Police State?

[guardone]

It was reported that Green was investigated for misfeance in public office. I think that every time the terror police or terror Act is quoted or used in a non terror case, such as this, it is a clear case of misfeance by the police. This also applies to the Kaupthing bank siezure. The terrorism act is so wideranging and the penalties so draconian, all other laws are obsolete and they just quote it to intimidate us all the time. Using it inappropriately should be an offence.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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

 

Not sure I understand what dire consequences you would envisage if civil servants kept leaking information.

[P.K.]

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.

The problem is that Scribbling Servants are there to serve the Gov of the day. They should not, under any circumstances, let their own political beliefs have any effect on how they perform their duties. Because the politicos have to trust the Scribblers. If they can't the whole lot just dissolves into a paranoid mess. Hence the PV system which by the way isn't perfect. Still, anyone fancy improving things by applying for this post? Nice work if you can get it.

 

Now Green knows this. So his actions should have been to report the mole. He didn't. So guilty as charged there has to be an investigation.

 

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.

They only know there was a mole (I wonder if he lived in a hole?) because some documents had been leaked, because they had been leaked - you get the idea. The extent of the information leaked and how sensitive it might be, leading to possibly VERY serious charges, could only be ascertained by doing such investigations as searching Green's office. After all, if he didn't report the mole what else is he hiding? If he doesn't like it he only has himself to blame and he knows it, despite all the Daily Mailesque bluster.

 

So now it's wait and see mode if there are going to be any real charges.

[Lost Login]

My querying what all the full is about was not that I believe any leaking is trivial and should be ignored but that so much had been made that an MP was being investigated and it wass as if it is totally abhorant that the police should deign to investigate an MP

 

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.

They only know there was a mole (I wonder if he lived in a hole?) because some documents had been leaked, because they had been leaked - you get the idea. The extent of the information leaked and how sensitive it might be, leading to possibly VERY serious charges, could only be ascertained by doing such investigations as searching Green's office. After all, if he didn't report the mole what else is he hiding? If he doesn't like it he only has himself to blame and he knows it, despite all the Daily Mailesque bluster.

 

So now it's wait and see mode if there are going to be any real charges.

[Lost Login]

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

 

Not sure I understand what dire consequences you would envisage if civil servants kept leaking information.

 

I am not sure either but I believe in any large organisation the primary loyalty & responsibility for the staff should be to that organisation. I find it difficult to see how any organisation can work if you can not trust your fellow employees or those for work you.

 

In this case it appears that a conservative activist leaked to a conservative MP. Whether that was at the behest of the MP is not clear. However whether it is conservative, labour, liberal, monster raving looney, etc I am uncomfortable with the idea of party activists get jobs in government purely so they can leak information. If that became the norm I presume Government would just be paralysed.

 

Yes leaking will go on as quite rightly will whistle blowing. However I accept those in general on the basis that the individual is doing out of the belief that the right thing to do is make such information public and would do so whatever party was in power. Where I am uncomfortable is I said before is with party activists of whatever persuasion leaking purely for political gain. Equally I am incomfortable with the thought of the law makers i.e. MPs seeking to persuade employees to break these generally accepted resposibilities purely for political gain

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I see what you mean Lost Login.

 

Well I am quite happy to see paralysis of government but I do not take any interest whatsoever in idiotic party activists trying to further the cause of their wonderful party. If they are foolish enough to be a party activist then surely they must accept the rules of the game in a liberal democracy, viz. the legal system, police powers, role of civil servants, etc.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The problem is that Scribbling Servants are there to serve the Gov of the day. They should not, under any circumstances, let their own political beliefs have any effect on how they perform their duties. Because the politicos have to trust the Scribblers. If they can't the whole lot just dissolves into a paranoid mess. Hence the PV system which by the way isn't perfect.

 

I see your point. It is a bit of a conundrum though. From my perspective whether it is a Conservative or Labour government (or any other in a liberal democratic system) it doesn't make any difference which party would come out worse for leaking information. But if the purpose of the leak was to smear the Labour party, which it has done, to the betterment of another party then it was a very foolish thing to do. However, I got the impression that the leaked information is not directly aimed at bettering the position of the Tories. It is political information but not part of the moronic tooing and frooing between the Labour and the Tories.

 

I would have to commend anyone who leaks out information that shows the government and politicians to be thinking and operating in a different manner to what they declare in public. And certainly where there is information that should be in the public domain.

 

But again from point of view, when you have a ruling class who are keeping secrets from the public and trying their best to cover up information then it is only the civil servants who can provide the leaks. And if anyone with a conscience sets their eyes on something which should not be secret then get it out into the public. Obviously, this cannot cover all aspects of what is called national security in view of some of the potential threats to the UK, but national security is used far too often by the secret services and government.

 

Still, anyone fancy improving things by applying for this post? Nice work if you can get it.

 

Euw, a job in the secret services, the only people who can operate in that environment are the unprincipled.

[Chinahand]

I have to say the fact that the police think they can turn up without a search warrant and just be given carte blanche to raid an MPs office really tells me something is wrong.

 

The idea that neither a magistrate, or a judge, had examined the justification for the raid; that police had used terrorist legislation as a justification for what they were doing; and that the Officers of the Speaker and the Speaker himself had just rolled over and let them in, is all scarcely believable.

 

This isn't that MPs are above the law - its how governments can use secrecy legislation to hide its incompetence; and now are using official secrets and terrorism legislation to help them cover up that incompetence.

 

There is a very delicate balance between the need for secrecy and confidentiality with Civil Servants; and the right to leak on the public interest - Brown made his career using leaks to his advantage - and the fact is when government attempts to cover up the public interest it is right and proper for the opposition to expose that; and that does need the cooperation of those on the inside.

 

This isn't simple - it takes a balance - and I really do believe that balance has been disrupted to the bad with what has happened recently.

 

Many experienced politicians from both parties - especially those who have had experience of both government and opposition - are concerned about what happened.

 

And now we know that the police thought they could do all this without a warrant, and that the Commons authorities rolled over and helped them do it. That really shows to me that there is a serious problems here.

 

I don't agree with Triskelion's claim this has nothing to do with historicial precedents - a previous speaker told a delegation of soldiers sent to arrest parliamentary leaders on the order of the king to F*Off. Now a speaker blithly sits by as his officials let the police use terrorist laws totally out of context to raid an front bench opposition MP's office for leaking in the public interest. That difference isn't trivial or just a historical curiosity.

[Lost Login]

I have to say the fact that the police think they can turn up without a search warrant and just be given carte blanche to raid an MPs office really tells me something is wrong.

 

But haven't police being doing that for generations, or am I watching too many TV cop programmes. They can either search with the relevent parties consent or search without consent with a warrant. The onus here was presumably on the relevent individual in the commons, I think it is the Speaker or the Sergant at Arms when asked to have said "no, come back when you have a warrant" They did not and consented to the search.

 

This isn't that MPs are above the law - its how governments can use secrecy legislation to hide its incompetence; and now are using official secrets and terrorism legislation to help them cover up that incompetence.

 

But in all this I have not seen that is the case. It is being spun as that to make it a good story, lets attack the Government but they were barely involved. As I understand it it was home office officials, who initiated the action as they were concerned about the number of leaks coming from within the private office. These leaks it turns out were from a conservative activist, although in my view the party they are from is irrelevent.

 

At the level we are talking about the mandarins in the civil service, whether they like or dislike their ministers, party in power, policies take a reasonable amount of pride with regard to their levels of impartiality, confidentiality etc and get a bit miffed when they believe someone in their mist is betraying this trust.

 

 

 

Many experienced politicians from both parties - especially those who have had experience of both government and opposition - are concerned about what happened.

 

I have heard many of them and very sanctamonious many of them appear. It is as if they as MPs are inviolate. They are also standing up and arguing that they have the right to receive or publish leaks. Yes they have but that is not the issue here nor has that been denied, rather it is whether they should be actively encouraging civil servants to betray confidences. I do not believe they should just as I believe no party should get political activists jobs at a high level just so they can leak informatioon for political means.

 

 

And now we know that the police thought they could do all this without a warrant, and that the Commons authorities rolled over and helped them do it. That really shows to me that there is a serious problems here.

 

I have covered the police point previously and the commons authorities should probably have said sorry chaps but just to cover our backsides if you would not mind would you come back with a warrant.

 

They also were probably in a no win situation as if they had refused then the headline storey would have been how parliament sought to restrict police in carrying out their duties. If they had refused and it was a labour MP or minister that was being investigated then they would have been accused that they were protecting or covering up for that individual.

 

Out of interest when the cash for hnours akllegations were being investigated did the police undertake similar searches with warrants or without but by consent?

 

 

To me this is a story that has ran out of control and yes mistakes have been made all round, by the police, commons officials etc but I do not see anything sinister in it or a big cover up.

 

In fact the one thing that I find most concerning is that the Chairman of the Metroplitan Police Authority after being briefed about the matter by the police went and contacted the suspect in the case who was and still is as far as I am aware on bail following his arrest. But that is all right as it is good old Boris Johnson

 

As I have said previously I have no problem in people leaking if they believe that they are "whistle blowing" for the public good. What I have a problem with is to paraphrase the chair public administration select committee "someone committed to impartiality entering into an arrangement to continually to release information in breach of the rules relating to impartiality". However that is not such a good story nor does in reinforce peoples pedjudices with regard to Government supposed coverups.

[P.K.]

And now we know that the police thought they could do all this without a warrant, and that the Commons authorities rolled over and helped them do it. That really shows to me that there is a serious problems here.

Twisting the legalities to suit the agenda - how very Daily Mail.

 

The boys in blue do not need a warrant if:

They are certain a crime has been committed or

They are invited in.

 

So on the face of it I would have to say they haven't operated outside of the law. Also if they had operated outside of the law any evidence unearthed would then be inadmissable.

 

Let's stick to the facts shall we.

[Lonan3]

The Conservative ratings are falling as a result of 'King's New Clothes' syndrome. Cameron finds a twisted stick and the Daily Mail uses it to beat the government with. Shock?

[jimbms]

Just to add if the police need to search so long as they can get customs and excise involved i.e. suspected VAT offence then a warrent is not needed.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Twisting the legalities to suit the agenda - how very Daily Mail.

 

The boys in blue do not need a warrant if:

They are certain a crime has been committed or

They are invited in.

 

So on the face of it I would have to say they haven't operated outside of the law. Also if they had operated outside of the law any evidence unearthed would then be inadmissable.

 

Let's stick to the facts shall we.

 

I have to say I am finding this whole debate quite confusing, I am not sure what the issues are here.

 

What were the reasons for the leaks? Was it for betterment of the greater public or for the Tory party?

[Lost Login]

I have to say I am finding this whole debate quite confusing, I am not sure what the issues are here.

 

There is probably a reason for that which is that anything like this can be used potentially for political means. Accordingly this appears to now more about political point scoring and whipping up a good story that sticking to the specific issues. Part of this though may be also to deflect attention from away from the specific issues. i.e. it is proabably easy to get people to agree that it is wrong to stop leaking if it is in the public interest, less easy to get people to agree that MP's should be allowed to actively encourage civil servants to leak. Where you are on the graph may depend on your politics but if you are the accused it is certainly easier to defend the former position

 

 

.

 

What were the reasons for the leaks? Was it for betterment of the greater public or for the Tory party?

 

Again it can be argued depending on your politics. The leaker & the shadow minister will argue it was in the public interest. The government may argue to the contrary. Whithall probably could not give a toss they are just probably totally against any info leaking out.

 

In this case the leaker was a Tory activist, had stood as a Tory in a candidate in council elections and it appears wished to progess his career with the Tories. whether that means as a councillor, MP or at Tory HQ I am not sure. Maybe that is irrelevent to the issue but it cetainly colours my opinion on the matter in that I would have been more likely to believe it was a public interest matter if the individual had been somebody with no obvious political leanings, ambitions

[P.K.]

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

 

If you are in the Cabinet Office you will have been PV'd. Despite this the Scribbling Servant in question demonstrated that they could not be trusted so action HAD to be taken by Mr Plod. So from the legal point of view the colour of his politics has nothing to do with it. Green knew this but didn't report it which is very naughty. All the rest is so much Daily Mail bs and Cameron et al trying to make political capital out of it while at the same time trying to defend Green's position. In better days politicians resigned for less.