Arresting Oppostion MP's

[Primus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7755974.stm

First time this has happened in quite some time. Blair was questioned by police but I don't believe he was arrested.
Interesting how Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith claim to have no prior knowledge of it yet both Cameron and Osbourne said they knew about it shortly before it happened.

Would you say this is holding MP's to account if they break the law or silencing dissent from the oppostion?

 

[Uzzy]

Parliamentary Privilege usually takes care of these things. The MP was doing his job, receiving and publicising leaks manifestly in the public interest, so the police coming and arresting him is quite worrying.

I also find it unbelievable that Cameron, Johnson and even the Speaker knew about the arrest before hand, yet the Met didn't tell anyone in government about it, or get cover from them? Highly unlikely.

Further, at the very least the Speaker of the House needs impeaching, given that he allowed parliamentary privilege to be violated. If its found to be true that the Home Secretary or even the PM knew about it before hand, then they deserve to be removed as well.

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.

 

[Primus]

I didn't know that they had used counter terrorist police. That is interesting. With regards to the laws it wouldn't be the first time they have been used for purposes other than terrorism.

 

[Beerina]

Well, "releasing leaks...manifestly in the interest of the public" sounds rather mealy-mouthed. Sort of an "Oh yeah? Tell it to the judge" thing.

I presume it's against the law, so with that, is there a precedence for getting the law to not apply in this type of thing?

 

[brodski]

Parliamentary Privilege usually takes care of these things.

he was not in the Palace of Westminster during his arrest, and the Official secrets act is a criminal matter, no parliamentary privilege applies.

The MP was doing his job, receiving and publicising leaks manifestly in the public interest, so the police coming and arresting him is quite worrying.

MPs jobs don't tend to involve breaking the official secrets act.

I also find it unbelievable that Cameron, Johnson and even the Speaker knew about the arrest before hand, yet the Met didn't tell anyone in government about it, or get cover from them? Highly unlikely.

not really, the speaker needed to be informed, it would be useful to inform prominent Tories, it would cause problems to inform the ministers.

Further, at the very least the Speaker of the House needs impeaching, given that he allowed parliamentary privilege to be violated.

nope

If its found to be true that the Home Secretary or even the PM knew about it before hand, then they deserve to be removed as well.

only for misleading Parliament, the police are operationally independent in these matters, if they had known about it and stepped in, they would have been engaged in exactly the kind of politicising of police operations which people are now accusing them of.

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.

official secrets would come under the same general area of counter-terroism (intelligence and security matters), again the police are operationally independent, if you believe that ministers ordered the sue of counter-terrorism officers, the CT forum is that way ->

 

[geni]

Further, at the very least the Speaker of the House needs impeaching, given that he allowed parliamentary privilege to be violated.

Questionable. Parliment is not in session. Michael Martin is already rather unpopular so the usual channels appear not to be working in this case.

If its found to be true that the Home Secretary or even the PM knew about it before hand, then they deserve to be removed as well.

I doubt they did. They have people who's job it is to make sure they don't know things like this.

 

[geni]

Well, "releasing leaks...manifestly in the interest of the public" sounds rather mealy-mouthed. Sort of an "Oh yeah? Tell it to the judge" thing.

I presume it's against the law, so with that, is there a precedence for getting the law to not apply in this type of thing?

That law itself is rather new I don't belive there is any caselaw.

AS I understand it there are 4 bits of leaked information in question. Two of which have a fairly clear public interest. 1 of which probably doesn't but is close enough to boarderline that you can argue it anyway and one which wasn't.

 

[geni]

he was not in the Palace of Westminster during his arrest,

His office however was

MPs jobs don't tend to involve breaking the official secrets act.

Tend isn't a useful term here. That it historicaly has from time to time appears to be the case. For a rather nonstandard example:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993-02-19/Debate-5.html

not really, the speaker needed to be informed, it would be useful to inform prominent Tories, it would cause problems to inform the ministers.

You mean they wouldn't be able to deny all knowlage? Yes I can see that would be a problem.

 

[brodski]

His office however was

and you will be able to show that parliamentary privilege applies to things, as well as to MPs?

Tend isn't a useful term here. That it historically has from time to time appears to be the case. For a rather nonstandard example:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993-02-19/Debate-5.html

OK take out the word "tend" then, there were other, legitimate means for him to obtain this information, rather than taking leaks from a civil servant who appears to have a had both a previous relationship with him, and p[political aspirations in the Tory party.

You mean they wouldn't be able to deny all knowledge? Yes I can see that would be a problem.

I mean it would put them in an impossible position, either they intervene and then they are politicising police procedures, or they don't and are accused of same for not stepping in- there was nor reason what so ever to inform them, and a good deal of ministerial procedure which would weigh against informing them.

If they had have know, do you think they should have a prevented the arrest? Do you really want minister to dictate to police on a case by case basis how they investigate corruption and breaches of security within government?

 

[geni]

and you will be able to show that parliamentary privilege applies to things, as well as to MPs?

The Palace of Westminster is widely regarded to not be a person yet has a whole bunch of special privileges. Suggesting it does not apply to anything dirrectly beyond what MPs hold in their heads also results in a complete mess.

OK take out the word "tend" then, there were other, legitimate means for him to obtain this information,

Not in a timely manner.

rather than taking leaks from a civil servant who appears to have a had both a previous relationship with him, and p[political aspirations in the Tory party.

Mearly takeing the leaks would probably be legal. That is not what he is being accused of.

I mean it would put them in an impossible position,

No it would put them in a difficult position. Or a very easy situation depending on how respectful of procedure they were.

either they intervene and then they are politicising police procedures, or they don't and are accused of same for not stepping in- there was nor reason what so ever to inform them, and a good deal of ministerial procedure which would weigh against informing them.

A civil servant in a department is belived to be leaking information to the extent the police have been called in and you don't inform the minister?

If they had have know, do you think they should have a prevented the arrest?

Nope.

Do you really want minister to dictate to police on a case by case basis how they investigate corruption and breaches of security within government?

Do you really want goverments to be able to walk away so easy from the results of the bills they put forward?

 

[brodski]

The Palace of Westminster is widely regarded to not be a person yet has a whole bunch of special privileges. Suggesting it does not apply to anything directly beyond what MPs hold in their heads also results in a complete mess.

again can you show that parliamentary privilege is held to prevent the searching of MPs offices?

Not in a timely manner.

define timely- a named day PQ or two would have done it, but it seems that Damian Green decided to sidestep parliamentary procedure.

No it would put them in a difficult position. Or a very easy situation depending on how respectful of procedure they were.

the procedure is not to inform them of the operational details

A civil servant in a department is believed to be leaking information to the extent the police have been called in and you don't inform the minister?

this is about whether ministers were informed of the nature of the investigation into the MP, not the details of the investigation into their staff.

Do you really want governments to be able to walk away so easy from the results of the bills they put forward?

you will have to explain that one.

How do you think ministers should have acted differently in this case?

 

[geni]

again can you show that parliamentary privilege is held to prevent the searching of MPs offices?

Denis MacShane belives that to be the case yes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/30/damian-green-leak-terrorism

define timely- a named day PQ or two would have done it, but it seems that Damian Green decided to sidestep parliamentary procedure.

That would require him to know what questions to ask.

the procedure is not to inform them of the operational details

It doesn't have to be. Ministers are free to allow themselves to be informed. That they cannot then do much with that information is something of a secondary issue.

this is about whether ministers were informed of the nature of the investigation into the MP, not the details of the investigation into their staff.

"One of your staff has been leaking information" is very different to "One of your staff has been leaking information to a conservative MP".

you will have to explain that one.

How do you think ministers should have acted differently in this case?

By not allowing the offence of "conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office" to be on the books in it's current form.

 

[Uzzy]

he was not in the Palace of Westminster during his arrest, and the Official secrets act is a criminal matter, no parliamentary privilege applies.

So the leaks were related to national security? Nice leap there. The Official Secrets Act was not involved in this one, I'm afraid.

MPs jobs don't tend to involve breaking the official secrets act.

Good thing he wasn't then, was he?

not really, the speaker needed to be informed, it would be useful to inform prominent Tories, it would cause problems to inform the ministers.

So they knew they had to inform the speaker and his boss, but not ministers? So they knew there were issues about relating them, but not the key Constitutional Issues involved?

Didn't know the Met were that incompetent.

only for misleading Parliament, the police are operationally independent in these matters, if they had known about it and stepped in, they would have been engaged in exactly the kind of politicising of police operations which people are now accusing them of.

Yay, Labour Talking Point.

official secrets would come under the same general area of counter-terroism (intelligence and security matters), again the police are operationally independent, if you believe that ministers ordered the sue of counter-terrorism officers, the CT forum is that way ->

Once again, Official Secrets Act wasn't involved. He'd have been charged under it if it was. As he wasn't, well... I leave you to join the dots.

define timely- a named day PQ or two would have done it, but it seems that Damian Green decided to sidestep parliamentary procedure.

Yes, because the ministers always give truthful answers in parliament. Face it, leaks are vitally important in this democracy, to keep the government from doing things without our knowledge.

By the way, line by line rebuttals are annoying to read.

Well, "releasing leaks...manifestly in the interest of the public" sounds rather mealy-mouthed. Sort of an "Oh yeah? Tell it to the judge" thing.

I presume it's against the law, so with that, is there a precedence for getting the law to not apply in this type of thing?

Yes, given that leaks have been occurring since time began. Gordon Brown made his name with leaks during his time in opposition. Only difference with this one is that the leaks were politically embarrassing to the government.

And yes, the Speaker should absolutely resign over this. He failed in his fundamental duty to defend the sovereignty of parliament. Raids on parliamentary offices are exactly the kind of thing you'd see in Zimbabwe, not here. Or at least, you didn't see these kind of things here.

 

[CapelDodger]

I didn't know that they had used counter terrorist police. That is interesting. With regards to the laws it wouldn't be the first time they have been used for purposes other than terrorism.

Indeed. It's a form of "Mission Creep"; give the police special powers in certain circumstances and they'll progressively blur the boundaries. This case involved immigration policy and it's no great leap from there to potential terrorist interest.

The BBC has a useful Q&A page :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7754099.stm

"Why were counter-terrorism officers used?

The Met said the investigation was not related to terrorism but counter-terrorism officers were used because they were the "most appropriate to carry out this inquiry". The Counter-Terrorism Command of New Scotland Yard incorporates what used to be known as Special Branch, which investigates matters with a security element."

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, given that leaks have been occurring since time began. Gordon Brown made his name with leaks during his time in opposition. Only difference with this one is that the leaks were politically embarrassing to the government.

Do you perhaps mean "politically embarrassing to Gordon Brown's government"? He wasn't trying to flatter the Thatcher government, after all. How the mighty are risen ...

 

[CapelDodger]

It doesn't have to be. Ministers are free to allow themselves to be informed. That they cannot then do much with that information is something of a secondary issue.

Looking back to the Westland affair and the Clive Ponting prosecution, Ministerial involvement in leak inquiries is a right can of worms. Best to stay well out of the loop and leave it to the Civil Service and the plods.

 

[brodski]

So the leaks were related to national security? Nice leap there.

can you show me where I said that? The OSA doesn't just relate to issues of national security. This seams to be your leap of fantasy, not mine.

The Official Secrets Act was not involved in this one, I'm afraid.

you obviously know nothing about the OSA and the laws concerning how official relate to ministers and Parliament.

Good thing he wasn't then, was he?

that may be for the courts to decide.

So they knew they had to inform the speaker and his boss, but not ministers? So they knew there were issues about relating them, but not the key Constitutional Issues involved?

they didn't have to inform anyone outside of the speakers office, by informing ministers you

Didn't know the Met were that incompetent.

what you don't know about these matters seems to be a great deal.

Yay, Labour Talking Point.

also happens to be the truth.

Once again, Official Secrets Act wasn't involved.

wrong.

He'd have been charged under it if it was.

wrong

Yes, because the ministers always give truthful answers in parliament.

I never said that, however there are procedures, and ways and means- Damian Green and his corrupt official leaker ignored all of these

By the way, line by line rebuttals are annoying to read.

...

And yes, the Speaker should absolutely resign over this. He failed in his fundamental duty to defend the sovereignty of parliament. Raids on parliamentary offices are exactly the kind of thing you'd see in Zimbabwe, not here. Or at least, you didn't see these kind of things here.

MPs should be above the law? really? politicians not being subject to the rule of law is the kind of thing you tend to see in dictatorships...

 

[gumboot]

Since the police serve the Crown, as do both the government and the opposition, this is really the Crown arresting its own people, not the government silencing the opposition.

Americans really don't understand how the British system works, do they?

 

[Uzzy]

I'm British actually, my Kiwi friend.

Firstly, I'm curious as to what the Official Secrets Act has to do with this. These leaks were not pertaining to state secrets, issues of national security or anything like that. They were politically embarrassing. Heck, if the OSA applies to information about the Houses of Parliament having a illegal immigrant as a cleaner, that's rather insane (and a huge leap for the OSA)

Now, if you want to say the civil servant was in breach of the OSA, you might have a leg to stand on. However, other breachs of the OSA haven't resulted in prosecutions under the OSA of those people who recieved documents, only those who gave them out. Further, whats with the police saying Green 'groomed' the civil servant. Can they pick some less inflammatory language?

Secondly, MP's should not be above the law, no. I never said that, as you'd know if you read my replies. What should be protected is Parliamentary Privilege, in just the same way as lawyers and doctors privilege is. How can an MP do his job if his parliamentary offices are raided? That's the biggest offence here, and thats why the Speaker should resign for allowing it.

Thirdly, stop parroting the labour line. Its kinda hypocritical too, given that the current government has interferred directly with police investigations before. (Saudi Fraud Investigation)

Forth, you say its corrupt to institute leaks? Interesting. Everyone leaks! Gordon Brown made his name through leaks! A famous quote goes 'The Ship of State leaks from the top'.

Finally, the idea that ministers didn't know about this is ridiculous. The police informed Cameron, Johnson and the Speaker. First, do the police inform your boss if they go arrest you? Or the mayor? So its clear the police knew there were some political problems with this, along with some constitutional problems, as they informed the Speaker (who failed in his job). Most poltical commentators have said that the idea they did this and didn't think that political cover wasn't needed is just stupid. The ex head of the flying squad said he'd inform ministers before hand (but obviously not ask for permission)

 

[Uzzy]

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".

So it seems you don't have a leg to stand on, sorry. Now, if you want to expand the OSA to cover politically embarrassing documents, you're free to try. You'll fail, of course.