Police state Britain: Tory MP Damian Green's crime was to reveal truths Labour didn't want you to know

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

How typical of politicians.

Its alright for the common people to have their rights taken away from them,any opposition is quickly silenced.

But as soon as it happens to one of their own its all hands on deck...




www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I've just seen this plastered all over the front page of the papersin big bold letters.

So, you beat me to posting

Yes it is disgusting the way this is being handled by those who fear losing control.

There are far more important 'crimes' going on, why on earth was this man subject to such an infiltration of his life over the same sorts of lies, trickery and skull-duggery that all politicians play.

What makes me lagh is the use of the the words 'police state Britain'.
What has compelled a major MSM into using such a phrase?
Has something kicked some of the bosses into another way of thinking?
Is ATS becoming such a thorn in their sides hat they now feel they have to go with the flow of what's being discussed, and how, over the internet.

reply to post by jakyll

---

The reason why they are "all hands on deck" is pretty valid. If the Police can interfere with the normal, day to day operation of Parliament (and especially the opposition) then that causes all manner of problems for the running of a democratic Government.

The MP in question had every right to the information he had, as he is Shadow Secretary and none of it was "secret" information so he can do with it as he likes. The information that was "leaked" was just stuff labour wanted to keep quiet, not state secrets.

Note the charge the Police used to arrest the MP, has nothing to do with spying or working against the state, but is akin to a public order offence.

The last time anyone went into the House of Parliament to arrest an MP was in 1642..... If you don't know the significance of that date without looking at wikipedia, then you have little right to bitch about "your rights" being taken away.

If the government knew and planned the operation, we live in a totalitarian state. If the government was innocence, which is likely, then we are living in a police state.

jakyll, study history. This has created a constitutional crisis, the last time the sanctuary of Parliament was breached - MPs decided to grab some pikes and meet in a field.

reply to post by infinite

---

Indeed. And the King lost his head a few years later.

MP's can be arrested if they have committed a crime, however to have their Parliamentray offices searched by Anti-terrorist Police and to be held on a spurious charge of "conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office" on the basis of a leak is unheard of and downright un-British!!

Someone, somewhere ordered the arrest knowing full well the backlash it would cause as they timed it while Parliament wasn't actually sitting but was on a break.

There is no way in hell that the PM and Home Secretary didn't know that this raid was about to happen, if the leader of the opposition, the mayor of London and the speaker of the house were told then why wouldn't the PM and Home Secretary?

reply to post by stumason

---

Well, the constitutional crisis is heating up.

The reason I think the government is not involved, is because individuals like David Blankett and Brown loyalists are protesting over this breach of Parliament. Keith Vaz isn't impressed either.

Tories, Liberals and even a significant portion of Labour MPs want the Speaker of the House to be removed. Correct me if I am wrong, I believe a Speaker has never been dismissed?

reply to post by infinite

---

I don't believe one has, but then I am not 100% versed on 1000 years of parliamentary history so I may be wrong!

Pinning it on the Speaker is a bit of a shell game. Yes, the Speaker would have known and probably should have insisted convention is followed, but he didn't give the order or start the investigation just because Jacqui Smith got upset about being revealed as a two faced cow and a control freak.

TimesOnline

The Home Select Committee are, by the authority of Keith Vaz, to investigate whether the police have the powers to violate the constitutional position of Parliament.

But, back to the link I've provided, why has the government mole gone into hiding?


[edit on 29-11-2008 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite

---

Maybe the Home Offices "duty of care" includes making sure they have their story straight as to who fingered the Tory MP and ordered the arrest.

reply to post by infinite

---

All very strange. Why on earth would the home office need to keep this guy incommunicado at a secret location? Surely procedure would be to question him then either charge and bail him or release him pending further investigation.
This is all becoming rather interesting. I wonder if this low level staffer knows something he shouldn't, that could prove rather damaging / embarrassing if made public and needs to be kept out of the way.

Hope he doesn't have a pang of conscience and commit suicide whilst being looked after.

reply to post by stumason

---

Exactly.

There is a rumour travelling around Westminster. The Prime Minister is said to be in panic because he has no idea who gave clearance to the use of anti-terrorism police. Jacqui Smith, apparently, gave permission but did not envision a scenario in which anti-terrorism police would be kicking down doors and violating Parliament.

The "mole" is in a secret location so he cannot be contacted by the police and confirm the names and links to "who did what". This man is the key to everything in the story. All we know is Sir David Normington, Head of the Home Office, arranged for the police to investigate the leaks back in late December.

reply to post by infinite

---

Jacqui Smith seems to have alot of problems "envisioning" how her half-baked idea's end up.

Someone, somewhere in the Cabinet allowed this to happen and you can bet the Tories wil not let this one go. If they play it right, they could damage the Government beyond repair, completely undoing any "Brown Bounce" effect that labour have enjoyed recently.

First off I'm not conservative leaning & have little sympathy for the shadow minister concerned. There's ways & means of obtaining official information & accepting leaked documents from a civil servant is a kackhanded way of doing things.

That being said, I'm sure Labour politicians have used leaks while in opposition so they're hardly paragons of virtue either. What does concern me is that the Speaker of the Commons has allegedly given his consent for this police raid to go ahead. That is not for him to decide ... it's for the whole House to decide, by vote. The Speaker is merely the sounding board through which the House expresses its opinion & he cannot act without the House telling him what to do.

Speaker Martin should resign.

It sets a very dangerous precedent ... Members of Parliament should have the right to go about their business free from let or hindrance. This raid was a breach of parliamentary privilege.

If other members were concerned about the manner by which this particular MP was obtaining information it should have been brought up on the floor of the House. And it would have been for the House to decide what the punishment should be, if appropriate, not the Police, CPS or the courts.

reply to post by stumason

---

Of course.
This is an issue that could force the government to resign, the public are certainly angered by this Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi) behaviour.

According to certain elements of the press, the Cabinet Office sanctioned the police operations.

stumason and infinite

I know my history and i am well aware of the repercussion such action may have.

But this doesn't make the action taken any less a kick in the teeth for the common people.The only difference is the degree of impact on those involved.

If the government didn't have rules/laws that allowed the rights of the common people to be taken away in the first place,then this kind of thing would not have happened to one of their own.

What is he charged with?
In order to be on bail he has to be charged with something surely.

reply to post by CaptainCaveMan

---

No, bail just means he was released to return at a later date.

Jakyll, what "rights" do you think you have lost?

Damian Green, the party's immigration spokesman, was questioned at a London police station before being bailed. He was not charged, but is to return for questioning in February.

They Bail people, just to come back for questioning?
That is insane.
They don't do that here.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by CaptainCaveMan]