Police State?

[P.K.]

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.

Well, I could always get a divorce I suppose...

[Chinahand]

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.

That is basically what Winston Churchill was getting and using to bash the government - information on German armaments etc.

 

PK's point about courts etc ignores the fact that Parliament IS a court. When the government in the 1930s tried to stop Churchill, the speaker came to his defence - the Court of Westminster was a proper place for MPs to debate whether government was being honest or not, or whether it was hiding imcompetence behind official secrets.

 

I really question what has changed today - what Green was getting was far far more benign than German armaments - and to use Terrorism Laws - it just shows how ill used there laws have become.

[P.K.]

PK's point about courts etc ignores the fact that Parliament IS a court.

Well you couldn't be more wrong. Had you bothered to read the link I posted you would have come across this:

 

However, a House of Lords judgement in 1988 overturned a blanket injunction across all media outlets from reporting anything from former intelligence officers.

 

The Law Lords criticised the government's handling of the issue, which had cost an estimated £3m.

 

Lord Goff said: "In a free society, there is a continuing public interest that the workings of government should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

Is there ANYONE out there who DOESN'T know that the House of Lords is the highest court in the land? Didn't think there was...

[Chinahand]

Erm - P.K. The Houses of Lords and Commons together make up the UK Parliament - the authority of the Lords is considerably less than the Commons.

 

If the Lords - Law Lords or what ever - or even the Sovereign - tried to stop the House of Commons going about its legitimate business then what a certain Oliver Cromwell and his friends did has made it quite clear where supremacy lies.

 

As Lord Goff said: "In a free society, there is a continuing public interest that the workings of government should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

 

This is precisely the point being made about what Greene was doing - IF he had been a private citizen he might have ended up in Court and a Jury would have decided if what he did was in the public interest - as happened over the Log of the Conqueror.

 

But the fact is he's an MP - up until this case the job of holding any MP responsible for leaking information was undertaken by Parliament.

 

MP's are rightly up in arms that this right is being usurped from them - it isn't a trivial matter.

[Lonan3]

If you can all swallow your Daily Mail-led hysteria for a moment, please take note a case in France that appears in today's TIMES

 

Journalists do not usually get sympathy when they complain about mistreatment, but the tale of Vittorio de Filippis [in picture], a manager with Libération, has caused an outcry. It tells you about the heavy-handed methods of a system which has extensive power to arrest and hold people.

Plainclothes officers hammered on de Filippis' door at 6.40 am last Friday. He was arrested in front of his two young sons and insulted. An officer called him "worse than garbage". He was taken in handcuffs to a holding cell and twice subjected to an intimate body search. He was questioned without access to a lawyer and released five hours later.

The police carried out their raid on the orders of Muriel Josié, an examining judge. De Filippis' alleged offence is that he was liable as publisher of Libération for a defamatory comment left by a reader on its internet site. In France, when you sue for libel, the case is prosecuted as a criminal one. In this instance, the victim of the supposed libel, an internet businessman, has already lost two cases against the newspaper.

In other words, a judge ordered a newspaper executive to be dragged from his home and abused over an internet comment. "I barely had time to reassure my son that I was not a crook and that this had to do with the newspaper," said de Filippis.

The behaviour of the judge and police stirred anger from most quarters over the weekend, including from President Sarkozy's UMP party. But today, Rachida Dati, the Justice Minister, said the police were carrying out standard procedure because de Filippis had ignored a summons to come to the judge's office.

 

And you think the UK is a police state?

[pongo]

alleged offence is that he was liable as publisher of Libération for a defamatory comment left by a reader on its internet site.

 

Owners of web sites with comments / forums are potentially liable as publishers of the user generated content. The law is still being decided / ruled / argued etc in different countries but the potential for liability obviously exists and probably makes sense.

 

In the US (and AFAIK this is gradually being adopted around the world) as soon as you (as web site owner) edit the comments, or a forum - then you have intervened and are therefore almost definitely the publisher. Because by your intervention you have mediated the content.

 

Maybe the police action seems heavy handed however.

[P.K.]

This is precisely the point being made about what Greene was doing - IF he had been a private citizen he might have ended up in Court and a Jury would have decided if what he did was in the public interest - as happened over the Log of the Conqueror.

 

But the fact is he's an MP - up until this case the job of holding any MP responsible for leaking information was undertaken by Parliament. MP's are rightly up in arms that this right is being usurped from them - it isn't a trivial matter.

You're right about the authority of the HOC over the HOL of course. If the Law Lords rule the HOC has done anything illegal then the HOC can just draft new legislation to get around it - like the Terror Laws! However do not put too much store in Parliament keeping their own house in order. I was once a guardian of the nation's secrets and you would not believe how many MP's were NOT allowed to see sensitive info. So there is no way they should be allowed to make a call in cases like this and I can't see how they can. Joe Public is not so daft though. The Judge told the jury to find Ponting guilty. The jury promptly found him innocent. Nice one.

 

This amused me:

 

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.

Well Albert, as far as I can tell there has been no opposition for at least a decade!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You're right about the authority of the HOC over the HOL of course. If the Law Lords rule the HOC has done anything illegal then the HOC can just draft new legislation to get around it - like the Terror Laws!

 

Yes they can, but the House of Lords has fortunately thwarted the government in quite a number of its terrorist laws by concluding that denied people their human rights, in one case it was to do with detention of foreigners (i think) under the ACTSA.

[pongo]

I was once a guardian of the nation's secrets and you would not believe how many MP's were NOT allowed to see sensitive info.

 

That's an odd thing to say.

 

ETA:

 

Oh - hang on. I think I can see what you've done there. Let me have a go too:

 

I once signed the Official Secrets Act - I could have been a sweeper upper in a dole office or something like that - but technically, and famously, you were not allowed to even tell anyone what brand of tea was in the canteen. So in that sense I was the guardian of a national secret. On to that I can join a completely unrelated factoid.

 

EG: I was once a guardian of a national secret and you would not believe how pre occupied John Major was with cricket.

 

you would not believe how many MP's were NOT allowed to see sensitive info.

 

Most MPs see very little sensitive information. This is obvious. For the most part they are lay people. Very few of them reach Cabinet level and they do not need and would not expect to be told sensitive information.

[triskelion]

If the Lords - Law Lords or what ever - or even the Sovereign - tried to stop the House of Commons going about its legitimate business then what a certain Oliver Cromwell and his friends did has made it quite clear where supremacy lies.

With a Lord Protector with no constitutional legitimacy or precedent and an equally suprious framework of Major-Generals?

 

Comparisons with the Civil War are junk history at its worst - take several points from an on-going news story, and compare it with past events using such vague terms so as to create some hysteria and promote some false debate. The most significant grievances in the run-up to the civil war were the levying of ship money from inland areas (no evidence that this was misused) and anti-Catholic prejudice.

[P.K.]

EG: I was once a guardian of a national secret and you would not believe how pre occupied John Major was with cricket.

 

you would not believe how many MP's were NOT allowed to see sensitive info.

Most MPs see very little sensitive information. This is obvious. For the most part they are lay people. Very few of them reach Cabinet level and they do not need and would not expect to be told sensitive information.

Which just goes to show how little you know about it. It happens that "Cabinet Level" IS the highest PV level, or at least it was when I left. Needless to say there were an awful lot more people PV'd to "Cabinet Level" than there ever were in the cabinet. There are various other PV levels that correspond to the classification levels of information that can be made available. There was a list of MP's, and almost certainly still is, of those that were not allowed to see anything with even the lowest security listing. I'm also sure that in these paranoid days of TWOT the vetting is even more stringent.

 

John Major is a good case in point. Knocking off Vindaloo could have had serious repercussions from a security point of view.

 

PS - I'v got to tell you here that "Spooks" is just a tv program, not a documentary. I'm afraid it's all pretend. Sorry to burst your little bubble there.

[Pat Ayres]

Back to thread and away from acronyms.

A civil servant (paid by us) leaks information to a member of his own party against his terms of employment. Said recipient gets arrested and his homes searched, accused of 'aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office, or conspiring to do so.' Damien Green is no martyr, since when has an MP been above the law?

[Chinahand]

When what is being leaked is in the public interest being hushed up by the government.

[macks]

Back to thread and away from acronyms.

A civil servant (paid by us) leaks information to a member of his own party against his terms of employment. Said recipient gets arrested and his homes searched, accused of 'aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office, or conspiring to do so.' Damien Green is no martyr, since when has an MP been above the law?

Our current Pm built his reputation and carear leeking information when he was in opposition.As far as i'm aware budgetary information was supposed to be secret until the day of the budget,but everything in the pre budget report was leaked in the week prior.Everything that is except the raise in national insurance,and the possible rise of vat to 20 % in approx 18 months wonder why that was.

Now i may be wrong as this was a "pre" budget announcment,but if you believe Gordan Brown is above spin and leaks and downright lies your probably just thick enought o blive that he has saved the world economy as well!!!

[Lost Login]

When what is being leaked is in the public interest being hushed up by the government.

 

If what is or was being leaked was or is in the public interest then I am sure that will be the defence of the civil servant. Equally or Green as well.

 

However in this case Green is not being investigated for accepting leaks or publishing but as I understand it actively encouraging, assisting etc somebody leak the information. It is that actively procuring or assisting that he is being investigated for. If he merely was given or found such information and leaked it then he would not be investigated.

 

I have to admit I do wonder what all the fuss is about as MPs are not above the law, although some give the impression they think they should be. If there is evidence that an individual broke the law then it is correct the police investigate no matter who they are. It should not be the polices job to decide whether they believe an individual is guilty or innocent prior to investigating and to use that opinion on deciding how to act.

 

If they find evidence that he is potentially guilty of an offence then presumably the CPS will decide if there is a case to answer and a jury will hear the case and they will decide as they see fit. Even if he is technically guilty they may find him not guilty if they believe that is in the public interest. Juries have done this before as per Ponting and that is the beauty of a jury system

 

We are only in a police state when the police decide whether a crime was or was not permitted and punish accordingly. Presently as in this case all they can do is investigate and it will be the ordinary people who will actually decide if anybody is actually guilty of an offence.

 

Finally in all this I wonder if the media would take a similar stance if it was say a Muslim MP or say a Sinn Fein MP twenty years ago who was soliciting information with regard to anti terrorism or security. I presume that is why the offence is on the statute book so that people could be arrested for trying to procure sensitive information. Yes in this instance it may have been heavy handed but like many laws it is based on an absolute and does not list what information you are are are not allowed to actively procure.

 

I also dislike the thought of an MP from any party actively encouraging or assisting any civil servant to leak information as I believe that the civil service should not bring politics into the work place, and I am uncomfortable with the thought that the "law makers" should also be law breakers. Ultimately if it is deemed acceptable then MP's of all parties will see it as open season to get civil servants to leak and at that point you would question how government would work