Tory MP arrested over leaks

[Awesome Wells]

Send lawyers, guns, and money.

 

[Fullyplumped]

The reason why the officers who arrested Mr Green came from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command is a matter of history, coupled with a quirk arising from a recent Police reorganisation, as explained by Unity at Liberal Conspiracy blog.

Because there’s the possibility that Green’s alleged source could be charged with an offence under the Official Secrets Act, responsbility for the investigation of this case falls to what used to be Special Branch, which has always held the responsibility for OSA cases since the very first such Act, which was passed in 1889.

However, in 2006, Special Branch was merged with the Met’s Anti-Terrorism Branch (which actually used be the investigative arm of Special Branch until it was separated off in 1972) to form a new Counter Terrorism Command.

 

[agricola]

A better example would be the one that Tory blogger Iain Dale gives - Robin Cook.

As Cicero said, cui bono? The only ones who will benefit from this ridiculousness are the Tories, and perhaps some cynical and out-of-control senior cops with a grudge.

I disagree with this.

For a start, this came about because of a complaint from the Cabinet Office to the Met about these leaks - someone in Government must have been aware of the situation in order to make such a complaint, and that the whistleblower himself has been arrested a week and a bit ago. I fail to see how either the Tories or even "out of control senior cops with a grudge" (why would they have a grudge against Green?) could have brought this about by themselves.

I also have severe doubts as to whether the arrest of an Opposition Minister as part of this investigation would not have been run by senior people within the Government - Boris was told, as was Cameron, as was the Speaker. The people within CTC are not fools and they will almost certainly been aware of the almost unique nature of this arrest. I would not be at all surprised if a senior Government figure signed off on this before it happened and was glad to do so, given the possibility of making the Tories look foolish.

As I said in the initial post, if it turns out that Green was offering inducements for this information then he should be charged - after all its little better than corruption in that case - but if he hasnt, then there should be an immediate and wide-ranging inquiry into this so we can find out who ordered who to do what.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I disagree with this. For a start, this came about because of a complaint from the Cabinet Office to the Met about these leaks - someone in Government must have been aware of the situation in order to make such a complaint, and that the whistleblower himself has been arrested a week and a bit ago. I fail to see how either the Tories or even "out of control senior cops with a grudge" (why would they have a grudge against Green?) ...

My view is that the cops would have to have a grudge against the government, not Mr Green, to want to put so much effort into embarrassing them.

...could have brought this about by themselves.

I also have severe doubts as to whether the arrest of an Opposition Minister as part of this investigation would not have been run by senior people within the Government - Boris was told, as was Cameron, as was the Speaker. The people within CTC are not fools and they will almost certainly been aware of the almost unique nature of this arrest. I would not be at all surprised if a senior Government figure signed off on this before it happened and was glad to do so, given the possibility of making the Tories look foolish.

Well, if a "senior Government figure" really signed off on this then he or she needs to go.

And the Tories haven't been made to look foolish - quite the opposite. I really don't see how this benefits anyone but the Tories. They are absolutely loving this. I have come across no Labour person expressing anything other than dismay about what's happened - not least because the Home Secretary appears to have been unaware of what happened.

As I said in the initial post, if it turns out that Green was offering inducements for this information then he should be charged - after all its little better than corruption in that case - but if he hasnt, then there should be an immediate and wide-ranging inquiry into this so we can find out who ordered who to do what.

I think that if Mr Green was offering inducements over a period of time then that would justify what's happened, but it would be very easy to put up all sorts of defences so that getting a conviction from a jury would be almost impossible.

 

[Fullyplumped]

And Matthew Parris agrees with me -

I cannot avoid the suspicion that decisions were taken in Whitehall against the background of an enraged Prime Minister storming around and demanding the heads of leakers on plates. Commentators seeking method in this madness suggest that there was a stratagem: to put the frighteners on other moles, especially the sources of deeply sensitive Treasury leaks. Again, if so, the strategy has backfired. Any deterrent effect on Whitehall moles has been vastly outweighed by the political cost.

As I said, the Tories benefit hugely from this and Labour and the government lose hugely. I don't think this is an unintended consequence.

 

[shagnasty]

I disagree with this.

For a start, this came about because of a complaint from the Cabinet Office to the Met about these leaks - someone in Government must have been aware of the situation in order to make such a complaint, and that the whistleblower himself has been arrested a week and a bit ago. I fail to see how either the Tories or even "out of control senior cops with a grudge" (why would they have a grudge against Green?) could have brought this about by themselves.

I also have severe doubts as to whether the arrest of an Opposition Minister as part of this investigation would not have been run by senior people within the Government - Boris was told, as was Cameron, as was the Speaker. The people within CTC are not fools and they will almost certainly been aware of the almost unique nature of this arrest. I would not be at all surprised if a senior Government figure signed off on this before it happened and was glad to do so, given the possibility of making the Tories look foolish.

As I said in the initial post, if it turns out that Green was offering inducements for this information then he should be charged - after all its little better than corruption in that case - but if he hasnt, then there should be an immediate and wide-ranging inquiry into this so we can find out who ordered who to do what.

I am certain downing street must almost certainly been informed .an high profile arrest like this would not have been undertaken without consent from the hieararchy at number ten .gordy is like the two monkeys see no evil hear no evil but not the third because he as spoken enough evil

 

[Fullyplumped]

I am certain downing street must almost certainly been informed .an high profile arrest like this would not have been undertaken without consent from the hieararchy at number ten .gordy is like the two monkeys see no evil hear no evil but not the third because he as spoken enough evil

If the PM or Home Secretary had been made aware in advance - and they have denied this - they would surely have done all they could to get it stopped. It would have been obvious to either that the political implications would be hugely negative for the Labour government. But if they are telling the truth then the police have been either incredibly reckless or incredibly circumspect in applying the principle that operational matters should be kept away from the political executive. It would be interesting to know, in comparison, how far the PM or Home Secretary had been made aware in advance of the moves to arrest Ruth Turner and Lord Levy in the affair about alleged cash-for-peerages.

 

[lenny101]

If the PM or Home Secretary had been made aware in advance - and they have denied this - they would surely have done all they could to get it stopped. It would have been obvious to either that the political implications would be hugely negative for the Labour government. But if they are telling the truth then the police have been either incredibly reckless or incredibly circumspect in applying the principle that operational matters should be kept away from the political executive. It would be interesting to know, in comparison, how far the PM or Home Secretary had been made aware in advance of the moves to arrest Ruth Turner and Lord Levy in the affair about alleged cash-for-peerages.

The police tell Boris Johnson but not the home secretary or the PM. Must be bull shit.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Has anyone idly speculated about the timing of the arrest? Ya' know, two global news stories in full swing in Mumbai & Bangkok.....not that anyone in British government would ever be so callous as to bury news during a terrorist outrage....oh.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Has anyone idly speculated about the timing of the arrest? Ya' know, two global news stories in full swing in Mumbai & Bangkok.....not that anyone in British government would ever be so callous as to bury news during a terrorist outrage....oh.

People noticed anyway.

 

[laptop]

A more mundane timing explanation:

Before 21:17 GMT, 27 Nov, Updated 07:54 GMT, Friday, 28 Nov

Mr Green was held on suspicion of "conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office".

Updated 12:44 GMT, Friday, 28 Nov

A former police officer, his son and two journalists have been cleared of charges ...[of] misconduct in public office, an offence that does indeed carry a life sentence ...[and of] aiding and abetting misconduct in public office.

Prosecuters try to keep the MiPO charge alive, the Met to distract attention from Thames Valley's shame.

 

[Paul Russell]

Reminds me a little bit of how Tony Blair used to say we should basically do whatever the police wanted regarding 48 days (or whatever it was) because the police were the experts doing a difficult job on the front line. But then when Blair and his mates were later questioned about cash for honours, suddenly they were up in arms about the heavy-handed approach.

They don't like it up 'em.

 

[Combustible]

I am certain downing street must almost certainly been informed .an high profile arrest like this would not have been undertaken without consent from the hieararchy at number ten .gordy is like the two monkeys see no evil hear no evil but not the third because he as spoken enough evil

The police asking Downing Steet for consent to carry out thd arrest would be far more of a scandal than anything that has actually emerged from this.

 

[newbie]

Prosecuters try to keep the MiPO charge alive, the Met to distract attention from Thames Valley's shame.

Not only Thames Valley

James, 45, from Brighton, was convicted of a single count of communicating information useful to an enemy.
The court heard he sent coded messages to an Iranian military attache in Kabul, saying: "I am at your service".
But an Old Bailey jury was unable to reach a verdict on charges under the Official Secrets Act relating to his possession of a USB memory stick containing sensitive documents, and a second of misconduct in public office.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7754981.stm

 

[tim]

Neither whistleblowers nor those to whom whistles are blown should be harassed, no.

But they have to expect to be.

Let's see what's involved:



Party-political leaker, then. Let's say that out of all the defence campaigns that need waged, this one's not at the top of my list.

First they came for the Tory MP's and I did not speak out because I wasn't sa Tory MP.
Then ........

 

[agricola]

Reminds me a little bit of how Tony Blair used to say we should basically do whatever the police wanted regarding 48 days (or whatever it was) because the police were the experts doing a difficult job on the front line. But then when Blair and his mates were later questioned about cash for honours, suddenly they were up in arms about the heavy-handed approach.

They don't like it up 'em.

I think you are under the mistaken impression there that what Tony Blair said was in some way related to the truth. They brought in 90/28/42 days, not the Police (though they did use tame members of ACPO to "demonstrate" that they needed it).

If the PM or Home Secretary had been made aware in advance - and they have denied this - they would surely have done all they could to get it stopped. It would have been obvious to either that the political implications would be hugely negative for the Labour government. But if they are telling the truth then the police have been either incredibly reckless or incredibly circumspect in applying the principle that operational matters should be kept away from the political executive. It would be interesting to know, in comparison, how far the PM or Home Secretary had been made aware in advance of the moves to arrest Ruth Turner and Lord Levy in the affair about alleged cash-for-peerages.

As many have noted, they told Boris, Cameron (admittedly late on), and cleared it with the Speaker who authorised officers searching Greene's office (in addition, they cleared it with the judge who issued the search warrants as well as the CPS). That the Government were not made aware is, frankly, deeply unbelievable.

As for "well, they would have recognized the political implications", I remind you we are talking about members of the New Labour Government here. How much of a record of incompetence and not thinking things through to their logical conclusion do you need?

 

[Demosthenes]

Basically it's really good to see the law used against mp's just as it is against ordinary people, and the police should be applauded for doing so.

Doesn't change the fact that the law is bad law, and there shouldn't be an official secrets act, but, unless the tories are proposing to repeal that act, they've got nothing to complain about.

 

[agricola]

Basically it's really good to see the law used against mp's just as it is against ordinary people, and the police should be applauded for doing so.

Doesn't change the fact that the law is bad law, and there shouldn't be an official secrets act, but, unless the tories are proposing to repeal that act, they've got nothing to complain about.

This arrest hasnt taken place under the Official Secrets Act, its taken place under Common Law.

 

[GoneCoastal]

Basically it's really good to see the law used against mp's just as it is against ordinary people, and the police should be applauded for doing so.

Doesn't change the fact that the law is bad law, and there shouldn't be an official secrets act, but, unless the tories are proposing to repeal that act, they've got nothing to complain about.

And as far as I understand, his computer(s) and correspondence with constituency members is also now in the hands of the police .... that means that the police are in a position to examine completely unrelated correspondence

Who is over-seeing the reading & checking of that ? What if said correspondence contains people's criticisms of police matters (or perhaps even details of appeals/complaints against officers etc) ? The possibilities that this raises worry me more than whether the OSA (which wasn't used anyway afaik) is a good or bad law or which party this has happened to

I also understand that the search team at his house attempted to remove his barrister wife's lawyer/client correspondence too - if true, then that must have approached a breach of the law regarding privacy between a lawyer and client?

All in all, the whole issue's more than worrying

 

[Combustible]

I find quotes like this a bit bizarre.

From the BBC

John O'Connor, former head of the London police unit, the flying squad, told BBC Radio 5Live he found it difficult to believe the government didn't know about the investigation.

He said: "If the prime minister and the home secretary were unaware of this police activity - then they must be utterly incompetent.

"And if they were aware of it then that makes them really quite dangerous. So I think whatever way, whatever path they choose it doesn't put them in a good light."

So either way the Home Secretary is apparently incompetent or dangerous. But we still don't know whether the police acted on genuine probable cause. If you accept that the police should be able to arrest MPs if they have a probable cause then what exactly should the Home Secretary do. Either way they apparently become incompetent or dangerous. If you don't believe that opposition MPs should be able to be arrested (on these grounds) then the law should be changed but no Tories seem to have called for that.

 

[jayeola]

Does GB need to get tips from R Mugabe on how to piss off the public or start a police state? I'm a simple man so could some one tell me how an event like this will induce feelings of confidence in politics?

 

[GoneCoastal]

Interesting...

"Pressed about what she knew when, Ms Smith said she had known there was a leak inquiry going on and knew in advance that a Home Office official was being arrested as part of it on 11 November.

But she said she did not know about the raid or arrest of Mr Green before they happened."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7757170.stm

 

[Brainaddict]

I really like the BBCs title for this story:

"MP's arrest not Stalinist - Smith"

It's a bit like writing "I'm not a total cunt - Brown"

But for once I'll forgive them their lack of 'objectivity'

 

[DotCommunist]

bit of insult to the Stalinist method tbh. That old monster would have sent the NKVD round in the dead of night and had a confession extracted by morning

 

[Cressi]

erm Mr Tom Paine...its a precedent that has to set...it is how law changes, evolves and develops. The legal eagles are going to love this.

A judge authorizes the warrent....it would be interesting to know which Judge?

And it is under common law so I am bit confused with Smiths words ...'in my book'.....what bloody book? I hope she hasnt got a secret book?

 

[laptop]

I really like the BBCs title for this story:

"MP's arrest not Stalinist - Smith"

It's a bit like writing "I'm not a total cunt - Brown"

But for once I'll forgive them their lack of 'objectivity'

bit of insult to the Stalinist method tbh. That old monster would have sent the NKVD round in the dead of night and had a confession extracted by morning

DotCommunist is agreeing with Jaqui Smith

Your're not advising her, are you?

Yes, Minister, it is strictly correct to say it's not Stalinist, since we are not yet planning to send him to the Guantanamo Gulag...

 

[Darios]

Can anyone explain why the civil servant, Chris Galley, who is supposed to be the source of the "leaks", is currently under protection, "in hiding" at an undisclosed location?

Who exactly is he being protected from?

 

[DotCommunist]

DotCommunist is agreeing with Jaqui Smith

Your're not advising her, are you?

meh, she buys my weed, if she's influenced by my patter who am I to blame

 

[newbie]

Can anyone explain why the civil servant, Chris Galley, who is supposed to be the source of the "leaks", is currently under protection, "in hiding" at an undisclosed location?

Who exactly is he being protected from?

the answer to that depends a bit on what you think happened to David Kelly

 

[newbie]

be interesting to be a fly on the wall for the conversation between Ian Blair and Paul Stephenson. The former, who was in charge at the time, has clear reasons for exacting political revenge, the latter has to justify it.