Tory MP arrested over leaks

[agricola]

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.

Blair has gone now. As for this, as I said in the original post if this turns out that Greene was offering inducements for the leaks then I would rather hope he gets charged, just as it should happen to journalists when they do it.

 

[Stroppyoldgit]

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?

I can believe it. It's NuLabour that's in the shit here, make no mistake. It's perfectly credible that Brown, Smith etc. were kept out of the loop -at least of the decision to arrest, search offices and his home etc. rather than simply interview him by appointment.

The alternative is that they so gravely misjudged things that they didn't forsee the reaction and political effects. I doubt that even NuLabour is that inept...errr....are they? Even if they'd felt in some sort of bind or were squeezed into a corner by the cops, they'd have had a defence strategy ready, some sort of crappy spin on it. As it was, they gave every indication of being flummoxed, of being hit by a disaster coming from nowhere. It wasn't until the next day that they got any real coordinated response going.

I suspect that the cops (effectively now a paramiltary political party) or someone in their nexus is playing games. Hmmm..Green not bailed to return to the cop shop until February? After that, maybe bailed again or charged, then committal, pre-trial procedures, numerous adjournments...this can be kept on the boil for ages, a knife in Brown's side to be merrily twisted by Cameron as often as he likes (being careful about sub judice, of course). Could be the end of Smith.

Brown must be desperate to get off this hook. Even if he does, it won't be without damage. Watch out for loads of hypocritical "freedom" rhetoric from Cameron. And from Plod? "Only doin' our job. Evenin' all! ...Err, no, we 'aven't actually got a commissioner right now."

 

[shagnasty]

So do you like me think they will look for a scapecoat so that somebodys head will roll .if this as the legs to run it will be very interesting

 

[CyberRose]

Gotta love the way the U75 hive mind works!

Everybody assumes that the government ordered the police to arrest this MP, despite saying they didn't

If someone breaks the law, the police's job is to investigate, that's what they've done in this case

Just because someone's an MP doesn't make them immune from the law (despite the Tory party apparently believing that to be so)

 

[Cressi]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Gotta love the way the U75 hive mind works!

Everybody assumes that the government ordered the police to arrest this MP, despite saying they didn't

If someone breaks the law, the police's job is to investigate, that's what they've done in this case

Just because someone's an MP doesn't make them immune from the law (despite the Tory party apparently believing that to be so)

So the person in charge of the nation's police, the Home Secretary, is not told in advance that an MP is to be arrested? When Boris Johnson, David Cameron and Michael Martin are all told.

And you believe the Home Secretary when she says that inspite of being in charge of the nation's police, she was not told.




Now the police are saying that Green groomed the leaker, knowing full well the implications of the word groomed in the minds of the UK populous.

Total set up by government, one which is backfiring spectaularly as usual.

 

[CyberRose]

To be honest, I don't really see the issue over whether the Home Sec knew or not as something major? I don't think it would have made any difference. If she was told, then so what? I don't see the need to lie over that aspect as I don't think it alters the issue at hand.

Anyway, that's not the point I was trying to make. The point is, so what if this MP got arrested? If the police suspect he was breaking the law, or had information to a case they were investigating, of course they'll do what they need to do. MPs shouldn't receive any privileges and they shouldn't be above the law.

 

[agricola]

To be honest, I don't really see the issue over whether the Home Sec knew or not as something major? I don't think it would have made any difference. If she was told, then so what? I don't see the need to lie over that aspect as I don't think it alters the issue at hand.

Anyway, that's not the point I was trying to make. The point is, so what if this MP got arrested? If the police suspect he was breaking the law, or had information to a case they were investigating, of course they'll do what they need to do. MPs shouldn't receive any privileges and they shouldn't be above the law.

There has been something of an update from the investigation:

When police questioned the MP, they are said to have suggested to him that he had not "simply received leaked" information but "groomed" a civil servant who had allegedly passed him 20 confidential documents.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said he had been told that Conservative frontbenchers had had legal advice "on the difference between merely receiving a leak" and "inducing leakers to leak".

If this is true then it provides rather more justification for the police arrest than it first appears. There is, after all, quite a difference between someone who leaks documents as a result of exposing wrongdoing and someone who leaks documents in return for a (real or promised) reward.

Now the police are saying that Green groomed the leaker, knowing full well the implications of the word groomed in the minds of the UK populous.

Neither politicians nor (especially) journalists should be allowed to corrupt public servants (or indeed anyone else) in order to gain a benefit from that act.

 

[agricola]

Amusingly, the Sun decides that nearly all the measures they have been vocal cheerleaders for are, in fact, leading us towards a police state.

Not sure about "the pointless shooting of drunken barrister Mark Saunders" though - wasnt he taking potshots at people with a shotgun?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

To be honest, I don't really see the issue over whether the Home Sec knew or not as something major? I don't think it would have made any difference. If she was told, then so what? I don't see the need to lie over that aspect as I don't think it alters the issue at hand.

Anyway, that's not the point I was trying to make. The point is, so what if this MP got arrested? If the police suspect he was breaking the law, or had information to a case they were investigating, of course they'll do what they need to do. MPs shouldn't receive any privileges and they shouldn't be above the law.

Home Secretary would have known.

The man was arrested essentially for exposing wrong doingings by the Home Secretaries own party.

IF he groomed the leaker, it does provide a slightly different look on things, but we don't know this as fact, it has been leaked by the police and as such could prejudice any possible trial.

 

[CyberRose]

Home Secretary would have known.

Yea but like I said above I don't really care that she knew or didn't know (other than obviously not being truthful if it turns out she did know). To me that's not the actual issue or the issue it's being built into. This whole issue is whether or not the government ordered the police to arrest an MP (which is the allegation) and I don't think that's true. I think the police alone decided to do it because it's their job!

The man was arrested essentially for exposing wrong doingings by the Home Secretaries own party.

Not by the Labour Party, by the Home Office - very different

 

[TAE]

This government have a long history of telling the police what to do, the last example I can remember is Mr.Brown encouraging the police to use anti-terror laws against the heathrow protesters.

I find it quite unacceptable that any MP should be arrested for embarressing the government. So many laws are so widely phrased that just about anyone could be arrested.

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.

As I understand it, they did the search while parliament was not in session because that made it legally easier for them to search parliamentry offices.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Yea but like I said above I don't really care that she knew or didn't know (other than obviously not being truthful if it turns out she did know). To me that's not the actual issue or the issue it's being built into. This whole issue is whether or not the government ordered the police to arrest an MP (which is the allegation) and I don't think that's true. I think the police alone decided to do it because it's their job!

We shall have to wait and see. However with the Home Secretary being the highest of the high when it comes to the police, if she didn't know in advance she should be sacked for incompetance, if she did know she should be sacked for telling porkies and if she hadn't ordered or at very least strongly encouraged the arrest I'd be amazed as it would be quite frankly amazing.

Not by the Labour Party, by the Home Office - very different

The leaks:

A leaked e-mail from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's private secretary in July 2007 showed she had chosen not to publicise the fact that licences had been granted to security guards who were illegal immigrants. She denied there had been a "blunder" but later admitted that as many as 11,000 illegal immigrants may have been cleared to work as security staff.

• A memo to Home Office minister Liam Byrne was leaked to reveal in February this year that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.

• A draft Home Office letter to Downing Street was then leaked in August, in which Jacqui Smith warned that a recession could lead to a rise in crime. The Home Office said the document was draft advice which had not been cleared by the home secretary.



I'd say the leaks were very much concerned with the Labour Party.

 

[newbie]

I'd say the leaks were very much concerned with the Labour Party.

surely that's exactly why she shouldn't have known in advance.

A Home Secretary that orders the arrest of opposition MPs over party political matters would be very dangerous indeed.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

surely that's exactly why she shouldn't have known in advance.

A Home Secretary that orders the arrest of opposition MPs over party political matters would be very dangerous indeed.

Quite.

The leaks concern the Home Secretary, the person ultimately in charge of the police.

The police make an arrest for a very, very obscure offence.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I can't see how she wasn't aware of and/or ordered or at very least instigated the whole affair.

And yet the denials will come, interweb forums will bicker, the people will be devided and ruled over with yet another piece of their liberties in tatters.

 

[CyberRose]

We shall have to wait and see. However with the Home Secretary being the highest of the high when it comes to the police, if she didn't know in advance she should be sacked for incompetance, if she did know she should be sacked for telling porkies and if she hadn't ordered or at very least strongly encouraged the arrest I'd be amazed as it would be quite frankly amazing.

See the thing that I'm trying to get at is if she did know what difference would that have made? If she had said, 'yea the police told me they were gonna arrest this guy' then, what? If the police were gonna arrest someone, MP or otherwise, then they're gonna arrest them. It just seems like there was no need to lie about it, so why bother? If she had known about it I'm sure that will come out eventually which would be a bigger PR disaster than if people think she ordered the hit on this Tory!

I'd say the leaks were very much concerned with the Labour Party.

Of course they are concerned with the Labour Party! Everything in government is! But you originally said "wrongdoings by the Labour Party", whereas I think this specifically refers to the Home Office (which, of course, Labour is in charge of)

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

See the thing that I'm trying to get at is if she did know what difference would that have made? If she had said, 'yea the police told me they were gonna arrest this guy' then, what? If the police were gonna arrest someone, MP or otherwise, then they're gonna arrest them. It just seems like there was no need to lie about it, so why bother? If she had known about it I'm sure that will come out eventually which would be a bigger PR disaster than if people think she ordered the hit on this Tory!

You see the thing I'm getting at is that the Home Secretary pushed the police to make an arrest. Then when it goes very tits up, she realises that if she admits she knew in advance about the arrest, it would mean that she endorsed it, for as the person in charge of the police she could have stopped it.

Of course they are concerned with the Labour Party! Everything in government is! But you originally said "wrongdoings by the Labour Party", whereas I think this specifically refers to the Home Office (which, of course, Labour is in charge of)

I really think you're nitpicking here.

 

[CyberRose]

And yet the denials will come, interweb forums will bicker, the people will be devided and ruled over with yet another piece of their liberties in tatters.

Oh give over! What's wrong with U75 jumping every time the Conservatives mention civil liberties?! I can't believe the number of people who fell for their tricks when David Davis resigned! Now this, we have loads of people from very left wing perspectives arguing that a right wing politician should be immune from the law!

The police investigate any matters where a law is broken, that's their job. If you disagree with the particular law, then fair enough, but you can't blame the police for doing what they're paid to do.

It's also possible that this person who leaked to the MP had been offered favours (he'd supposedly been looking for a job with him hadn't he?) and was just looking for any old info the Conservatives could use politically, rather than all this "in the public interest" argument - what if that's the case?

 

[CyberRose]

You see the thing I'm getting at is that the Home Secretary pushed the police to make an arrest. Then when it goes very tits up, she realises that if she admits she knew in advance about the arrest, it would mean that she endorsed it, for as the person in charge of the police she could have stopped it.

Ok fair enough. I think I kinda knew what you were getting at and that's the other half of the issue to the "did she know" debate. But on what you mention above I think you should ask yourself how come Tony Blair was investigated numerous times over the cash for honours scandal? Don't you think if the Home Secretary really had control over the police they would have allowed that? Wouldn't they have had George Osborn banged up for soliciting illegal donations? There's all manner of things they could have used the police for for political gain but haven't.

At the end of the day, and U75 will not agree with me, but we do live in a democracy and the police (and numerous other authorities) have a certain independence from government.

Also, don't the police hate Jacqui Smith? Why would they be doing her any favours?!

I really think you're nitpicking here.

This affair is to do with the Home Office and Home Office officials - that's where it ends (I think anyway)

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Oh give over! What's wrong with U75 jumping every time the Conservatives mention civil liberties?! I can't believe the number of people who fell for their tricks when David Davis resigned! Now this, we have loads of people from very left wing perspectives arguing that a right wing politician should be immune from the law!

Firstly U75 has never jumped together. Secondly I am neither left nor right wing, I believe left and right ceased to exist many years ago. Thirdly, no where have I suggested that Damien Green should be immune to the law and AFAIK no one else has either.

The police investigate any matters where a law is broken, that's their job. If you disagree with the particular law, then fair enough, but you can't blame the police for doing what they're paid to do.

The police pick and choose which laws to uphold, they also pick and choose when to investigate if they feel a law may have been broken. I find it very, very unprobable that any serving office was aware of the laws under which Mr. Green was arrested. More likely they were pushed in to the investigation by outside influence after much legal wrangling.

It's also possible that this person who leaked to the MP had been offered favours (he'd supposedly been looking for a job with him hadn't he?) and was just looking for any old info the Conservatives could use politically, rather than all this "in the public interest" argument - what if that's the case?

We don't really know. All we've had is police leaks. If he is a wanna-be tory twat, so what, the three leaks in question, whilst damaging to the government and positive for the tories, are all valid to be in the public domain. They are all fuck ups by the government, fuck ups which the government has tried to cover up. Exposing shit like this is the job of the opossition, regardless of who the opposition happen to be.

 

[CyberRose]

Firstly U75 has never jumped together. Secondly I am neither left nor right wing, I believe left and right ceased to exist many years ago. Thirdly, no where have I suggested that Damien Green should be immune to the law and AFAIK no one else has either.

Well there seems to be a lot of people upset because of his arrest (or what his arrest implies)

The police pick and choose which laws to uphold, they also pick and choose when to investigate if they feel a law may have been broken. I find it very, very unprobable that any serving office was aware of the laws under which Mr. Green was arrested. More likely they were pushed in to the investigation by outside influence after much legal wrangling.

That might very well be the case. There's going to be an inquiry into this episode and I fully expect any revelations like that to become apparent during it

We don't really know. All we've had is police leaks. If he is a wanna-be tory twat, so what, the three leaks in question, whilst damaging to the government and positive for the tories, are all valid to be in the public domain. They are all fuck ups by the government, fuck ups which the government has tried to cover up. Exposing shit like this is the job of the opossition, regardless of who the opposition happen to be.

Again, that's fair enough. But if that's the law you can't criticise the police for upholding it, but you can say the law needs to be changed to protect people who leak this kind of info (altho when somebody is leaking info for possible personal gain then that kinda removes the justification)

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

There's going to be an inquiry into this episode and I fully expect any revelations like that to become buried during the usual multi-million pound whitewash

Fixed it for ya.

 

[CyberRose]

Fixed it for ya.

Ah, clever!

Still, it would be a perfect opportunity for the police to kick Jacqui Smith in her bollocks no?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Not at a time when she's on the verge of choosing the new Met Commissioner, no.

 

[TAE]

You see the thing I'm getting at is that the Home Secretary pushed the police to make an arrest.

I suspect that this is exactly what will emerge: She pushed the police to investigate and if possible make an arrest over the embaressing leaks. Whether or not she knew about this specific arrest is kind of not the point.

 

[CyberRose]

Not at a time when she's on the verge of choosing the new Met Commissioner, no.

The Home Secretary has nothing to do with appointing the Met Commissioner do they?

 

[CyberRose]

I suspect that this is exactly what will emerge: She pushed the police to investigate and if possible make an arrest over the embaressing leaks. Whether or not she knew about this specific arrest is kind of not the point.

The Met Police are answerable to the London Assembly (ie the Met Police Authority), not the Home Office, no?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

The Home Secretary has nothing to do with appointing the Met Commissioner do they?

You're close.

By statute, only the Home Secretary can appoint and dismiss a Met Police Commissioner.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ould+look+abroad+for+new+Met+chief/article.do

 

[CyberRose]

Fair enough, but Boris will have a major say in who gets appointed

He also tried to get the police to stop their enquiries into this MP, how the fuck has that escaped anyone?!

Anyway, good article on the matter from the Independent (well, good as in it puts into words what I am thinking)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ho-is-accountable-for-the-police-1047108.html

 

[Jeff Robinson]

A Police State:

Whining, dreary tory vermin really starting to piss me off. Round them up and butcher them like dogs.