience, it was systematic, long term espionage."
If you have any evidence for that serious charge, then you aught to present it to the police, as clearly they have no evidence to support that charge. People would have been charged by now if they did.
And is it not a dark and tawdry admission that the only way to secure truthful information that we as tax-payers and voters have a right to know, because of honest and decent people leaking it?
If the current Government was fit for purpose, then all the information placed into the public domain by these leaks, would have been published by the government. Democracy is in a very sorry state indeed when even Opposition Ministers, let alone the public, cannot get access to accurate or honest information from the government without having to resort to leaks.
We are not talking about great secrets of state here, Official secrets or National Security. (despite the fig-leaf of an excuse raised by Brown Yesterday) But the embarrassing information relating to serious government failures of a kind we all have a right to know about. It is OUR money that pays for them and our votes that put the labour party in power. We have a RIGHT TO KNOW.
IF any Official Secrets have been lost by the home office, (and that would NOT surprise me), relating to national security, then that raises two further points.
1. It shows that these Official Secrets have NOT been divulged to the public, so the tories have done nothing wrong.
2. It shows a serious, criminal neglect by the home office to lose sensitive information.
Well their incompetence has meant that they have lost most of the private and personal information relating to the majority of tax payers in this country, when they lost discs containing the personal financial details of every recipient of Child Benefit. (and countless other examples since) why should official secrets be any different to this incompetent bunch of idiots. IF official secrets were leaked, it makes a change from them being left on a train!!!
And Derek Barker thinks the tories are bad?
This is an avoidable constitutional crisis caused by labour's incompetence in employing illegal aliens in security positions, then compounded by them not being honest about it and trying to cover it up, then compounded further by their inability to secure their staff, compounded further by the other alleged official secrets being lost leading to a police inquiry, then compounded further still by their inability to even ask for a warrant from the police thus their committing a contempt of Parliament, (a serious criminal offence) and then compounded further by their panicking into lying about who knew what, when and then reverting to smear and innuendo against the tories for them merely DOING THEIR JOB.
Somebody has to look out for the interests of the British people because Labour are not doing that!
All in all this is a long and painful catalogue of total and complete FAILURE on a massive scale by Labour at many many levels. How can anyone even attempt to defend it?
Complain about this comment
Palebrain Politicians speak with forked tongue!
Complain about this comment
#237 bluntjeremy
Great article from a hitherto Labour leaning paper.
A pity that Nick didn't pick up on Cameron's reference to the Brownite tactic of erecting strawmen to knock down.
He's been suckered (again) into referencing the Labour spin on the event in his last paragraph.
No Government likes spin - but it is the only vehicle available in our archaic system to hold the Government of the day to account.
Brown used it to great effect.
Roll on something closer to the US system when spinners will join the ranks of the increasing unemployed.
Nick - this is about plod rifling through confidential records without cause and without a warrant.
And anyone on here who believes that chief plod would have sanctioned this without high level political cover is ......
Complain about this comment
Where does all this leave the government? Very happy I think. All the heat is on the Martin, Pay and the police.
Meanwhile Brown can be content that he has terrorised anyone holding embarassing facts about the government into silence.
If the Conservatives want to move this forward they should draw up proposals for more accountability and open government. Who on here is comfortable with the fact that the only way we get to hear about things like 5000 illegal immigrants working as security guards and another working in the house of commons is when somebody breaks his terms of employment?
Complain about this comment
Once again you finish your blog(and also your TV report) with the inevitable dig, jibe, barb or whatever against DC and the tory party.
When o when are you going to realise that the people whopay for your salary are looking for an unbiased level of reporting, instead of being subservient to Mandelbell, Brown Smith. As for Martin, not even close to the formidable BB, she would never have allowed this.
Fellow bloggers, Is there a blog within the BBC, where one can openly complain about the standerd of this political reporter(and perhaps get a response!)
I am not a tory fanatic, but this regime is dragging this country down and down and down
Complain about this comment
@239
Everyone who is arrested has their DNA taken and permanently stored on the national database regardless of whether any charges are brought or a conviction is secured.
Another wonderful example of what a free and fair society we live in.
Complain about this comment
The average MP has probably got quite a lot of confidential correspondence which shouldn't get into the public domain.
Tha average government department has got a great deal more confidential correspondence which shouldn't get into the public domain.
Lets have some balance here, you journalists. I, and lots of the public care a lot more about civil servants giving out confidential data to irresponsible reporters than we do about parliamentary officials allowing access to confidential data to responsible policemen.
The story here should be about an untrustworthy civil servant. Because of the unhealthy relationship between political journalists and illegal leaks, instead you report on high and mighty constitutional principles miles away from the real story.
Complain about this comment
When asked when it was decided to cover up Watergate, Niixon is supposed to have said that not organising a cover-up was never even discussed.
This, updated for the age of spin and media training, is the political mindset we have in Government today.
When asked a question the immediate instinct is to avoid it, try to divert it onto someone else, make a mini-speech on something different ("getting your point across") or all the above.
Gordon Brown, Baron Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy, Jack Straw, Jacqui Smith and others have become so good at it that perhaps they don't even realise they're doing it. Tory spokesmen do likewise, but not to the same cynical extent.
I suspect they have all had too much media training - it's a huge industry, as I know from personal experience.
Complain about this comment
Wow nick, I sincerely hope you are going to be as massively biased towards the conservative govenment when they get in.
Complain about this comment
Cassius views yesterday from Plato's perspective:-
http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/12/gordons-noble-lie.html
"Does Gordon Brown believe that he is better than those around him? That, "made of a different metal", as Plato had it - he has a special purpose to do what he knows is right for the good of society. That much is easy - of course he does. He is our Moses - and on that basis he demands that we trust him and his allies even to deciding whether an opposition MP should be deprived of his freedom after embarrassing the government."
Complain about this comment
I have set my "bear of very little brain" at his highest setting and whilst not thinking of "honey" have decided the whole species of politicians are very very unpleasant.
Margaret Beckett said it herself in a way by suggesting that scapegoats were being sought to blame everything on and what Harriet Harman - a lawyer in a previous life I hear - lol - was doing in her Newsnight gig - I have no idea.
The Speaker was left in a terrible position and was physically shaking when he read out that Statement and no matter what has gone on he has my sympathy at least. Pity that the vicious occupants of the various Commons benches seem so self serving they could barely string a similiar view together between the lot of them. One of understanding.
The Sergeant at Arms too is no matter what happens going to be cleared as far as I am concerned and I still know nothing.
So Scotland Yard and the CPS? They according to my newspaper cannot even agree who authorised the arrest of Damian Green? Say what? And then the police took legal advice on how to deal with the situation. Legal advice? lol
There members of the Jury - you have it. The legal advice was - allegedly - worthless or deliberately mischievous perhaps because - guess what?
Outrage at whether the police were legally entitled to enter the House and do what they did? Access to the best legal minds not already MPs?
But even with that option the Met went where? For this legal advice? Does it come from Joe Bodgitt of the legal practice Cockup and Sons of Happenstance perhaps?
Yup. All politicians are fast becoming in danger of disappearing up their own fundamental orifices. Which on reflection is very apt.
Complain about this comment
#246
Great alias - wish I'd thought of it
Can't remember whether the name field is character restricted. If not, perhaps you should change it to trustmeimabbcjournalistwhoneedstokeepinwithmandytogetthescoopsandkeepthelicencefee
Complain about this comment
When I came home last night, I found my door kicked in, and someone in my room putting my valuables into a bag. Many of my valuables had already gone - my TV was missing, and my laptop.
I managed to restrain this person while I called the police.
The police spoke to this person, who swears that they only broke into my house because it was on fire and that it was in the public interest to try and investigate further.
The police took them to the police station, where their lawyer assured the police that their client had done nothing wrong.
The police said that, as any crime had been denied by the suspect, they were going to stop the investigation. After all, someone suspected of a crime wouldn't lie to cover their back now would they? A denial means they don't have to investigate the crime.
I still don't have my TV, and sensitive files concerning my business that were stored on my laptop appear to have been used by a rival business owned by the father of the person who was in my house to discredit my business, and have stolen the idea of a new product I was planning to use and copyrighted the idea.
But the police refuse to investigate. The suspect denied it so clearly no wrong-doing has been done. They say it looks a bit fishy to them, but there must be a rational and innocent investigation, and there is no point them trying to look for evidence to shed any light on the incident.
Complain about this comment
Mr Speaker Martin's statement was despicable.
He has managed to trample the diginity of his office into the dirt.
If he doesn't resign he should be sacked and his sergeant reduced to the ranks.
The police were trying it on. All that had to be done was to politely remind them of Parliamentary Privilege. I would have been more than happy to do that job for them for a small fee and expenses if they had not the kidney.
Now we are into all the nonsense of warrants, legalities and who said what to whom.
It is a mess. The Speaker is responsible. He resigns.
It is not that he can't afford to.
Complain about this comment
Nick, you said that Brown would pull a rabbit out of a hat yesterday and he did with the two year deferment of 'some' interest on home loans. Well the rabbit out of a hat analogy is a good one. After all Brown's announcements tend to be just as much sleight of hand signifying a trick just as much as any stage magician.
Complain about this comment
Finally, I get it.
In a blog about something really, genuinely important (the independence of Parliament, a fundamental, central plank of democracy in this country), Nick slips a bit in about David Cameron.
I read the blog and get to the final sentence. My antennae begin to twitch ? good old BBC bias again. I am all set to grumble about it when the scales suddenly fall from my eyes. Oh, how stupid I?ve been!
The last sentence is SO out of place, SO silly and smells so much of bias that the truth must be that Nick is playing with us.
I wonder if there are bets being taken ? which regular poster will say what? How many times will the word ?bias? appear? Is there a bet on who will first rumble the game? If so, can I have a share of the prize?
At least, I hope it is that. Otherwise, I?m afraid this blog has forfeited the right to be taken seriously. Seriously. And no, I?m still not in the pay of the Conservative Party. Guess what ? Black Rod, symbolism and all, is about the independence of Parliament. No MP is above the law sure, but we are talking about the leaking of embarrassing stuff, not nuclear secrets. So there is no need to arrest anyone, nor have their offices and homes searched. Simple as that. The Speaker should have protected Parliament. That is what he is for.
PS I suspect that Cameron would hate having loads of leaks, but hey ? its things like that which keep all Governments honest.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
In my humble opinion, this whole story has not been mishandled. Instead, I believe that it has been the creation of Mandleson. It is in his interests to set a hare running and to ensure that when the 'investigation' comes to its natural end, no one can pin it on a Minister.
So far, we have Smith shrugging her shoulders and claiming it had nothing to do with her as the police are independent. Martin claims it wasn't me guv, because he was not asked about the possibility of consent for a search. The police claim that they have to follow through on any crime. So no one is to blame.
However, Smith and her uncivil servants set the ball rolling knowing the path that it would be likely to take. Apparently, Martin had advance notice of the search but did nothing. The police were heavy handed in the extreme. This is the same Police force that offered to meet with the PM whenever it was convenient to him, with the sound of the office shredder almost drowning out their conversation no doubt.
So despite the apparent misunderstandings, and lack of communication, etc, I believe that the guiding hand of Mandelson is evident throughout. Can we assume that he will be interviewed as a witness, or will he merely stand on the sidelines fanning the flames?
All the best
Complain about this comment
#248 jamesbowyer
Every blog Nick writes he is accused of being in the pocket of Campbell and Mandelson.
As a former leader of the Young Conservatives, and as a professional with a strong commitment to neutrality, this must sting.
He's fallen into the trap of paying attention to this blog as an indication of how well he's fulfilling his duties in his job.
Astroturfing and sockpuppeting works!
Complain about this comment
I don't want to change my username but, for the forseeable future, I will start all new blog comments with . . . SOBCOZOFNULABOUR
SOB, SOB, SOB !
Despair, despair, despair !,
I'm confident my dead grandfather feels proud to have laid down his life in WW2 for the cause of democracy and free speech.
Complain about this comment
balhamu wrote:
The question put to David Cameron is about the only pertinent one being put.
If he would not be happy with a Labour activist infiltrating his private office when he is PM and then breaking the law by systematically leaking every single document they come across and with a senior Labour minister encouraging it, why is he so apoplectic with rage about this incident?
You and I have very different definitions of the word "pertinent", in fact out of all the questions I think the one to Cameron is the one that is the least relevant to the issue in hand. For the record I understand the word to mean "directly and significantly related" - the question asked to Cameron is neither.
There are dozens of questions that need to be asked of the Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms including the important one of why they allowed the police to search the offices without a warrant.
And yet you ignore those questions and consider the question most relevant to the issue is the one posed to David Cameron (who has NO direct involvement in the issue) about how he would feel about leaks if he was PM?
I would expect that David Cameron would have major problems with leaks from government departments if he was PM - most PMs would, it shows the Government is failing the people (if the Government was perfect there would be nothing to leak) however, this is not Gordon Brown complaining about the leaks (which would be a direct comparison with David Cameron being asked about leaks if he was PM)
This is about a shadow minister being arrested as a result of receiving leaked documents, and the ex-Labour speaker allowing the search of the shadow ministers office in the house to be searched without a warrant!
Complain about this comment
252. balhamu wrote:
When I came home last night
...
Err and everything else in your comment happened since last night?
Are you sure?
Complain about this comment
balhamu wrote:
I thought a wise council of Opposition members had the final say over what is and isn't in the public interest (e.g. it's in the public interest for the Opposition to steal policies from the Government through advance leaking by sympathisers, pass them off as their own and criticise the Government for copying them).
I am guessing that you have proof for that? Or is it just blind faith in the government?
The strange thing is that the government borrow policies from the Lib Dems as well - so they must also be getting leaks.
Another strange thing is that the plans from the Tories and Lib Dems seem to be costed and detailed while the Labour "originals" seem to have the impression of rushed together - you would really think it is the other way around.
Maybe next time the Labour party come up with ideas they should send a copy to a trusted source fully dated and postmarked and they can provide evidence that they came up with the idea first.
Complain about this comment
Nick is now just a client journalist. Even when he writes a piece that on the face of it appears to attack the Government he makes sure he gets in a dig at the Tories.
Complain about this comment
I did some work years ago where I had access to raw data that would move markets and be worth a lot of money to the right person in the City. It's possible that when combined with other data its release could breach the Data Protection Act. It's also incredibly dull stuff and, I recall, a Tory MP throwing a fit over the data retention need and costs of the much more condensed statistical reports only a couple of years ago. I'm not aware that the minister had access to or any interest in the raw data, but a number of MP's used the parliamentary questions mechanism to ask questions and get answers.
Is there a case to keep this data secret? Yes, there are genuine privacy and cost concerns. Is there a case to publish everything? Yes, some extra added value could be generated by more eyeballs. Whatever you do there's advantages and disadvantages.
One of the more prominent Tories who's made a comment about the Green affair was, if I recall, a minister of that department at the time under the old Tory regime. One thing that did leap out from the data I had access to was something iffy that connected with a later media story about fraud. None of the statisticians were interested in it at the time and the fraud story went away after the whiff of whitewash. I guess, it's possible this Tory cabinet minister was complicit in fraud to further a political programme. You couldn't miss the anomaly but senior statisticians were very, very uninterested in it. (Genuine mistake, or acting under orders?) Would the Tories like to encourage me to spill the beans or stay quiet?
* There's nothing in this post which isn't already in the public domain, or can't be inferred from information already in the public domain.
* This is another Tory minister, not the one where a leak could've revealed them grossly misleading parliament.
Complain about this comment
From where we stand here in the sticks, in beautiful Devon, this is just one more Westminster bubble story. The sight of Nick Robinson foaming at the mouth and becoming even more goggle-eyed than normal, talking up the importance of this story, is a sure sign of the institutionalisation people like him suffer from.
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one who feels sorry for the Speaker. A little biased man out of his depth and surrounded by yes men and women.
In any other field he would have resigned except politics where there is no honour any more.
Complain about this comment
Comment 236 puts an interesting slant on the whole sorry incident.
The real question is not whether MP's should call for the Speaker to resign, but, that the Speaker should take an honest view of his performance as Speaker of the Palace of Westminster and ask himself if he is up to the job?
On the basis of his assessment he should consider what to do.
Complain about this comment
#182 balhamu
I agree we don't know the full fact of the Brown case - or those of the Green case. for that matter despite your seemingly definitive averments. So far the allegations you make haven't even been brought as charges, let alone resulted in convictions.
I agree that Cameron should put such a question to Brown at PMQ but with a supplementary asking who was/were Brown's mole/moles, what were his/her/their political affiliations and what was their career path after Labour came to power.
In reality, neither party will push this too deep. Both have taken advantage of leaks in the past when in opposition and both will want to be free to do so in future.
What distingiushes this case from past cases is not the behaviour of the parties in terms of leaks but the action taken by the police.
Complain about this comment
Would the Sergeant at Arms have let in anyone dressed as policemen with no official authorisation?
What does this say about the shambolic security at the Houses of Parliament - surely there are backup measures to protect our parliamentarians. It has to be said that this falls firmly under the control of Jacqui Smith ultimately and this buck passing down the tree does not wash - they will be blaming the cleaners and community police wardens soon.
It is an unedifying spectacle to see no-one willing to take responsibility.
With regard to Nick's last paragraph, this has been an ongoing problem for both Labour and Tory administrations, the civil servants should act professionally. It would not appear that the information leaked served any great national interest and was more designed to cause embarrassment.
I know all sides do it but it does not make it right.
Complain about this comment
A momentous day indeed but the defining moment of the next generation of politics came at around 4.15pm.
Having been hung drawn and quartered by John Reid and Stephen Pound during his speech,Cameron and his sidekick Osborne were gleefully encouraging Tories to give Gordon Brown some of the same treatment,with continual interruptions of his speech.
Brown was never going to give them what they wanted,indeed NO Prime MINISTER in history would have ventured a straight answer to the warrant question - in the same way that Cameron was unable to answer directly what he would do if he were the other side of the despatch box.
At 415pm the cameras honed in on Osborne as he gleefully turned and encouraged another interruption which dutifully arrived-moments later,refusing to be interrupted - REAL POLITICS RETURNED - Brown,changing but not breaking the convention of the Queens Speech hit with the deadliest of uppercuts to the core of the nations fears-a plan to effectively ringfence the properties for up to 2 years of those disadvantaged in the current global credit crunch!
The Tory benches sat in disquiet - the Lib dems gleeful that another Cable policy had been poached waved their order papers in encouragement - the camera panned to Cameron and Osborne - Cameron sat bemused like a rabbit caught in the headlamps,Osborne 9whilst he may have been scribbling notes) appear to be sat with his head in his hands!...
Of course the post speech interviews from Osborne tried to put a brave face on the fact that the Tories had been totally outflanked,of course the always reliable Daisy McAndrew gave an apoplectic bashing in the most disgraceful abuse of journalisitc licence I have ever witnessed on ITN - BUT when the dust settled later in the evening REAL POLITICS had returned-and the realisation on the Tory backbenches turned again to the juveniles leading them- the juveniles who had foolishly allowed footage of the previous nights shdow cabinet meeting to be filmed with Grieve and Cameron seen mockingly and triumphantly making capital out of the biggest "non-story" in decades....
The Tories are now realising that constitutional issues,Speaker issues are of NO INTEREST to the CORE electorate-MP's being arrested with or without warrants simply makes the public think "heyho about time they were bought to task" and the facts remains...
THE ELECTORATE - are passionate about their homes,their jobs,their families,the OLD,the sick - those that Brown is seeking to help-whilst accross the divide the Tories play the political equivalent of charades!
Wednesday 3rd December 2008 - the day CAMERON and his cronies LOST the next General Election!
Complain about this comment
balhamu wrote:
When I came home last night, I found my door kicked in, and someone in my room putting my valuables into a bag. Many of my valuables had already gone - my TV was missing, and my laptop.
I managed to restrain this person while I called the police.
You are lucky that you weren't arrested for assault on the poor person who felt that his only option in life was crime because of his lack of chances in life to make something better for himself.
Or maybe this didn't happen and you are using a very flawed analogy.
A better analogy would be that the thief was only nicking your stuff because his only stuff was nicked by another thief previously (before getting elected in 1997 the Labour party also benefitted from leaks from government departments).
All the typical Labour bloggers seem to think that leaks from government department started since Labour came into power but they have been going on for decades. The only reason this is a story is because a senior shadow minister was arrested.
When New Labour get kicked out the party replacing them will also face leaks from within their departments.
Complain about this comment
#252
When I came home last night, I found my door kicked in, and someone in my room putting my valuables into a bag. Many of my valuables had already gone - my TV was missing, and my laptop.
That was the anti-terror police searching your house and impounding the 'evidence' on an anonymous tip-off.
I bet they didn't have a warrant either.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Next time you see DG could you ask him if he is happy that his fingerprints and DNA are now on record for all time if no further action is taken against him. Or whether he agrees with the case pending at the European Court asking that such data is deleted.
Complain about this comment
I understand management and communication, organisations, and campaigning. I've read most of the relevant media, and the whole thing has struck me as fairly trivial in spite of the best efforts of legions of keyboard warriors to generate chaff and fan flames.
There isn't a single person posting here who hasn't made mistakes or experienced difficulties in their life. Government is no different and bound to make a few errors and bloat a few costs. But, there's a line between substance and mere political advantage.
Frame what I've read, the Tories have no better alternative to the FOI, and got caught in a classic case of industrial espionage. There's no "OMFG!!! product fault teh enginez gonna explode" in here, just gossip to fuel a propoganda war.
Cameron's personality type doesn't naturally lean towards strategic thinking but more towards gossip. This isn't just a failure of judgement it's a gross failure of character, and his type tend to make very poor executives. Teh numberz sez so.
There's already been rumblings in the Tory party about how the Bullingdon crowd elbowed their way to the top, and a whiff of "grey hairs" telling him what to do behind the scenes. This is less about whether his aspirations to be PM will be fulfilled but whether he'll have a job after the next election.
Complain about this comment
If we were like Thailand Heathrow would be closed!!
Am I missing something or are not people just too laid back about this erosion of the great and historic democracy we have (had?) in this country?
Why aren't masses of people really, really angry about this?
Complain about this comment
Nick, I always suspected that you were biased towards Labour, but that last paragaraph is proof positive you are. It didn't have to be there. Every prime minister hates leaks so why the cheap jibe? Its the way you deal with them thats the issue at hand.
You should be unbiased and impartial in your reporting and of late, you have been neither.
As for Speaker Martin, he should resign. He comes out of this looking incompetant. Letting the Police into parliament and giving them free reign to take documents and equipment for evidence without a warrant is just incomprehensible. If he doesn't do the honourable thing, them he should be voted out.
Jacqui Smith has lots of questions to answer too, but you seem blithely unaware or unwilling to report the awkward position she finds herself in.
There is incompetance at all levels of this affair. Individuals look out of their depth, unprofessional or at best untrained for their role. There have been many instances of this: soldiers sent to Iraq and Afghanistan without proper equipment being just one example, but an example where lives were lost. How bad does it have to be and how many lives have to be lost before a vote of no confidence in this shoddy, amateur government is made?
Complain about this comment
# 269.
Nope.
Complain about this comment
#269 GAD
Funny how two people can watch the same programs and come to opposite conclusions.
Guess it proves that politics is an art form rather than a science.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If Gordon had any he should start afresh and get rid of the whole lot:The Speaker and his assistants, the police in charge and his home secretary too( she is becoming an embarrassment to the whole cabinet).
If he does not act quickly Peter the Snake ( the real PM !!!)will do it for him!!!
Must be tough for poor Peter not to be able to mix too much with his rich friends and to have to buy his own drinks !!
Complain about this comment
It was I believe The Conservatives in 1989 who decriminalised the leaking of 'sensitive' information. This clearly identified that such leaks were a disciplinary matter, not ones for the law.
Using an 'obscure' common law to bring them back into the orbit of the criminal law is a disgrace and the sooner the PM regains some credibility by denouncing it, the sooner we can get back to saving the World!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What a silly last comment, no Government likes leaks, but they should have more sense than to send the police in to sort out a political problem.
Brown in Parliament yesterday looked rattled and frankly not up to the job and the only reason he could not answer the repeated questions put him about Damian Green is because hes involved in this up to his neck. Then we get the new announcement about morgages to try to nick the headlines from the Damian Green story, when the Banks had not even signed up to it yet, Brown really is running to type.
The speaker is a total idiot, something we have known for a very long time and needs to go. The police as I have said for a very long time need reform and some of the top ones need to go, along with the awful Jackie Smith, otherwise we are sleep walking into a police state.
The Government is being run like a pantomine and would be funny if our once great country was not being destroyed in the process.
Complain about this comment
This is a huge issue, the like of which has not been seen in Parliament before. No precedent. Anybody on here who trivialises it is a plonker who has a problem because they are in an even deeper black hole.
There are people on here who planted themselves just to post ess aitch one tee on behalf of the Brown bloke. Does he pay you both? Crikey he must be desperate. No wonder he bites his nails and picks his nose!
Jill Pay is new the the post and a woman (not that should make any difference but we are not identical to men just equal) and on a learning curve. HOWEVER, she should be aware, as should the Hon. Speaker, of her principle accountabilities and remit in her highly responsible and priveleged role on behalf of us BRITISH CITIZENS who put them there - albeit via the Labour shower (not me personally I wasn't so stupid as to vote them in and had I in fact done so I would be livid at the way Brown has sidled himself into such a position of power and is now trying to change the world).
Britian tries to save the world but can't save itself? We have got to now.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile Halifax has house prices off by another 2.6% from last month. Houses have declined over 18% from their max in Aug 2007.
Apparently they are now at the same price as mid 2005. Anybody who bought in the last 3.5 years is in negative equity and all this on the watch of somebody who, in 1997, promised there'd be no more boom and bust and that there would particularly be no housing boom/crash.
All the yanks fault though.
And what is Brown's policy response to this necessary readjustment to sane levels? Cut interest rates, apply pressure to banks to maintain borrowing at 2007 levels, announce mortgage holidays he's allegedly agreed with the banks (who are apparently all giving it WTF this morning - oh no we didn't).
Still, got that embarrassing thing about Speaker Martin and his halting 'statement' off the news.
Par for the course.
Hide the facts. Control the narrative. Carry on regardless.
Complain about this comment
Talk about David Cameron's personality and character shall we - he is the most together person I know (of!) and if anybody needs counselling, zen, buddism or other opt out therapies then it is the nose picking nail biter with a control addiction.
David Cameron is a forthright, strong, responsible person and will make an excellent Prime Minister. You know it, we all know it.
Complain about this comment
The Pound just hit new lows ag the Euro .
Go on Nick tell us what novice boy Osborne has said to send the currency crashing !!
Or perhaps the markets are really getting scare of the Brown stuff !!
Complain about this comment
Tories! - you need to understand that it's not Nick or the BBC who are biased - it's you lot (and me admittedly). You sound like Alex Ferguson blaming the ref all the time. As the Bible says:
"You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye."
Complain about this comment
Because they're not stupid?
I'll add a follow up to may last two posts (#263, 273):
Any organisation generates error. What degree a minister is responsible for or how guilty they are of covering up is a thing for proper discussion. But, a lot of error is just the price of existing and many errors get picked up by other mechanisms in the system. The two leakworthy examples I've given from personal experience reflect that.
It's easy to make claims (we could do better and YOU'RE TEH SUCK) but execution is hard and there's always someone after a slice of your ass. A lot of politicans, like businessmen, are driven to go into it because they think they can do better and, sometimes, they get sucked into things they probably shouldn't.
I don't want to be particularly judgemental or wag fingers as I'm no big fan of arguing or badmouthing (though I can do both just as well or better than some if I wanted to), but the question of what does this teach YOU and how would YOU feel about things is a fair question. And somewhere in there is the difference between civilisation and barbarism.
Complain about this comment
Ref #219
Yes pammy, I became one when I joined Nulab
Complain about this comment
I have just realised - Nick is pulling all our tails..
And having great fun doing it!
Just what we need in this present gloom.
Good for him.
Complain about this comment
#285 Flame
Thank Heavens for Tories like you. The nasty party lives on! More years in opposition beckon I'm afraid - hee hee
Complain about this comment
283 - I totally agree with you - The DG affair is a "huge issue"...
It is a HUGE issue in and around Westminster,it is a huge issue on blogs and politically based sites like this..
I am sorry to disappoint you though,in Offices,in Shops,on Busses,on Trains,in Schools,in Hospitals,in Churches,on the Terraces....IT IS A NON EVENT!
The vast majority of the electorate- people who have ONE vote - the SAME as you and I- frankly either dont give a damn or actually enjoy seeing an MP embarassed- most dont care if he is Labour/Tory/Lib Dem - some will make capital out of the fact he is a Tory...
The vast majority just dont understand constitutional affairs or the importance of an incompetent man sat in the Big Chair dressed in a wig and 17th century clothes calling "order order"...
It simply DOES NOT show up on the Political Richter scale...
Cameron goaded by the more idiotic fringes of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are making a grave mistake imho of taking their eye off the ball - totally outflanked yesterday by Brown - the public want reassurance about their homes,their jobs,their financial security - they really do not care one iota what happens to Damian Green.
This is a goldfish bowl issue - and every day that it is perpetuated will be another day that Mandelson and Campbell will be rubbing their hands with glee!
The next target will be Boris Johnson - who has foolishly now confirmed he contacted Green and has made comments like "it will never get to Court"....
This will I have no doubt in the next few hours be spun a different way - whilst Brown appears to be getting on with managing the Country and further soothing the fears of the ELECTORATE!...
Thats my hunch - I may be off-beam - I dont think I am..
time will tell!
Complain about this comment
#287
Tories! - you need to understand that it's not Nick or the BBC who are biased - it's you lot (and me admittedly). You sound like Alex Ferguson blaming the ref all the time. As the Bible says:
"You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye."
Thanks for that advice. I have removed the beam from my eye but astonishingly it still appears that we've had a Labour government for the last decade. I can only conclude that when things go wrong on their shift that they should be held responsible.
I mean it wasn't hard was it? All they had to do was not wreck the economy and not get involved in Iraq.
Simple enough you would think.
But no. Obviously not.
I'm afraid I have to repeat myself here.
It would have been easier to get this right. They had to really go out of their way to screw things up.
But, by Christ, they went that extra mile all right.
In fact they're still going. Over the hills and far away... (tellitubbies come to play).
Complain about this comment
Just seen that the ECHR have ruled in favour of the two men who argued that it is illegal to hold their DNA as they have not been convicted of any crime.
The Government's view on this is frankly astounding, if the BBC have reported it accurately:
"The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime."
Sounds like the PC in Not the Nine o'Clock News: "He's a villain, Sarge!"
And arresting Damian Green was a "proportionate response to tackling crime" too, I suppose?
On the basis of this argument, the government could also argue that, since all men are potential rapists, it would be a "proportionate response to tackling crime" if all males should have their DNA taken when they reach 16.
Maybe we'll all end up with microchips in our necks so the authorities know where we are, as a "proportionate response to tackling crime". Far fetched, maybe, but how far would politicians and police go in pursuing a "proportionate response to tackling crime"?
I'd be interested to know how Derekbarker and balhamu defend government policy on this one!
Complain about this comment
285 - I have never seen a politician less capable of being a Prime Minister to be brutally honest.
He may well be a thoroughly nice bloke,a family man,with no vices - that does NOT make an effective Politician.
To me he is inexperienced politically and in life and the understanding of the majority of the people,he is too easily led and has a propensity to throw his toys out of the pram when he does not get his own way!.
David Davis would have made a far better potential Prime Minister - a man of experience,integrity,intellegenceand of the people.
I cant and wont attack Camerons charachter as I have never met him - but history shows us "nice guys" dont make great leaders!
Complain about this comment
#261 Mark
And I guess *you know* the opposite is true without an investigation?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The men's information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offence.
That should please DG especially as he had his taken under false pretences
Complain about this comment
#287 laughatthetories
"You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye."
Careful laughatthe tories. People might thing your aiming this at previous leak users like, say, Labour and Gordon Brown.
Granted, it could be applied equally to past protesters against leaks - like, say, the Tories.
The distinguishing feature here isn't the parties wrestling to occupy the moral high ground - that's politcal business as usual. It is the action of the police and those who instigated or enabled it.
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
hmmm. How about the questions which labour haven't answered, Nick? I think that's more important seeing as they're the ones in power and they're the ones who dropped the ball.
ie why did Smith/Brown/Martin not ask/know anything at all about the details of the illegal storming of Parliament by the police?
ie paraphrased, martin said:
"They didn't have a warrant, I couldn't be bothered to ask about that, or about what the storming was for, I just assumed they had a warrant/reason so I let them in."
paraphrased, smith said:
"I had no idea what the arrest was all about, despite the arrest being related to leaks in my own department and an investigation which my department had asked the police to look into."
paraphrased, Brown said:
"I knew nothing about anything. It's none of my business that parliament got stormed, despite my being the Prime Minister. It's just a police thing. Don't worry, it'll all come out in the wash. I wasn't there, I don't know anything, I am the invisible man."
the police response seems to be along the lines of:
"Didn't have a warrant. Don't care. Just thought we'd go in anyway. After all, it was only a tory and we wanted to stick our fingers up at them because of what boris did to our mate Ian"
These are truly awful responses, and they should all be sacked, along with the relevant people in the police, and we need an election.
Complain about this comment
Speaker Martin reminds me of interminable bores who pop round the house for a quick visit and are still there 5 or 6 hour later on, regaling you with tales of their holidays, who is doing what in their family and talking shop about their current working travails. Never ever taking the hint that it is late and that you are tired of them having 'delighted you for long enough'..
When will Speaker Martin realise that he has passed his 'Sell By Date' ??
Complain about this comment
And what's to become of Smith's mega database now that the European courts have ruled her approach totally illegal?
The EU human rights courts say:
"could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society"
"failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests"
"the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society"
Lots of people don't like the EU, but personally I think it's worth being a member even if it's only to be a safeguard against our Government eliminating all our human rights.
Complain about this comment
294 As I indicated in a previous blog - due to being questioned by the Police a few years ago - in connection with a third person with whom I had dealings - over which no case or charge was bought against me - and I was a witness for the prosecution at a subsequent trial!
As a result of my questioning under arrest - similar to DG - my DNA and fingerprints are now on the Database - I have no criminal record - not even a parking ticket.
Do I object to this - ABSOLUTELY NOT - my own personal view is that any negative personal freedom that may have been affected is outweighed by the great benefits this database can and has provided in bringing dangerous evil despicable criminals to book -in many cases years after the crime before DNA techniques were available.
And I also look at it this way - if a crime is committed in my neighbourhood by someone of my age and background - I know 100% THAT I will not be a suspect as my DNA which is on file will not match that of the perpetrator of the crime.
I accept that this is a personal view - but as someone whose DNA is stored - I hope the insight of a "victim" of the DNA database who does NOT feel victimised.
Complain about this comment
#269
It is precisely this bunker mentality that will lose Labour the next election- Berlin 1945 anyone?
Complain about this comment
#294
If I may be so bold as to speculate while we await the official reponse to clear the moderators.
In keeping with the NuLab perception that those who don't worship at the feet of Moses Brown are raging Tories/UKIP/borderline BNP they will attempt to tweak your tail by saying 'A victory for the EU - where would we be if we weren't in Europe'
Thank God for the EU. Anything to get your blood pressure up. This economic destruction is just a big joke to them.
That's what they'll say. Seen it before.
Complain about this comment
# 295
"I have never seen a politician less capable of being a Prime Minister".
I share the doubts about Cameron - he is by definition untested, and does sometimes seem to lack judgement. He would doubtless have to learn fast if he became PM.
But the current incumbent is so bad, how could Cameron be worse?
Complain about this comment
But the current incumbent is so bad, how could Cameron be worse?
Do you know that's what I thought about John Major.
Boy was I wrong.
Complain about this comment
# 294 (and any one else who does not object to the DNA database with every breath in their body) - the problem is that the DNA database shifts the onus of proving guilt or innocence onto the individual and away from the State.
All of a sudden, (entirely innocent) people whos DNA is found at a crime scene (for purely reasonable reasons) will have to prove that their presence at the scene was innocent.
I, for one, don't trust ANY government enough (regardless of party) to have that kind of power over me.
Complain about this comment
306 - time will tell - if DC does become PM
However,his total lack of management experience - other than losing £1.6bn for Carlton - when in charge of the only capital project he was allowed to oversee - - does not bode well for the future.
Complain about this comment
The question that needs to be answered relating to the ministers that asked for the inquiry -- how much did they direct it, up to and including the search of Green's Commons office without a warrant
Complain about this comment
Harriet Harman, alone of Labour Ministers, has gone up in my estimation as a result of this sorry affair. She at least seems to have recognised that there are serious issues at stake, and has carefully distanced herself from Speaker Martin (Newsnight last night). Brown and Smith have played this episode for naked political advantage, as usual.
Complain about this comment
The phrase 'potential threat to national security' has been used a great deal on this issue.
Most commonly it has been used to describe the reason for Mr Green's arrest.
However, one of the leaks which found it's way to Mr Green was that the Home Office employees included 'illegals'.
Questions, questions!
Can the more serious 'potential threat to national security' be identified?
Did the police arrest the right person?
Was Bin Laden hiding in the Home Office?
Complain about this comment
While you're bickering internally, watch the mauling Harriet Harman's been getting all morning in House Business even before Jacqui Smith stands up. Hansard on this lot is going to be essential reading this evening
Complain about this comment
If the Sergeant at Arms did not know that access could be refused without a warrant I would suggest she watches a bit more TV (the Bill, various plots in Eastenders, Police Camera Action and Lord knows how many other programmes) as most teenagers would have known that....
I think the approach of waiting until the investigation is over is correct. Until that time an interim set of rules to be followed should be agreed by Parliament.
Perhaps along the lines that if the police wish to serach an office and computer equipment they should notify the speaker who should secure the area, equipment and any online accounts. They should then be forced to produce their rationale before a Law Lord, who if agreeing they have a valid reason to conduct a search should authorise their access. A press blackout should be maintained unless the Law Lord grants access this prevents the system being used for political gain.
This would ensure that MP's are not above the law and that the Police do not have to worry that equipment can be tampered with prior to them gaining access.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
balhamu wrote:
#261 Mark
And I guess *you know* the opposite is true without an investigation?
As I commented in my posting it wouldn't just be the Tories who were getting these leaks, it would be the Lib Dems as well.
I don't *know* if the Tories and Lib Dems benefiting from leaks from the "New Labour Super Secret Plans Department" or not.
However, to me, it seems odd that the party which supposedly "stole" the ideas manages to make them seem "planned out" and costed while the party which, supposedly, originally came up with them (and has had longer to work out the details) manages to make it look like they had done their homework on the bus the morning it was due to be handed in.
Personally, unless New Labour can show they came up with the ideas first I don't see the point of an investigation. Investigations cause hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers money and usually don't come up with anything conclusive.
Perhaps we should have the police turn up at random fields just on the off-chance that a body was buried there? If evidence does surface that the Tories did steal Labour policies THEN have an investigation - at the moment there is no evidence of it so why waste the money? If you haven't noticed we don't have as much of it to waste as we used to have!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
However,his total lack of management experience - other than losing ?1.6bn for Carlton - when in charge of the only capital project he was allowed to oversee - - does not bode well for the future.
Pahhhh. Complete novice.
Wait till he spends 500bn quid with nothing to show for it and then come back and talk to us Cameron.
Complain about this comment
#281,282
Cheers for referring me "Censorship Susan"
Complain about this comment
and now it's left to the european court to protect our civil liberties from our own government.
I never thought I would see the day!!
Complain about this comment
#303
'And I also look at it this way - if a crime is committed in my neighbourhood by someone of my age and background - I know 100% THAT I will not be a suspect as my DNA which is on file will not match that of the perpetrator of the crime.'
If your DNA is present at the scene you will be a suspect ergo you will be arrested and questioned.
Complain about this comment
I don?t remember all this fuss about MP?s rights when GA was banished from the airwaves by the previous Government, when he was an elected MP.
Think of the escalation that would take place, when the speaker refused entry to plod either with warrant or without. Sorry, you?re not coming in. Next is it the old smash the door down routine? What does the speaker do? Call out the army, the life guards or those little tanks they like to park outside Heathrow on certain occasions?
It would be like an episode of Citizen Smith. Does the Army have a role in protecting Royal Palaces? Is this the Britain we want to show the world ? a stand off between Parliament and the State? Sort of Brown-heads and cavaliers.
Is it really better to let plod in and give up?
Complain about this comment
303. greatandydudley
Unless of course your DNA turns up at the crimescene. Perhaps your hair blew in through a window?
My DNA is not the property of HM gov. You can't trust them to run a bath, let alone a database of such personal details.
Nothing to fear, nothing to hide? You must be joking: the onus MUST REMAIN to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, not require one to prove innocence, which is the essence of retaining DNA from everyone for any offense regardless of outcome.
Complain about this comment
Putting aside Green for the moment, the economy:
- I believed Gordon Brown when he encouraged everyone to feel confident that we could take reasonable risks given that he had put an end to boom and bust. Yet now many people are already in negative equity, and the recession's only just started.
- I believed Gordon Brown when he said he'd improved regulation of the banks. Yet the whole system he put in place has imploded.
- I believed Gordon Brown when he said the bank bail-out would get lending back to normality and our economy back on track. And yet, I can see for myself that this hasn't happened. His shrill pressure on the banks hasn't made any difference and businesses continue to go to the wall, along with everyone's finances.
- I believed Gordon Brown when he said Britain was better placed than any other OECD country to weather the recession. Then I found out our exchange rate was falling versus the euro and the dollar; yes, falling against the US currency whose economy was supposedly in worse shape and behind the whole crisis. I smelt the rat then.
- I believed Gordon Brown when he said he was managing the public finances prudently, so we didn't have to worry. Yet, now I find out that our national debt is set to soar and will take a generation to bring under control and that international investors view UK debt as more risky that Portugal's.
- I believed Gordon Brown when he said a fiscal stimulus was essential to get our economy moving again. But, in all honesty, even I can see that 2.5% off VAT for 13 months will not make a blind bit of difference, particularly when higher taxes on employment etc come in in 2010.
- I believed Gordon Brown when he said that the package he announced yesterday would help everyone facing difficulty on their mortgages. Then I find out this morning that even the government estimates it will only help 9,000 people out of an estimated 75,000 people next year. And, contrary to what he claimed, the banks haven't even signed off formally on the proposal yet and many of the details remain to be worked out. And I've started becoming sceptical enough to ask where this extra £1 billion cost is going to come from: yes, it will be borrowing for now, but that means higher taxes on me if I keep my job later.
So my conclusion after all this is that we have sleepwalked into an economic disaster, lulled by the soothing sounds of Gordon Brown's promises, none of which on has actually proven to be true. Even the public sector 'investment' which I supported has been largely squandered.
Robert Peston's blogs btw are just much better quality. He actually tries to call a spade a spade and set out the reality of the situation/issue. He questions and does his best (usually excellently) to explain, rather that just regurgitate.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
317 balhamu
what world do you inhabit? It is the 'not police state' currently under imposition by this government?
Galley has not commited a criminal offence unless convicted of it. Guilt must always, always be proven. The opposite can never be acceptable in a free democracy which is why the govenrments attempts to reverse it are so despicable.
Trial by jury anyone? Not if we can help it
Prove you had consent to have sex with that woman! Hang on, I'm sure she signed a form somewhere...
Prove who you are, or we'll fine/imprison you
You're going away for 28days sunshine, while we work out what we can get you on...
I would laugh, except it's true, and I'm already crying...
Complain about this comment
Serial leaks have been made necessary only as a result of serial cover-ups attempted by the current Labour administration.
How much else have they successfully hidden?
Since when did a series of leaks, as opposed to an individual leak, warrant a police investigation? Surely, it is what is leaked that determines the depth of the investigation - not the number of leaks. In this instance, nothing impacting national security was leaked - on the contrary, it was all in the national interest.
Smith must go. At best she is incompetent for not knowing what is going on, at worst, she supported the intimidation of legitimate whistleblowers and opposition politicians.
Martin must also go. Clearly not up to the job and dumping on his junior is sickening to watch.
Complain about this comment
So, lots of support for your support of NuLiebor on here, Nick!
You must be extremely proud of your impartiality and professionalism.
Complain about this comment
AI think the national security potential business is a bit of a smokescreen personally.
I can just see the Permanent Secretary saying to the Minister: Well of course Minister leaks so far, whilst embarassing, are not an issue of national security per se. But it is clear the mole is in a position where he or she sees documents which are secret, not least those relating to terrorism, which would, if released harm the nation. They have proved themselves untrustworthy and for this reason, it is imperative that the leaker is found and dealt with as quickly as possible.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is silly - if a policeman knocks on my front door and says can I search your house, the first thing I would say is show me your search warrant. That they didn't ask that simple question shows how thick they are.
Actually I think that the Labour guys were hoping to stitch up a Tory guy so they opened the door for the cops, now they are blaming each other and backing away.
LOJO
Complain about this comment
From the BBC News pages...The Commons Leader is speaking...
"On Wednesday Mr Martin pledged a "speedy and immediate" inquiry but it has now emerged it may not begin until after the police leak inquiry ends.
"It might not meet for months," shadow commons leader Theresa May told MPs."
In other words...let's just hide it under the carpet and hope it'll go away.
This is getting ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown's live on Simon Mayo from 13:00 - he should be answering questions for viewers to phone in.
Go on you know you want to
Complain about this comment
No.303
I don't wish to be unkind but this type of naivety is gradually causing the erosion of our civil liberties, others have explained perfectly.
Complain about this comment
It's absurd to drag up the question of whether David Cameron would feel"comfortable" with systematic leaking. Of course he wouldn't but that doesn't mean he would allow the police to conduct unlawful searches of the Commons, refuse to condemn them if they do or create the sort of climate where they think they can get away with it.
This government has shown systematic contempt for individual rights in the laws it makes. Now the executive has moved on to disregard of the laws that do exist just in the hope of avoiding embarrassment.
Complain about this comment
Is it just me or does Martin look (and dress) like the workhouse manager chap in 'Oliver'?
'More? More? Never before has a boy asked for more...'
Getting fired might not be a disaster after all. He'll walk seamlessly into panto with Debbie McGee.
He's a natural.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As a wild guess at how this will turn out:
- Nobody knew anything.
- Nobody who should've known anything was to blame for not knowing.
- Nobody was to blame for anything.
- Nobody will resign or be sacked.
- It's all the evil Tories' fault.
The attitude of the usual government apologists in this blog is especially despicable, even more so than usual.
I just can't quite comprehend how they calmly defend anything the government does regardless at how disgraceful it is. If Gordon Brown drove a tank through Canary Wharf and started firing would they somehow defend it as being "a matter of national security" or "sensible measures to combat the economic downturn"?
Every day I find myself hating this government more and more and it is nothing to do with party politics. It is entirely to do with their blatant disregard for everything and everyone whom they are supposed to be serving and representing.
I also started re-reading 1984 again the other day and the similarities between INGSOC and NuLabour are really quite alarming.
Complain about this comment
Surely one of the "serious questions" to be answered is where the dividing line comes between matters that really do relate to national security and those that the government of the day, of whatever persuasion, wishes to conceal because they reveal ministerial incompetence.
Tip the balance too far on one side of that equation and there is a risk of compromising our safely. Tip too far the other way and it is our freedom and democracy that is in danger.
It seems that Labour is getting to the point where it is putting our democracy at stake.
Complain about this comment
This is a useful read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm
The unanimous judgement of 17 senior eurpean judges condem Jacqui Smiths attitude towards our civil liberties.
Her response? She is 'dissapointed' and will ignore the judgement untill she has worked out how to frustrate it in some other way.
What happened to 'noone is above the law' which she seems so keen on re-stating regarding the leaks?
She aint called Jacqueboots for nothing...
Complain about this comment
@ 307
Thing is, the guy that got in after John Major WAS worse! and don't forget his slogan : "Things.... can only get better!"
What he didn't say was we'd have to wait 12 years for that, and that in the interim period, things were going to get a whole lot worse.....
Complain about this comment
#303
You're entitled to feel at ease (your openly pro-government stance should leave you above suspicion until 2010 or so)
However it seems obvious that you have far more faith in databases than anyone else. I work in databases myself and just off the top of my head I can think of various concerns:
- Databases often do strange things that defy explanation, usually on a day to day basis.
- Databases are NEVER 100% secure.
- The information on databases is only useful when the people using the database are properly trained.
- The database will likely have been designed and implemented by the cheapest bidder.
This is without even beginning on the moral argument against such a thing.
Complain about this comment
81#
Scarily,youre probably right. This is where years of dumbed down education gets us. Truly, we are becoming a nation of sheeple whom the politicians are taking advantage of, in order to burnish their own egos and line their own pockets.
What other reasonable explanation is there? That they're doing it for OUR benefit? Do me a favour.....
Complain about this comment
"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years."
Surely he should follow one G. Brown's approach and be for it in opposition and against when in power?
Complain about this comment
Even Mr Brown admits that during his time in opposition he accepted many leaks from the Conservative Government in power to try to cause trouble - its time all MP's were accountable for their actions
Complain about this comment
#335 david
There are TWO points pushed by the Conservatives
1. This should not be being investigated - the Conservatives tell us it was all above board and that the systematic leaking was in the 'public interest' and not concerning national security. Why look at the evidence - why not trust the Conservatives? This is the 'trust the suspect' theory that Cameron is, I would hope, putting in place in the criminal justice system when he gets into power (this is what I'm dubious about)
2. The police operation was heavy-handed and illegal (a couple of good points, many stupid ones, we'll wait for the inquiry into it shall we?)
Complain about this comment
and again...from the telegraph
"The Home Secretary said the leaks the whistleblower received "struck at the heart of Government.""
Yes they did...they struck right at the heart of the lies and deceit!
also...
"the Home Secretary said that the Opposition was being "cavalier," adding that the "sustained" leaking by the Home Office mole - subsequently identified as Christopher Galley, a junior civil servant" - gave cause for concern because he had access to sensitive information, potentially relating to matters of national security."
That's like saying because I have one minor speeding offence on my driving licence, I should be banned from driving because I may do something more serious next time!
Daft!
Complain about this comment
Let's look at this statement another way. This looks like a boss who's used to subordinates getting things sorted and not wanting to know until they are. It now seems that this use of generics somehow managed to apply the same label of "not friendly" to both Al Quaida and the Conservative Party, a mistake first identified by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson in the 1890s in his seminal works on symbolic logic.
As a result, overheated imaginations have applied worst-case risk scenarios to the elected representatives of a fifth of the electorate, with the result that the Opposition now sees themselves treated en mass as potential terrorists.
Any resemblance between Nick and the White Rabbit running late for an appointment with the Red Queen is therefore entirely logical by comparison.
Complain about this comment
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve asked of Jacqui Smith: "Who is in charge of the police, if she isn't?"
The fact that he would feel it proper to tell the police whom they should or should not investigate or arrest is very worrying, and should be of great interest to the electorate.
Or am I the only one chilled to the core that the man who could be Home Secretary after the next election believes that we live in a police State?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick,
when people ask of the tories if you were in government would you allow the leaking of information I will say this.
If the information is collected for a government department by civil servants at the expense of the taxpayer then, no matter how embarrassing, that information must be published. If it has been collected and then not published then what the point in collecting the information. If it is spressed because it may embarrass the government of the day then it is not released for a political reason. Civil servants are not meant to be political yet they seem to collect information for political purposes, so they are political.
The interesting word which I thought was used by the Home Secretary was when she referred to governance and not government. Could somebody explain the difference, why did she use it? Anybody.
Complain about this comment
#341
That was my point. I was, shall we say, a little disappointed with John Major.
But compared to Tony [would you like an Iraq war with that] Blair or Gordon [half a trillion] Brown I now realise he (Major) was a Parliamentary Titan.
Interest rates down to 2%. Pound down the toilet. The game is up.
The very best we can hope for now is a short (say five or ten year) Japan.
Complain about this comment
#321 - Pop...
Why would you be arrested if you were merely a witness? It is surely a requirement upon the Police to conduct reasonable investigations to back up an allegation of complicity, rather than tarring everyone with the same brush?
When I read over comments by Great andywho and yourself, I begin to wonder if either of you understand the concept of freedom. The government does not own me, nor should I have to prove who I am or my innocence when there is no crime in which I am involved. Do you get it yet?
Meantime, someone in government is able to set off an investigation into leaks knowing only too well that police investigations will follow. Sledgehammer / nut and diversion come most to mind.
BTW is it true that Mandelson is back in government. Coincidence perchance?
All the best
Complain about this comment
Let's see what heinous 'secret' the alleged leak concerned. It was that the government has lost control of immigration.
If that's a 'secret', then Jacqui Smith must be the only person in the country who didn't know it.
Complain about this comment
Like many on here, I have been following this pantomime with some interest.
I commend Jacqui Smith on her transition from 'actually ... actually ... actually' to 'um ... um ... um'
I read a report recently which indicated that lie-detectors were to be used to identify benefit cheats. Fair enough, I thought but I've just watched Jacqui's statement to the House ....
A benefit cheat costs the taxpayer perhaps a few thousand annually.
A politician costs the taxpayer hundreds of thousands annually, and participates in the spending of many billions and the borrowing of many billions more.
Whilst lie-detectors may be appropriate for benefit cheats, surely they are an absolute requirement for politicians.
Whatever party you support, ask yourself how many of that party are honest to the public - or each other. Answers on a postcard; directed, of course, to your own MP :)
Digressing somewhat, I watched newsnight yesterday - its on Iplayer - and the responses of all three 'senior' politicians was deplorable. All of them afraid to commit an opinion on the Speaker's performance. All three aspire to lead the country. Scary! Did they catch dithering from GB or did he catch it from one of them?
Complain about this comment
#349
John Reid, remember him, the ex Labour Home Secretary, said he would have expected to be informed. He called Smith, 'placid.'
Noone is saying she should have interferred, but this is a highly serious matter so she should have been kept informed, just as Boris Johnson was. In fact, informing the one but not the other strikes me as inconsistent on the part of the police; bonkers.
This is one of the many reasons why I believe this whole affair stinks to high heaven: my read is she wasn't told because she specifically asked not to be, a case of 'plausible deniability' rather than actual ignorance.
She should go.
Complain about this comment
PorterRockwell wrote:
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve asked of Jacqui Smith: "Who is in charge of the police, if she isn't?"
The fact that he would feel it proper to tell the police whom they should or should not investigate or arrest is very worrying, and should be of great interest to the electorate.
Or am I the only one chilled to the core that the man who could be Home Secretary after the next election believes that we live in a police State?
I think most people understand the difference between a police state and a state where the police do have to answer to the government!
Personally I would consider a police state to be a state where the police answer to nobody, where they enforce the law and the public have no representatives who can overrule them.
Just because the police answer to the government doesn't make this a police state - in the same way that we don't have martial law just because the government is responsible for the army.
Complain about this comment
349 PorterRockwell
"The fact that he would feel it proper to tell the police whom they should or should not investigate or arrest is very worrying, and should be of great interest to the electorate."
The home secretary is, essentially, the head of the police. The home secretary creates the laws which the police then enforce. At the end of the day it is the home secretary who's responsible for what the police does. That's not to say that the home secretary should be telling the police who to arrest/investigate, but the home secretary is responsible when the police themselves break the law (especially when that breaking of the law by the police happened regarding an investigation that you yourself had asked the police to carry out; smith did ask the police to investigate the leaks)
"Or am I the only one chilled to the core that the man who could be Home Secretary after the next election believes that we live in a police State?"
He's correct in his belief. The police stormed parliament with no warrant, they dragged off an opposition MP with 9 (some armed) anti-terrorist officers, and interrogated him for 9 hours, and they did that because he was carrying out his duties as an MP to hold the government to account.
Complain about this comment
#327 tonytango
Yes - they hid their internal political analysis of likely rebels on 42-days for example. The Conservatives were quite open in releasing this internal political information to the public.
They also tried to hide things by introducing the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the face of Conservative opposition to impose a legal duty on themselves to release certain types of information and institutions to enforce it such as the Information Commissioner.
So secretive.
Complain about this comment
How about a blog concerning today's decision of the ECHR on the state retaining innocent people's DNA?
It has exposed New Labour's fascist tendency.
It has more serious repercussions that the arrest of a Tory MP and the searching of his Commons office by the police, for the alleged leaking of information, when the government leakes information for its own purposes like a sieve.
In its need to be balanced between the political parties, the BBC is unbalanced in its duty to serve society as a publicly funded public broadcaster. That is, its failing in its duty. Where government fails, then 'balance' is not a good enough reason to 'lay off' criticism when it is due.
Complain about this comment
#357
I believe this whole affair stinks to high heaven: my read is she wasn't told because she specifically asked not to be, a case of 'plausible deniability' rather than actual ignorance.
Or the other possibility - why on earth was Cameron informed - was this whole thing was a double sting initiated by Labour to get Boris or Cameron to attempt to interfere (by phoning Smith for example to ask her WTF was going on).
They didn't rise to the bait (another mole perhaps?) and it has all gone off in the governments face. Delicious.
Note the enquiry is now delayed to some unspecified time waaaaaay in the future as I predicted. It will no doubt deliver its conclusion, arrived at by a hand-picked committee stuffed with loyal Labour MPs, in the middle of some terrorist attack or other 'good day to bury bad news'.
By their deeds shall you know them.
Complain about this comment
??pon my soul, there?s a lady in the golf club bar..?
Or, in other words, how dare the constabulary enter that into the holiest of shrines ? the white males of 50-year old +, club that is Westminster
But by far the overall impression is a whole bevy of outraged chaps ? from all sides - pontificating about the sanctity of their own magisterial importance. It is all, quite frankly, pathetic.
I am sure that the police may have been cack-handed in how they dealt with Damien Green, I am also sure that Westminster administrators may be have dealt with this process in a, perhaps too straightforward, a way (would refusing police access not have been even more invidious?).
But the sputtering indignation of Members was more than anything, an insistence that they are, somehow above the law. Members of parliament are there as representatives of us, no more and no less ie its not about them (faint hope I know). The police too are meant to ensure that those who transgress the agreed laws are brought to account. Are we meant to concur that police shouldn?t have pursued this case ? no matter where it took them?
It is all rather reminiscent of the Nixons remarks in the Frost interviews that ?because it?s the President, it is therefore legal? And what subsequently happened in that instance ie eventual impeachment, was evidence of a far healthier state of affairs than could ever happen here in our tradition and rule-bound, closeted little parliament.
And this from a 50+ year old white male?.
Complain about this comment
154#
"COMMIT A CRIME AND BECOME THE GOVERNMENT"
Derek, your setting yourself up for a fall there my old china.
I havent looked at the responses yet, but I have a distinct feeling that post is going to rebound on you quite badly!!!
Lets have a starter for 10 shall we....
The Dodgy Dossier for one......
nexxxxxxxxxxxt!
Complain about this comment
#346 dave
To add to that point, they are trying to focus on the 2nd point, as their arguments over the 1st (trust us, it does not require investigation, it looks a bit dodgy, you don't know the full facts, but we're whiter than white).
See e.g. Cameron's statement yesterday, response on this blog.
Aren't both points important?
Complain about this comment
349: The Labour Government have no place to criticise the Tories about interference with the Police, re the dropping of the BAE corruption case 2 years ago.
Quote: "Lord Goldsmith said he thought that a prosecution "could not be brought".
He said the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6180945.stm
and the point Dominic Grieve was making was not that the Home Sec should have stopped the raid, but that she should have known about it beforehand (the Met are accountable to her) and asked the right questions i.e. Why no warrant, why the need for 20 anti-terror officers etc?
Or do you think the Police should have Carte Blanche to do what they like?
Complain about this comment
Oh god, his answer to Mayo's first question "Good afternoon Prime minister, how are you?"
Included, hard working families, businesses, doing the right thing, do something, etc etc etc. America's problem, world wide issues etc etc etc.
A simple, "I'm not too bad, although I'm working hard to address the issues facing this country at present."
would have been sufficient
Complain about this comment
Government = tool.
Governance = how you use that tool.
I popularised this term first on this blog and it's interesting seeing how it's gone around and stuck.
For the folks railing against dictatorship versus democracy, secrets versus openess, it's an interesting focus to begin asking "What do we do?" and "What do you want?" rather than getting bogged down in implementation details and personalities. There's an element of spin in that position but, really, does anyone care and does it matter? *shrug* Dunno. You tell me, Sherlock.
Complain about this comment
I would have to disagree: The whole lot should go!
Roll On 2010
Complain about this comment
I find it difficult to believe that noone in the Home Office or Police thought that there would be political fallout from this arrest and therefore they discuss it with their "political masters" if only to cover their backs. I am not saying ministers should have intervened but if Boris Johnson knew why not Jacqui Smith.
This government seems to have lost all sense of direction on the whole Human Rights issue. Remember it was them that introdcued the Human Rights Act onto the Statute Book but when Judges apply it in law they are "disappointed" - What did they expect?
It appears more and more as if the police are becoming a political tool, we should be grateful that judges still seem to be prepared to stand up to the Government.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone seen this?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14/20081204/tpl-obama-on-cameron-what-a-lightweight-81c5b50.html
Complain about this comment
Something else to remember about the DNA database is that the larger it becomes, the more false-matches will be found.
Despite what the government lies to you about, the kind of DNA evidence that the police collect/use is not unique and can easily match falsely, and is almost always contaminated.
It's the same problem they've got with fingerprints on their proposed ID cards; the more people you have, the less accurate the check becomes.
If they checked 100% of the dna strand of person x against 100% of the dna strand of evidence exhibit y, then it would be definitive (perhaps with the exception of twins), but that's not what happens; they use a very small sub-section of the strand on both sides, and it can easily mis-match.
This is one of the very many reasons why it's a bad idea to put everyone's dna onto a central database and to just press the "match" button and then arrest everyone on the list.
The police should always do good old fashioned detective work to find other aspects first, such as getting witness statements, looking at cctv footage, door-to-door enquiries, finding out who has motives etc.
Fingerprints/DNA can then be used as a final confirmation part of the puzzle.
Usually, that means that once someone's arrested for, say, joyriding, you'd take their fingerprints/dna, and match it against the fingerprints/dna that you'd found at unsolved scenes. From there you'd be able to prove fairly definitively that the joyrider had also stolen the car which was abandoned next to the car which you found them breaking into.
DNA/fingerprints are just part of the "odds" that you'd present in court, and should never ever be the only evidence in a given case/crime.
Complain about this comment
I've heard quite a few things from this government that are hard to believe, but the idea that the Sergeant at Arms didn't realise she was allowed to say "no" if the police didn't have a warrant really takes the biscuit.
Has she never watched "The Bill" or any of several dozen other police dramas?
I feel there is something here that really stinks and we haven't heard the half of it yet.
Complain about this comment
#352 TAG
Why not commit to introducing legislation to that effect (and have a more cross-party approach to determining what is and isn't a releasable document)? Opportunity for Cameron - doubt he'll take it up.
Also misses the point slightly - can an Opposition Party maintain a network of spies within the civil service who are the judge and jury over what is and isn't in the 'public interest' to leak and are able to side-step internal whistleblowing procedures?
Complain about this comment
There are a few things that come up here.
1- If the police were given permission to search then they acted correctly. The person giving the permission was at fault for not following correct procedure
2- It almost appears that the issue of the investigation is taking precedent over the obvious wrongs committed by the home office and by persons seeking to "leak information" surely these legal matters are just as important. This appears to have been forgotten and the political games have taken center stage again.
3- I am also getting a bit fed up with the party political system in this country. I am not blaming any individuals but repeatedly it is hammered home to me that public image and popularity are the important things in running our country. Our representatives should be busy representing us and not playing political games. There are many who feel that the "drama" and "history" of our system is so important but when arguments, tell-tales, bickering, mocking and name calling take precedence over our finances, world poverty, our fragile ecological situation, Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Where is the value. Its about time our politicians grew up and stopped acting like school children. They put on their "grown up faces" when they need to and then play silly popularity and mud slinging games. It is so sad.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Why has my post being waiting for the intervention of the moderators for 30 minutes already yet a later post has appeared? Is this a deliberate ploy to minimise the risk that such posts will be read by others?
Can you provide some guidance?
Complain about this comment
Reading just the BBC's current page on the Home Secretary's recent fumbling performance in the House, it seems inevitable that the charge of a lack of control before the fact and a certain untowardness throughout can and will be made with increasing volume by her opponents. There will be no shortage of senior police officers to pin things on, but one cannot imagine that particular diversion redounding to Ms Smith's credit. A very large buck may be about to stop at her desk. If Mr Cameron is any good at taking penalities (but this we may doubt) an open goal could soon beckon. There were opportunities to rethink Jaqui Smith's appointment during the recent reshuffle and some have been surprised they were not taken. The PM may be entertaining similar thoughts.
Complain about this comment
#352 TAG
Excellently put! They are, after all, supposed to be working for us.
Complain about this comment
The Home Secretary today:-
It had been appropriate to call in the police faced with the apparent "systematic leaking of classified information over a sustained period" and "given the damage that this was doing to the effective conduct of government business". ie the business of concealing embarrasing evidence of incompetence re employment of illegal imigrants in security industry etc!!
Complain about this comment
I give it a week. Accepting the Home Secretary's resignation could so far enhance Gordon Brown's standing that I am almost moved to prophecy. Crystal balls anyone?
Complain about this comment
Quote for Jackie Smith MP, the Home Secretary: "The sustained level of leaking that had already taken place clearly suggested that this could go on, would escalate, and that more information of greater sensitivity could potentially leak."
So because they were doing something that was NOT illegal, (according to independent commentators) and was something that Brown routinely did, BUT could potentially have escallated into something criminal in future, the home office sought to have the culprits arrested BEFORE the law was broken?
When did our judicial system change to become like the film, minority report, whereby people can be arrested BEFORE a crime is committed? And more to the point, How did the political editor of the BBC miss it?
I am aghast! This is the sign of a police state. So much for the independence of the police. In this case they act on behalf of their political masters, in order to arrest people before they can commit a crime. (and legitimately embarras the government further)
Clearly by her OWN admission, (are you reading this Balamhu?) The Home Secretary is admitting that NO information that was injurious to national security was divulged.
The Home secretary has now admitted that the high crime that labour and their apologists are insinuating through smear and innuendo was committed by the tories, actually wasn't.
So where is your ridiculous assertion that Cameron should release all Official Secrets and that MP's should be above the law?
Your arguments are not logical, rational or competent in any way at all.
I suggest you admit when you are beaten balamhu! Your beloved party tried to "raise on a busted flush" and were found out. They are incompetent and are willing to risk establishing a police state to cover that up. People like YOU balamhu actually help them to do it too.
Complain about this comment
no19
qoute"Let us not forget, also, the question that was put again and again to David Cameron about whether he as prime minister would feel comfortable with the systematic leaking over a period of two years"
this statement can be answered with tony bliars immortal "if youve got nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about!"
nothing of national security?
mandy attacking muckrakers!
Complain about this comment
204: Balhamu:
Do you have a position on the SFO/BAe/Al Yamamah decision then?
If at all possible, does this not point to there being a failure of any vetting within the H.O as much as anything else?
What do you personally think sets this apart from what has always happened in Parliament regarding leaked documents? Why do you think Camerons reaction says as much as it does?
Do you agree that it has been the use of the police and the manner of their actions that has set this apart from what had rightly or wrongly become a routine activity, leaking of government information to opposition politicians?
Do you also accept that there may just be the teensiest hint of "you reap what you sow" about this whole affair?
I'm not being an agent provocateur here, I am genuinely interested. I dont have a party political axe to grind... as I've said before, I am thoroughly disillusioned with both main parties and the current crop of politicians full stop. I just dont like being treated like a member of the uneducated sheeple who couldnt care less.
Complain about this comment
"she referred to governance and not government. Could somebody explain the difference, why did she use it? Anybody."
-(-a few posts back, excuse non-attribution.)
I associate the term with Harold Wilson and his book 'The Governance of Britain'. I take it (no expert) the word intends to distinguish the act and process of governing as opposed to the government as a particular body.
And I yield to the temptation to say, "We knew Harold Wilson. Ms Smith, you're no Harold Wilson."
But that's another story.
Complain about this comment
This story gets weirder and weirder. It now transpires that the police, according to the Home Secretary and Damien Green, had a warrant for the MPs arrest.
Why did they have a warrant and why did they not simply use their own powers of arresting on reasonable suspicion?
If they had gone this far in obtaining an arrest warrant why on earth did they not also get a warrant to search the MP`s office?
Their fall back position of using s18 PACE to search(Inspector or above authorisation to search premises / vehicle) could only have been used/given after arrest. One could hardly argue they did not know of the existence of the MP`s office and that there maybe evidence there. Therefore s18 would have been totally inappropriate.
I just find it incredible as to what has happened. Basic police work seems to have gone out of the window and also any chance of a prosecution.
If Jacqui Smith is so inept she did not know what was going on with an investigation, into what she convieniently now classes as serious breaches of security, in her own department then she should go. What is good enough for Haringey is good enough for her, the Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms.
No one died here but democracy has sure as hell taken a good pasting.
Complain about this comment
I have just heard the Leader of House say on BBC that the Govt. had introduced the Freedom of Information Act ?so that Civil Servants could publish information if, in their conscience, they believed it was in the public interest?. Does the said Act say where and how this information can be published?
If this is the case (and I may have misheard-note), why is the Govt. hounding and abusing the civil servant who, rightly considered certain information (4 items published) to be in the public interest and chose to give the said information to an MP for publication in the House of Commons?
Note Can the statement of the Leader of the House be checked in Hansard?
Can anyone throw light on this aspect of the current debate?
This information really does emphasise the disaster that this stupid attempt to discredit Green by the "dinna know anything" Govt.
To remind readers:
"The Speaker downgraded the office of Sergeant at Arms by depriving it of responsibility for security throughout the whole Palace of Westminster, a feature of the post since 1451, and restricting it to the Commons chamber." and
"So Pay, thanks to Martin's high-handed behaviour, had NO AUTHORITY to allow anybody to enter the Palace of Westminster or Damian Green's office.
Catastrophe on catastrophe. Really who planned this? One can guess?
If this had happened in "Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" we would all have been rolling about laughing.
But this is REALITY; I have just heard the Home Sec. speaking and she seems to contradict the Leader of The House regarding the rights, in conscience, of civil servants under the Freedom of Information Act as outlined by the Leader of the House?
The following seems to suggest that the Police were wrong
"The Sergeant at Arms had no authority to allow anybody to enter the Palace of Westminster or Damien Green's office in the first place because of The Speaker's reforms
This has sinister implications. The police claim that they had a signed consent to enter the Palace and search. But that consent was signed by someone who did not have the right to give that permission.
If this is acceptable, then the police can enter anyone's house by getting a consent from, well, anyone handy, even another policeman. They were guilty of breaking and entering in the HoC. Claiming they did not know - after all "IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE IN LAW" something they have thrown at the public for centuries!
For the police to act on a consent by someone not entitled to give it is another question that has to be considered. But with another policeman running the inquiry - what chance.
Definitely UK is now a Police State created by Zanulabour!
Complain about this comment
Nick, please could you read your blog again? The last paragraph does not fit well with the rest of your blog. I would suggest that in future if you would like to bash the Tory's, it should be saved for the right opportunity. That final paragraph really brings down the rest of your blog.
Complain about this comment
In light of today's decision by the European Court Of Human Rights stating that retention of DNA and Fingerprints of persons not convicted of a crime is unlawful , would it be the scenario that when Damien Green ( who would surely have been fingerprinted and sampled under present legislation) is found not guilty - or as more likely not proceeded with , that the politicians who enacted such bad law will amend this , thus removing one of their number from the national databases?.
Complain about this comment
Liar, liar! Your pants are on fire. Speaker Martin blames it all on girl. It's all her fault, so there.
He's worse than a seven year-old in the primary school playground.
Complain about this comment
362 - your conspiracy theroies are hilarious!
LOL!
However,if a trap was set for Cameron and Boris - as you suggest - Boris has very firmly fallen for it!
His admission that he personally called Damian Green to discuss and offer support = effectively the Elected Head of the Metropolitan Police Committee - contacting an alleged criminal being investigated by the organisation he heads whilst on bail - are grounds for his immediate resignation or removal from that post!
If an acting Policeman contatced an alleged criminal on bail - he would I am reliably told be immediately suspended from his post!
Secondly - his even more frightening admission that he has publically told journalists that -he is certain that the matter will not end up in court- could , and I use the word - guardedly - be deemed to be an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
If a person knowingly attempts to in any way lead or direct a case from a position of authority - he or she could be deemed to be interfeering - in due legal process!
PERSONALLY I THINK YOUR CONSPIRACY IS PIFFLE (excuse the Boris-ism) - and I hope that it does not lead to action against Boris - as this whole silly business is not worthy of the airtime and attention it is being given!
Finally - it is crystal clear from the letter dated 3 December 2008 from AC Quick - and by quick reference to HMCS website - that NO WARRANT - was ever required to search the Office in the House of Commons.
In plain English - warrants WERE HELD for 3 other properties/Offices and therefore ample cover wasgiven legally from these warrants to search any other premise legally believed to be used or occupied by the named person e.g Damian Green!
The added folly of the Dominic Grieve argument seems to imply that if he ever becomes Home Secretary - unlikely even in the event of a Conservative Government - given his less than impressive performance since replacing the far more capable David Davis - he will personally vet and validate every warrant issued by HMCS - that is bizarre and frankly stupid!
It does seem to me though that the 7 person Committee should be formally agreed in terms of who/where and when - and be convened certainly within 7 days - if nothing else being able to obtain a legal view as to the suitability of sitting and adjudicating whilst the criminal investigation continues.
Complain about this comment
371 - I am certainly no apologist for DC...
However,I think this story at this time has far more to do with the Clinton-isation - of Obhama's Prsidential Team - than any actual fact!
Its classic Mandy - no point denying it.....
Can just imagine the transatlantic phone call now from Mandys Office to one of Hilarys Press Team....
Complain about this comment
224 barganax
Good sensible post.
Complain about this comment
#368 CEH
re. governance
"I popularised this term first on this blog"
Hubristic to say the least. The word is a common one and has been used since at least the 1590s according to my dictionary.
Did you popularise the word "Zen" too?
Complain about this comment
Why are you not able to distinguish between the acts of a civil servant and the acts of an MP.
Clearly it is wrong to leak confidential information belonging to your employer; within the private sector you would be dismissed for such an action and there is no reason why the public sector should be any different.
It would however only be a criminal act, if the information leaked was covered by something such as the official secrets act.
There is no need to ask Cameron the question, any government of any flavour would do anything they could to stem leaks from their departments.
An MP who receives leaked information and puts it into the public domain is simply doing his job, providing that no 'inducement' financial or otherwise has been provided.
Complain about this comment
237 bluntjeremy
That is very good! Thank you.
Complain about this comment
373 - to repeat - any criticism of the Sergeant at Arms - is now rendered NULL AND VOID by the publsihing of the letter dated 3 December 2008 from AC Quick of the Metropolitan Police to the Home Secretary!
The letter is on the politics page of the bbc website if you care to refer to it.
If you refer further clarification go to HMCS - Her Majestys Court Services website - and key in "warrants".
To again put this in to plain English....
The warrants legally obtained for 3 premises known to be those of the alleged in this case i.e Damien Green - give the Police more than adequate legal powers to search any other property known to be frequented by him.
The Police use this all the time in case where material could be stored at a multitude of locations known to be frequented by someone alleged of wrong-doing..
In this case I think it is safe to assume that 2 warrants - one for the residential home and one for the constituency Office would have sufficed.
It is my view therefore that even if the Sergeant at Arms had asked to see a warrant - a simple telephone call would have confirmed the 3 warrants legally produced and held - gave more than adequate legal cover for the Office at the House of Commons to be searched...
Complain about this comment
Some thoughts on all of this spring to mind:
1. The Home Secretary is informed before the arrest of the Civil Servant but not before the arrest of the MP. Why?
2. The Serjeant-at-Arms, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Mayor of London are all informed prior to the arrest of the MP but not the Home Secretary. Why not? Is it that she could not be trusted with the information regarding the MP but could with respect to the Civil Servant? Why were the others informed?
3. The police did not obtain a warrant because they had received consent from the Serjeant-at-Arms who it is implied had received legal advice between the 26th and 27th November. Who gave this legal advice?
4. Why was there a delay in writing to the Speaker from the 27th November until the 1st December informing him of the arrest of an MP?
I am sure that there are reasonable explanations for all of these points.
Complain about this comment
380 I'll have a side wager Boris has to go first....(see 390/391)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Nick,
#352
#368
#374
Surely your comments are read by a wide range of individuals. Have we somehow hit on something. That could save the political parties thousands in fees to consultants.
We identify a problem, #352, somebody then comments on it #368 and then somebody else comes up with a viable way of dealing with the problem #374. Now I don't think that we should charge a fee, but surely this is a good solution to a problem.
Even better, just publish everything on the internet. There will actually be so much information that nobody could possibly have the time to look at it all. So, what is the famous saying, oh yes, 'publish and be damned'. Let us have full disclosure, why should only a small number of people have access, real freedom of information.
Complain about this comment
time to start signing petitions methinks
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown told the BBC the Speaker had a "very difficult job" and was doing it "to the best of his ability".
Well, then clearly his abilities were not up to the job. "tries hard" doesn't really cut it.
Complain about this comment
245 blasted-heath
As an example of the draconian use of DNA:
My son's friend was walking down the street with friends after celebrating his 21st birthday. A group of police suddenly rushed up and dragged him off to the police station, saying he'd caused criminal damage to a police car. His DNA was taken and he was banged up overnight. In the morning, he was released because they'd looked at CCTV and realised it wasn't him who kicked the car. His DNA will still be on the database and his 21st birthday was totally ruined. Many kids of my kids' age (20 - 30) despise the police.
If you wonder why people don't intervene when someone's assaulted, consider this:
About 10 years ago, my daughter's boyfriend was out with friends when they saw one man hitting another with a scaffolding bar. As good citizens, they dialled 999. The police arrived and arrested them as well on suspicion of being involved, and they were banged up for several hours. Assume they had DNA taken as well.
The attitude of many policemen to youngsters is deplorable, and they are storing up massive distrust and dislike for the future.
Incidentally, I produce the local Neighbourhood Watch newsletter and have 3 family members in the police, but I sympathise whole heartedly with the youngsters. The standard of personnel in the police is sometimes very poor, and the apparent view that young people are always suspect and fair game needs to be stopped.
Complain about this comment
"It was not as if the government had "some control over the Speaker", he said, adding: "We don't. He is appointed by the whole House of Commons."
Quite apart from the fact that the speaker is by convention taken from the opposition benches. Except for this government. The rules don't apply to them.
Complain about this comment
"Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has denied reports police and immigration officers will be able to demand proof of ID from any UK citizen under proposed new laws.
She said there were no plans for "in country" ID checks in the Citizenship, Immigration and Borders Bill.
"The intention is only to enable ID checks at the border," she told MPs in a debate on the Queen's Speech. "
Hang on a moment They already have the right to check ID at the borders so why do they need this in the bill.
I think Jackboots is hiding something even though she is denying it, lets face it the lady has form for this kind of thing
Complain about this comment
381. At 1:40pm on 04 Dec 2008, purpleDogzzz wrote:
"Quote for Jackie Smith MP, the Home Secretary: "The sustained level of leaking that had already taken place clearly suggested that this could go on, would escalate, and that more information of greater sensitivity could potentially leak."
So because they were doing something that was NOT illegal, (according to independent commentators) and was something that Brown routinely did, BUT could potentially have escallated into something criminal in future, the home office sought to have the culprits arrested BEFORE the law was broken?"
Very good! Jacqui Smith must have been watching the film Minority Report.
It is crystal clear! The Speaker must fall on his sword. The Serjeant-at-Arms must fall on her sword. The Home Secretary must go. Senior figures at the Met must resign. They all incompetent and worse!
Complain about this comment
It seems like some protocol has not been carried out properly and someone will get the blame. Fair enough.
Why the hysteria! I remember my colleague stuffed something up at work..he was reprimanded and got on with it.
And don't use the sanctity of parliament excuse. So what! someone made a cock up.
I'm sure there will be at least 5 other false arrests this week elsewhwere in the uk. They don't make the front page do they.
We need some perspective
Complain about this comment
#383 fubar
To answer your first two questions, not really, no, without you explaining what the issue is and why it's relevant to this.
To answer the rest of your questions, the key difference is that instead of 'whistleblowing' senior civil servants who were working in a policy area for a long time and unhappy with the legality of government action and ignoring of expert advice, this is a junior civil servant and member of the Conservative Party unable to abide by civil service impartiality rules, who actively seeked out documents in a number of policy areas he was not working in or were related to government business (e.g. political documents on 42-days) to leakfor personal advantage and for political advantage to his party, which seem to have begun after he had a meeting with Damien Green, a shadow minister. It's quite a difference in my view.
"Whistleblower" leaks, such as David Kelly's uneasiness with the use of technical information within the Government's justification for the Iraq War, I have no problem with.
Complain about this comment
Further to earlier explanations: 'Governance' ultimately comes from medieval latin around the middle of the 14th century.
Complain about this comment