Arresting Oppostion MP's

It's being suggested that it had to be authorised by top-ranking ministers - the idea that the police are beholden to ministers is pretty laughable in the face of ministers being arrested in dawn raids over the "Cash for Honours" hoo-hah.

Uzzy said:
Interestingly, the civil servants lawyer says that the documents passed on were NOT covered by the OSA, such as those relating to state secrets, terrorism, national security or which would lead to "financial jeopardy".
Click to expand...

The defence lawyer says "My client has done nothing wrong"

Fancy that!
 
From BBC news.

The Conservatives say Scotland Yard's behaviour was "heavy-handed", as the inquiry is into leaks of information not related to national security or covered by the Official Secrets Act.
Click to expand...

Other then this thread, I've seen no mention of breaches of the OSA either in the news, in police documents or in comments from politicians. Now, if you lot would like to argue that items that have little relevance beyond them being politically embarrasing to the government are covered by the OSA, an act brought in to protect the country, not keep the ruling party from embarrasment, you can try that. Good luck!
 
Here are some of the leaks which according to a few on this thread, threaten the very fabric of the nations security!


• 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.

Oh no! That cleaner is going to destroy the UK. :jaw-dropp
 
Last edited:
Uzzy said:
• 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.
Click to expand...
Trying to follow along here. As a Yank, it occurs to me that this leak is in the public interest, as the Government's stewardship/competence is in question, if this is true. What am I missing in translations across the pond?
 
I've been amazed at the successful spin the media and opposition politicians have managed to put over in this instance.

First of all I am totally behind the idea that anybody in this country can be investigated by the police - whether they are the PM or a Shadow minister or a cleaner in the Commons should not make a jot of difference. I have been amused and outraged by the attempts of the likes of Cameron to suggest that somehow it is wrong that a MP should be investigated or that the police should have had to inform the government and the government should have intervened, and of course the hypocrisy is very revealing.

From the reports Green is being investigated for "conspiracy to misuse public office" which is not the same as just revealing information leaked to him, there is a huge difference between someone using information they have had sent to them unsolicited (on the grounds of public interest) and trying to get people to break the law and leak information to you.

I am all for people breaking the law on a matter of conscience or public interest (of course when it is something I think is in the public interest) however I am also all for them having to defended such actions in a court as well.
 
I find the Tories behaviour stinks on this one.

We have a civil servant who has signed a confidentiality clause who broke their terms of employment and leaked documents.

Civil servants are required to be impartial. They work for the government at the time.

This person was routinely leaking documents to the conservatives. The Tories used these documents for their own gain.

Why did they not pass these back to the minister and inform him that there was someone in the department passing on confidential documents? They would know that the person passing the documents to them was not permitted to do so but rather than return the documents they used them,

I presume the Tories do not condone and support the civil service passing all documents to the opposition. They are hypocritical to accept them when they feel they can use them for their own gain.

The arrest of the shadow minister and subsequent brouhaha has overshadowed the fact that he knowingly received and used stolen goods.

When it comes to setting a moral example this is pretty poor.
 
Uzzy said:
One more worrying thing about the whole affair was the use of counter-terrorist police in the raid. One does hope that anti-terror laws weren't invoked in the arrest, but you never know.
Click to expand...

The only reason "Counter terrorist police" were used in the arrest is that they are a large division that also contains what used to be called Special Branch. They're not treating him as though he was a terrorist.

Does that make it less worrying?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Trying to follow along here. As a Yank, it occurs to me that this leak is in the public interest, as the Government's stewardship/competence is in question, if this is true. What am I missing in translations across the pond?
Click to expand...

You are entirely correct in that regard, Darth.


First of all I am totally behind the idea that anybody in this country can be investigated by the police - whether they are the PM or a Shadow minister or a cleaner in the Commons should not make a jot of difference. I have been amused and outraged by the attempts of the likes of Cameron to suggest that somehow it is wrong that a MP should be investigated or that the police should have had to inform the government and the government should have intervened, and of course the hypocrisy is very revealing.
Click to expand...
Funny then that they are complaining about the raid of the constituency offices, eh?

When it comes to setting a moral example this is pretty poor.
Click to expand...
You're right! This is a poor moral example. People who got leaks should be ashamed of that. Especially this guy.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QIrweIqqsOc

(Sigh, can't get the embedded player to work.)
 
I reckon that this now has less to do with outrage about the arrest, and more to do with the Tories getting the sniff of an idea that they can use this to get the Speaker removed from office. They've hated the speaker for years.
 
richardm said:
I reckon that this now has less to do with outrage about the arrest, and more to do with the Tories getting the sniff of an idea that they can use this to get the Speaker removed from office. They've hated the speaker for years.
Click to expand...

They are hardly the only ones who think he isn't very good. Doesn't help him that Betty Boothroyd is an exteamly tough act to follow but even so many commentators think his performance hasn't been as good as it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom