Police told Blair would resign if cautioned

[newbie]

(I know several senior crime correspondents and they are telling me they are getting fuck all from their contacts (not that anyone will believe this, obviously ...).

I don't disbelieve you. I see little or no likelihood that there's a police strategy to leak to the media, though individuals may have their own reasons to leak.

This is all a meaningless discussion. The ONLY way of preventing leaks is to remove the value of them - enforce sub judice from the point of arrest, not charge. That's what the law actually suggests and what always used to be done for the most part, it's just that things have changed since 24 hour rolling news gathering operations and "citizen journalism". There need to be changes now as the system and the processes have not kept up with media developments.

In the case of ordinary crime I might agree with you, but this is far more serious than any actual charges, because the future of the government is at issue.

Using narrow sub judice rules to keep knowledge (or even substantial allegations) of corruption or cover-up at the heart of government from the people and parliament would be profoundly anti-democratic.

In a democracy government relies on confidence, not on 'beyond reasonable doubt' proof.

I accept that the police are in a very difficult position, and that (assuming good faith on their part) their overriding priority must be their investigation according to law, but for the rest of the country the political implications are far more important.

 

[TAE]

In any case, even a wholly malicious Police investigation would still be compromised by leaks (it would ruin any subsequent trial), as any fule kno.

For a malicious Police investigation to be effective it doesn't necessarily have to result in a conviction, or even a trial.

I don't think we are looking at malicious Police investigation at all, I was just pointing out that parties other than the suspects might benefit from leaks.

 

[Plato1983]

If any other person were to use the "please don't question me under caution as it would mean me having to resign from my job" to the police, they would tell you to fuck off.

Only the prime minister and his corrupt cronies seem to get this soft treatment from the police. An indication prehaps of the real role the enforcers of the law play in society, certainly not a role for the public good.

 

[TAE]

The ONLY way of preventing leaks is to remove the value of them - enforce sub judice from the point of arrest, not charge. That's what the law actually suggests and what always used to be done for the most part, it's just that things have changed since 24 hour rolling news gathering operations and "citizen journalism". There need to be changes now as the system and the processes have not kept up with media developments.

As long as the media may report that someone has been arrested under suspicion of XYZ (without talking about the evidence) I'd be happy with that.

 

[detective-boy]

I'll assume these are your second and third trys at deflecting from the point of our mini exchange in this thread, which was when I said to you:

I'm surprised you're conflating a criminal investigation in which people have been cautioned, with standard political practice the world over.

For a start, one potentially jeopardises a prospective trial, the other supports, for example, a policy initiative.

Feel free to get back to the point.

I'm not "deflecting" anything. I never conflated the two. You did that. It is self-fucking evident that the criminal process is very different, and very much more important than a policy initiative. EVERY fucking post I've ever made on this subject makes it blatantly bleeding obvious that that is my position.

YOU claimed that I conflated the two. Why did you do that?

 

[detective-boy]

Using narrow sub judice rules to keep knowledge (or even substantial allegations) of corruption or cover-up at the heart of government from the people and parliament would be profoundly anti-democratic.

People seem to think that keeping something confidential whilst an investigation and / or prosecution prgresses is tantamount to a cover-up.

It isn't.

I have no desire to see the public kept in the dark for ever - just until the investigative and prosecution process is completed.

The public should know. Just not yet.

And if, in a particular case, it is felt that is more impiortant that we know now, rather than wait until an investigation / prosecution is completed, then so be it. Just tell the police and CPS to waste no more of our money on their efforts.

 

[detective-boy]

If any other person were to use the "please don't question me under caution as it would mean me having to resign from my job" to the police, they would tell you to fuck off.

I know John Yates. believe me, if he wanted to / had good reason to interview the Prime Minister under caution, he would. Regardless of these "threats". Especially in realtion to this enquiry where he is not exactly delirious about how the politicians have been behaving ...

 

[detective-boy]

As long as the media may report that someone has been arrested under suspicion of XYZ (without talking about the evidence) I'd be happy with that.

That would be the situation - in fact, you could allow significantly more than that ... just not the trial by media which exists now, with them digging up all sorts of untested / irrelevant crap ("I slept with Suffolk Strangler says Tracey Slag, Lapdancer and Big Brother 3 reject ...")

 

[London_Calling]

I'm not "deflecting" anything. I never conflated the two. You did that. It is self-fucking evident that the criminal process is very different, and very much more important than a policy initiative. EVERY fucking post I've ever made on this subject makes it blatantly bleeding obvious that that is my position.

YOU claimed that I conflated the two. Why did you do that?

Me:

Fwiw, there is considerable consternation in Government about the way Scotland Yard have used leaks tactically.

You:

Compared with, say, the government ... who never spin / leak / seek to conceal ...

one is criminal, the other political. You mistakenly wanted to use the latter to counterbalance the former. Wrong !
To restate my point to you:

I'm surprised you're conflating a criminal investigation in which people have been cautioned, with standard political practice the world over.

For a start, one potentially jeopardises a prospective trial, the other supports, for example, a policy initiative.

 

[newbie]

If any other person were to use the "please don't question me under caution as it would mean me having to resign from my job" to the police, they would tell you to fuck off.

Only the prime minister and his corrupt cronies seem to get this soft treatment from the police. An indication prehaps of the real role the enforcers of the law play in society, certainly not a role for the public good.

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but istm that there is a real difference between the elected government and anybody else. I'm not sure I want a closed meeting of senior police officers determining when the government falls, any more than I want the police investigation held behind closed (sub judice) doors. This doesn't involve a strangler or a lapdancer, and the comparison doesn't hold.

Constitutionally the power to remove the government resides in the people via a vote of no confidence in parliament, and to my mind everything else is secondary to that in this case.

Charging Levy or Turner is one thing, but charging or arresting Blair is of a completely different order.

Anything done by the police to precipitate a fall in government (or by Blair to suppress public knowledge of the investigation) is potentially a step towards a totalitarianism I don't much fancy.

 

[detective-boy]

You mistakenly wanted to use the latter to counterbalance the former.

No. I didn't.

I know what I did / didn't do. You think you know, but you don't.

But, hey! Don't let that stop you telling me what I did / didn't do. Of course, you know best ...

 

[gosub]

Me:

You:
one is criminal, the other political. You mistakenly wanted to use the latter to counterbalance the former. Wrong !
To restate my point to you:

Both detective boy and myself seem to think that leaks pertaining to the criminal investigation are coming from Labours political apparatus, as are a number of Westminster rumour mills. I don't see how detective boy can elaborate if you chose to ignore what he is saying.

 

[detective-boy]

Anything done by the police to precipitate a fall in government (or by Blair to suppress public knowledge of the investigation) is potentially a step towards a totalitarianism I don't much fancy.

Quite right.

But there is no actual reason why anything done by the police alone should precipitate any such result.

It is the politicians who have raised the stakes - "Interview me under caution and I'll have to resign" - not the police. It is an outrageous attempt to blackmail the police into not doing it.

 

[gosub]

It's not blackmail though, he would have to resign or at the very least have to be suspended, as has been the case with ambassadors up until Lord Levy.

 

[detective-boy]

It's not blackmail though, he would have to resign or at the very least have to be suspended, as has been the case with ambassadors up until Lord Levy.

What? They've "got" to resign / be suspended if they are interviewed under caution? Politically they may feel the need to, but is there some requirement for them to? It sounds a little odd to me, bearing in mind that an interview under caution means absolutely nothing in terms of any proven wrongdoing at all.

The police should be free to pursue their enquiries without fear or favour. To have a class of people (politicians) who are "untouchable" is just as bad as a totalitarian state isn't it.

 

[agricola]

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but istm that there is a real difference between the elected government and anybody else. I'm not sure I want a closed meeting of senior police officers determining when the government falls, any more than I want the police investigation held behind closed (sub judice) doors. This doesn't involve a strangler or a lapdancer, and the comparison doesn't hold.

Constitutionally the power to remove the government resides in the people via a vote of no confidence in parliament, and to my mind everything else is secondary to that in this case.

Charging Levy or Turner is one thing, but charging or arresting Blair is of a completely different order.

Anything done by the police to precipitate a fall in government (or by Blair to suppress public knowledge of the investigation) is potentially a step towards a totalitarianism I don't much fancy.

TBH I think you sort of miss the point.

Of course, the people as represented in Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of misdeeds related to itself, but the pernicious and anti-democratic nature of the party system (which of course influences the composition of Parliamentary committees, much of the time spent in Parliament and which, in the case of the ruling party, has vast power to influence individual MPs) ensures that Parliament - or at least the House of Commons - cannot now function in that way. That (to return to the start of the affair) is probably why the SNP MP who started it went to the Police (after, of course, the House of Lords Appointments Committee turned down most of the loanees), since they would be far less susceptible to such pressures, as of course they should be - the law of the land should be above everyone.

 

[newbie]

Quite right.

But there is no actual reason why anything done by the police alone should precipitate any such result.

It is the politicians who have raised the stakes - "Interview me under caution and I'll have to resign" - not the police. It is an outrageous attempt to blackmail the police into not doing it.

"Interview me under caution and I'll have to resign" strikes me as realistic- I don't think he could continue in office if suspected of committing a crime (as opposed to being interviewed as a potential witness).



But of course this has never happened before, and we don't have a written constitution or a supreme court to decide such issues. The whole system is built around weird concepts like duty, integrity and confidence, so this is all speculation, no-one knows.

 

[detective-boy]

It seems to me that posters here are basically creating a total no-win situation for the police (no real surprises there then ...).

A crime is alleged and the police are directed to investigate.

Their enquiries take them to the point where the PM or some close associate merits interview under caution. That, for some reason entirely unrelated to the police, may result in the PM resigning.

They can (a) decide NOT to interview under caution because that would mean that they (the police) would effectively be bringing down an elected PM (and so get slaughtered for not pursuing their enquiries without fear or favour) or (b) decide to press on ahead, as they would do in any other circumstances (albet being double, double sure of their ground), and interview him, causing him to resign (and so get slaughtered for bringing down an elected PM).

Surely there is only one course of action that can be expected of them. And that is (b). If it brings down the elected PM, so be it. It is nothing to do with them and it is not their responsibility. To require them to do anything other than this is to encourage them to apply the law inequitably. Surely that can't be right?

 

[untethered]

It seems to me that posters here are basically creating a total no-win situation for the police (no real surprises there then ...).

A crime is alleged and the police are directed to investigate.

Their enquiries take them to the point where the PM or some close associate merits interview under caution. That, for some reason entirely unrelated to the police, may result in the PM resigning.

They can (a) decide NOT to interview under caution because that would mean that they (the police) would effectively be bringing down an elected PM (and so get slaughtered for not pursuing their enquiries without fear or favour) or (b) decide to press on ahead, as they would do in any other circumstances (albet being double, double sure of their ground), and interview him, causing him to resign (and so get slaughtered for bringing down an elected PM).

Surely there is only one course of action that can be expected of them. And that is (b). If it brings down the elected PM, so be it. It is nothing to do with them and it is not their responsibility. To require them to do anything other than this is to encourage them to apply the law inequitably. Surely that can't be right?

Your logic is good but your premise is wrong.

Tony Blair isn't the elected PM. He's the member of parliament for Sedgefield.

We don't have presidents in this country and the prime minister does not have a constitutionally protected role in the way you suggest.

If a government loses a minister, the governing party appoints another one. This may have wider political ramifications, but there is no necessary constitutional jeopardy with the police pursuing enquiries in the proper manner against anyone other than the Queen.

 

[gosub]

What? They've "got" to resign / be suspended if they are interviewed under caution? Politically they may feel the need to, but is there some requirement for them to? It sounds a little odd to me, bearing in mind that an interview under caution means absolutely nothing in terms of any proven wrongdoing at all.

The police should be free to pursue their enquiries without fear or favour. To have a class of people (politicians) who are "untouchable" is just as bad as a totalitarian state isn't it.

There is a requirement for Ambassador's and those of similar rank of public office, such as Judges to be suspended if they are the subject of on going criminal enquiry. Part of existing code of practice that existed before "whiter than white" Blair got in, will no doubt be under review shortly. Was designed to protect the rank not the person, and as Blair is higher up the pecking order would be hard to justify why it doesn't apply to PM. I think the current situation would have beyond the imagination of the day when it was drawn up, but then a PM's may not have to have been "decent sort of a guy" back then.


I don't see logically how the Queen can be found to breaking her own laws (you do need an unobtainable constitutional reference point IMO), EU Commissioner's are immune from prosecution during their tenure of office, but the notion of thinking that our elected representatives are becoming a class repels me, it makes a nonsense of democracy for a start, just because there are a few bad apples we really shouldn't satart thinking of these public servants as dalit.


ETA: That said finding 12 people to judge Blair fairly and impartially strikes me as difficult.

 

[TAE]

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but istm that there is a real difference between the elected government and anybody else.

I quite fundamentally disagree. Many many people are elected, from the MP for Sedgefield down to local parish councillors.
Being elected is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.