Police State?

[pongo]

That's the way the tories behaved last time and it shouldn't happen again.

 

It was worse in many ways. Remember, for example, how the police were politically used like a private army on overtime during the miners' strike. I've seen interviews with former officers who deeply regret how they behaved (and were encouraged to behave by the culture) in those dark days.

 

At least the stuff happening now is reported and properly covered. The society is not perfect but is much more open now.

[Cronky]

I heard Michael Howard M.P. say on Radio 4 that the last time this happened in England it lead to civil war. This is a fairly strong statement to say the least so I had a look through my histroy books to find out what he meant.

 

In January 1642 King Charles I tried to arrest the Puritan leader of the Parliament John Pym (and four others) by sending soldiers into the House of Commons. John Pym was a champion of Parliamentary freedom, religion, justice and the privelege of Parliament. His attempted arrest led to parliament passing a Militia Bill without Royal Assent which led to Parliament effectively taking control of the land forces.

 

King Charles I, of course, lost his head through trying to be an all powerful leader.

 

I can see where Michael Howard is coming from. Damian Green M.P. was arrested by the Met's counter-terrorism command even though there was no 'terrorism' related offence. Rather like the Kaupthing banks assets were seized under counter terrorism legislation.

 

It seems to me that by using the 'paranoia' card the UK's special police forces can exert quite a bit of political authority. According to the Daily Mail:

 

'The police chief who ordered the raid on Damian Green's home played a key role in trying to help the Home Secretary force through the plan to detain terror suspects for 42 days without charge.'

 

The implication is that that this was a politically inspired arrest.

 

There is a strong parallel between John Pym's arrest in 1642 and Damien Green's arrest in 2008.

 

There is no doubt that the screw is being turned on British civil liberties in an unprecedented way. My question is what the heck for? In less than two years we will have a General Election and, most likely, New Labour will be voted out and Gordon Brown's power base will have been decapitated democratically and all these restrictions on freedom will have been worthless.

 

So why are New Labour behaving like this and what do they hope to gain by it?

[bluemonday]

Excellent post Cronky.

[Pat Ayres]

Unfortunately you prefaced your particular conspiracy theory with "According to the Daily Mail: "

Your argument fell on it's arse with that.

The police arrested him, not the Labout party, the police searched his 'homes', not the Labour party, the only problem seems that they searched his office in the palace of Westminster.

We shall have to wait and see what inducement was afforded the junior civil servant that leaked to him, or which paper he worked for.

[Chinahand]

I always find Tony Benn an interesting commentator - I often very much disagree with him, but its often worthwhile seeing what he will say on an issue.

 

He is very much of the opinion this action was wrong.

 

Clicky See Friday's program notes and webcast from 18:50 onwards; Ben 23:50.

[thebees]

Tony Benn rocks!

[Cronky]

Unfortunately you prefaced your particular conspiracy theory with "According to the Daily Mail: "

Your argument fell on it's arse with that.

 

I can understand that you don't like the Daily Mail. In which case have a look at what the Financial Times wrote:

 

When challenged on this prima facie inappropriate use of the counter-terrorism command, the London Metropolitan Police confirmed that Mr Green was arrested by members of its counter-terrorism command. It said the investigation was not terrorism-related but did fall within the counter-terror unit’s remit. Mr Green was not charged with any offence but was released on bail until February.

 

Well, let me explain something to the Metropolitan Police. If an investigation is not terrorism-related, it obviously does not fall within the counter-terror unit’s remit. How hard was that? Using the counter-terror unit to investigate an alleged offence which, even if it had been committed, would not be terrorism-related, is an abuse of power. These are the methods used commonly in police states. They have no place in the UK.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Well, let me explain something to the Metropolitan Police. If an investigation is not terrorism-related, it obviously does not fall within the counter-terror unit’s remit. How hard was that? Using the counter-terror unit to investigate an alleged offence which, even if it had been committed, would not be terrorism-related, is an abuse of power. These are the methods used commonly in police states. They have no place in the UK.

 

 

They have no place in the UK??? It may not be a police state but the UK state doesn't exactly have a great track record in relation to civil liberties and 'responsible' use of enforcement services. And the problem is getting worse.

[P.K.]

He may have signed The Official Secrets Act and plod is probably checking to make sure he has adhered to it. If he has then no worries. If he is in breach then it's got nothing whatever to do parliamentary privilege or a Labour conspiracy or any of the rest of The Mail bs. He's broken the law, simple as.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

He may have signed The Official Secrets Act and plod is probably checking to make sure he has adhered to it. If he has then no worries. If he is in breach then it's got nothing whatever to do parliamentary privilege or a Labour conspiracy or any of the rest of The Mail bs. He's broken the law, simple as.

 

I haven't read a lot about this issue, but is The Official Secrets Act relevant to the type of information that this MP leaked?

[Albert Tatlock]

He may have signed The Official Secrets Act and plod is probably checking to make sure he has adhered to it. If he has then no worries. If he is in breach then it's got nothing whatever to do parliamentary privilege or a Labour conspiracy or any of the rest of The Mail bs. He's broken the law, simple as.

Since you are in favour of a police state your reply is hardly a surprise. Isn't the point more 'does a state secret include anything the government might be up to?' even if it shouldn't be 'secret' and opposition politicians are simply doing their job by highlighting it opposing it. We're not talking about giving away troop movements here, more what NuShite have been trying to hide, that should be in the public domain. Otherwise you are suggesting government with no opposition.

[P.K.]

I would guess that's what plod is checking. But face it, London's Finest didn't wake up one morning and think "That's a good idea, I'll arrest Damian Green for being in possession of an offensive wife, smelling of foreign food and treading on the cracks in the pavement. Oh, and for having a posh-sounding name as well." These things are done for a reason.

 

Edited to add this link for those who didn't recognise the "charges". The famous NTNON "Constable Savage" skit starts about a minute in. Well worth it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I would guess that's what plod is checking. But face it, London's Finest didn't wake up one morning and think "That's a good idea, I'll arrest Damian Green for being in possession of an offensive wife, smelling of foreign food and treading on the cracks in the pavement. Oh, and for having a posh-sounding name as well." These things are done for a reason.

 

I think I understanding your thinking, and yes I agree, things are done for a reason. However, we have to recognise that the reasons are not the product of some belevolence or the government doing the right thing for the people. Putting the type of information into context, and it is not military or intelligence secrets as far as I am aware, what would be the problem with people seeing it?

I can understand the governments motives for wanting to cover up its dirty work and the truths of politicians minds.

 

What offence was the MP charged with?

[P.K.]

Since you are in favour of a police state your reply is hardly a surprise. Isn't the point more 'does a state secret include anything the government might be up to?' even if it shouldn't be 'secret' and opposition politicians are simply doing their job by highlighting it opposing it. We're not talking about giving away troop movements here, more what NuShite have been trying to hide, that should be in the public domain. Otherwise you are suggesting government with no opposition.

Dear me Albert, of course I'm in favour of a Police State, otherwise I would never make "Concentration Camp Guard" that you once accused me of being eminently suitable for.

 

There are already safeguards built in but eventually it's the courts (and presumably jury) that decide the guilt or otherwise. I'm surprised you've forgotten the Belgrano affair which basically moved that if the leaked information was "in the public interest" then there is no case to answer.

[Albert Tatlock]

Dear me Albert, of course I'm in favour of a Police State, otherwise I would never make "Concentration Camp Guard" that you once accused me of being eminently suitable for.

Gosh you've just demonstrated a good memory, and there was me thinking of putting you on the list for 'concentration camp' next summer.

 

/southpark mode.

 

Of course - that remark years ago was in the context of you blindingly following orders, and then thinking you had to do that for the rest of your life.