Police State?

[Lost Login]

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.

 

With regard to the colour of your politics it does not alter the facts. The colour of your politics though will effect your opinion of the defence of Green's position and currently it is the opinion carried by various parties including the media trying to make political points rather than the facts that are comeing to the fore. This topic started by seeming to assert that never mind the facts lets jump on the Police State bandwagon.

 

With regard to whether the leaking was a public interest or a political matter does not effect whether an offence has taken place. I would though suggest that it will make a great deal of difference to public opinion or the Jury should it go to trial.

 

I might be inclined to vote Not Guilty if a civil servant was charged with leaking plans to bring in compulsory euthanasier for all pensioners and such a leak was a one off even if the leak was strictly against the law. I would be a lot less inclined to find a civil servant not guilty if they habitually leaked just to give political capital to the party they supported

[P.K.]

With regard to the colour of your politics it does not alter the facts. The colour of your politics though will effect your opinion of the defence of Green's position and currently it is the opinion carried by various parties including the media trying to make political points rather than the facts that are comeing to the fore. This topic started by seeming to assert that never mind the facts lets jump on the Police State bandwagon.

 

With regard to whether the leaking was a public interest or a political matter does not effect whether an offence has taken place. I would though suggest that it will make a great deal of difference to public opinion or the Jury should it go to trial.

The colour of your politics may affect your opinion but it won't affect the charges nor the CPS nor the legal process. Clive Ponting was found not guilty by the jury because they were convinced he was leaking info because he thought it was in the public interest. It appears that in this case they were leaking information because it was in the Tory Party's interest. Only a complete and utter moron would fail to see the difference. However the "publc interest" defence is the one they will use - because it's the only one they've got!

 

The fact remains that Green is in the wrong and he knows it.

[Lost Login]

The colour of your politics may affect your opinion but it won't affect the charges nor the CPS nor the legal process. Clive Ponting was found not guilty by the jury because they were convinced he was leaking info because he thought it was in the public interest. It appears that in this case they were leaking information because it was in the Tory Party's interest. Only a complete and utter moron would fail to see the difference. However the "publc interest" defence is the one they will use - because it's the only one they've got!

 

The fact remains that Green is in the wrong and he knows it.

 

I agree but I doubt if the CPS will bring a prosecution or whether charges will be levied as it has become such a high profile case and in my view potentially difficult to get a conviction. I am not saying that is right just that if the public interest defence is spun as it is now, it will have the support of the media who have a vested interest in receiving leaks and a conviction is not likely

[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.

 

But haven't police being doing that for generations, or am I watching too many TV cop programmes.

 

I think you really are missing a point here - This isn't a private house or a private individual, its the House of Commons - when was the last time the police raided the House of Commons with or without a warrant?

 

Poor analogies are police insisting on searching a doctor surgery and going through all the medical records, or a lawyers office and insisting on reading all the confidential correspondence whatever it is relevent to their case or not.

 

The House of Commons authorities' - organized by the Speaker - job is to ensure MPs offices are protected under parliamentary priviledge - I fully admit this is a problem if an MP does something illegal, but in my mind it is vital that things are done correctly.

 

Also I don't think this is necessarily a government issue per say - when the government ministers go on about police independence etc I agree with them, but am still troubled by what has gone on.

 

For me this is an issue of state authority and the state institutions that have been created - mainly under the current government.

 

I really find the misuse of Terrorist legislation a major major problem. These powers are draconian and have been misused multiple times targeting people and events that have nothing to do with the original intention of the legislation.

 

On to this has been added the craven response of the House of Commons authorities.

 

Another poor analogy: its been like the police claiming tehy have consent to search a lawyers office on the say so of the caretaker of the buildings owners and not the consent of the lawyers themselves. To call this consent is a very weak use of the word.

 

No one has been charged, no one has been found guilty - as a result great care has to be taken in allowing the police to so infringe on parliament. I find it absolutely incredible the police didn't present their evidence to a magistrate and get a warrant - the House of Commons authorites couldn't be expected to demand evidence before letting them in, the only way this could have been done properly is a judicial authority agreeing that a search would be justified.

 

MPs are not above the law - but also the state authorities should not think they can ride rough shod over parliamentary priviledge and misuse draconian legislation just because it makes their job easier to do.

[Lost Login]

I think you really are missing a point here - This isn't a private house or a private individual, its the House of Commons - when was the last time the police raided the House of Commons with or without a warrant?

 

I agree in respect of the chambers of the two houses, but in general much of the rest of parliament is a series of offices for MP's etc as is Portcullis house. If the police have the right to search the offices of the general public under the correct protocol then that right should equally apply to ofices of MP's.

 

I am not sure when the police last raided the House of Commons with or without a warrant, it may have been related to the cash for honours allegations. Certainly in that investigation offices were search but wether they away from Parliament and just in respect of staff member of the political parties I can not remember. But I am sure that if the police had wanted to search MP's offices in parliament with regard to that investigation little fuss would have been made.

 

 

 

 

The House of Commons authorities' - organized by the Speaker - job is to ensure MPs offices are protected under parliamentary priviledge - I fully admit this is a problem if an MP does something illegal, but in my mind it is vital that things are done correctly.

 

But it appears that it might have been done correctly. It is all down to who you believe, and the Spreaker is looking on S shakey ground. It appears that the police may have acted properly, in that they certainly requested permission and received it in writting from the Sergant at Arms. The police also state they stated they did not have a warrant and that they had no rights to enter or search withouut the permission of the Seargant at Arms or the Speaker. It would appear that any fault therefore rests not with the policebut as I have said above MP's offices are not protected under parliamentary priviledge and nor should they be in my opinion. MP's like you or I are simply employees doing a job

 

 

Also I don't think this is necessarily a government issue per say - when the government ministers go on about police independence etc I agree with them, but am still troubled by what has gone on.

 

For me this is an issue of state authority and the state institutions that have been created - mainly under the current government.

 

I really find the misuse of Terrorist legislation a major major problem. These powers are draconian and have been misused multiple times targeting people and events that have nothing to do with the original intention of the legislation.

 

On to this has been added the craven response of the House of Commons authorities.

 

Another poor analogy: its been like the police claiming tehy have consent to search a lawyers office on the say so of the caretaker of the buildings owners and not the consent of the lawyers themselves. To call this consent is a very weak use of the word.

 

No one has been charged, no one has been found guilty - as a result great care has to be taken in allowing the police to so infringe on parliament. I find it absolutely incredible the police didn't present their evidence to a magistrate and get a warrant - the House of Commons authorites couldn't be expected to demand evidence before letting them in, the only way this could have been done properly is a judicial authority agreeing that a search would be justified.

 

MPs are not above the law - but also the state authorities should not think they can ride rough shod over parliamentary priviledge and misuse draconian legislation just because it makes their job easier to do.

 

 

 

For me this is an issue of state authority and the state institutions that have been created - mainly under the current government.

 

I really find the misuse of Terrorist legislation a major major problem. These powers are draconian and have been misused multiple times targeting people and events that have nothing to do with the original intention of the legislation.

 

I agree that all official bodies should be careful not to misuse powers however I am not sure that this is the case in this situation. Yes anti terrorism officers were used in the search and anti terrorism legislation may have been used. But it does not seem to have been heacy handed and both may have been the best available in the circumstance e.g terrorism officers may be more used to searching for the sort of evidence they were looking for, better suited to what was evidently a sensitive issue

 

No one has been charged, no one has been found guilty - as a result great care has to be taken in allowing the police to so infringe on parliament. I find it absolutely incredible the police didn't present their evidence to a magistrate and get a warrant - the House of Commons authorites couldn't be expected to demand evidence before letting them in, the only way this could have been done properly is a judicial authority agreeing that a search would be justified.

 

MPs are not above the law - but also the state authorities should not think they can ride rough shod over parliamentary priviledge and misuse draconian legislation just because it makes their job easier to do.

 

I agree that it would have been better in hindsight if a warrant had been obtained and that is one of several things that I am sure has been learned in this case. However in this case I see no evidence of state authorities riding rough shod over parliamentary priviledge etc. As far as I can see a crime was suspected and it has been investigated in a fairly gentle white collar manner.

[P.K.]

I think you really are missing a point here - This isn't a private house or a private individual, its the House of Commons - when was the last time the police raided the House of Commons with or without a warrant?

 

Poor analogies are police insisting on searching a doctor surgery and going through all the medical records, or a lawyers office and insisting on reading all the confidential correspondence whatever it is relevent to their case or not.

I think you really are missing a point here. The HOC wasn't "raided" as you so emotively put it. How Daily Mail is that? The boys in blue had been informed that breaches of The Official Secrets Act may have taken place so they have to investigate. Of course, had Green come clean that a PV'd member of the Cabinet Office was leaking info then they wouldn't have had to do it. But he didn't and the trail led to Green's office, so they had to search it. Not exactly "raiding" the HOC is it? But it's all Green's fault for not declaring his knowledge of a breach of security.

 

By the way, "poor analogies" are "poor analogies" so I wouldn't waste my time with them but by all means you go right ahead.

 

No one has been charged, no one has been found guilty - as a result great care has to be taken in allowing the police to so infringe on parliament. I find it absolutely incredible the police didn't present their evidence to a magistrate and get a warrant - the House of Commons authorites couldn't be expected to demand evidence before letting them in, the only way this could have been done properly is a judicial authority agreeing that a search would be justified.

 

MPs are not above the law - but also the state authorities should not think they can ride rough shod over parliamentary priviledge and misuse draconian legislation just because it makes their job easier to do.

I think you'll find that no-one has been found guilty yet because no-one has been on trial yet - funny that. In the UK they have this "Innocent until found guilty" thing - very quaint I know but that's why. The cops didn't have to present any evidence to a magistrate because the Serjeant-At-Arms, who is in charge of Parliament's security and order, signed off permission for the search of Green's office. Not exactly "state authorities" "riding roughshod" over "parliamentary privilege" now is it?

 

You know Mr Chinahand, you can really be quite emotional, can't you...