Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Tories release 'mole' raid video



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 December 2008
THE Conservatives last night released video footage of the police raid on the Commons' office of Tory front-bencher, Damian Green, over his links to a Home Office "mole".
The footage shows Andrew Mackay, a Tory MP and senior adviser to David Cameron, confronting police as they search the office of Mr Green, the shadow immigration minister.

A senior police officer was yesterday appointed by Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson to review the handling of the police inquiry into Home Office leaks.





The full article contains 89 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 December 2008 10:14 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Conservative Party
 
1

Scunnert,

03/12/2008 02:24:34
"A senior police officer was yesterday appointed by Acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson to review the handling of the police inquiry into Home Office leaks."

A police officer is to review the breach of parliamentary priveledge by the ... police?

Surely this is a matter for parliament to investigate?
2

danielrober,

03/12/2008 08:40:52
Unbelievable, but its true. MPs arrested and questioned for acting as the opposition. Even Margret Thatcher never did this.
3

Iain's,

03/12/2008 08:43:45
I suppose that the police will hand over all the confidential Tory stuff to the Home Secretary.

At least Nixon used a bunch of crooks to raid the Democrats' offices in Watergate!

Here the government use the Stazi - styled Anti Terror police.

But then I suppose it's safer than raiding a terrorist cell.

Filth! (well that's what Ian Rankine calls them in the Rebus books).
4

Iain's,

03/12/2008 08:45:26
When will the British people have the guts to get rid of 'Gorbals Mick'?
5

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 09:13:12
The mock outrage by the Tories is laughable. It's clear that this "raid" was in fact a very polite search and seizure by very senior police officers. Innocent people undergo far worse intrusions from the police every day in this country, and when no evidence is found nor charges brought, they get no apology and often their possessions are "lost" along the way.

If MPs didn't know before that this was happening, they should have; and if they now know, then instead of using this to score party political points against each other they should address the root cause, because they are the ones with the power to change things.

The whole argument from the Tories is that MPs should be privileged against this sort of action. But MPs are subject to the same laws as everyone else, so they have to be subject to the same justice system. If our justice system is too heavy-handed, change it for everyone.
6

caithness,

the snowy north 03/12/2008 10:43:39
Gorbals Mick is an embarrassment to Scotland. A useless, partisan bumbler. If Labour wanted a Labour speaker surely to God they could have chosen someone with some intelligence?
7

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 10:45:56
#6 Bear in mind that when he became Speaker he stopped being Labour; I'm not making excuses for him, he's an underwhelming individual, but perhaps Labour's motivation was to get rid of, rather than harness, him.

His son is no better.
8

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 03/12/2008 10:58:24
# 5 so it is ok for these police to raid peoples homes and ask "are there any children in the house"
Damian Green was doing his job if had notbeen we would have adictatorship which of course what Brown and Co really want.
Interestering to know that Lord of Sleaze and Murk has entered the argument blaming the Tories for being an opposition.
9

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 11:11:45
Duncan you appear to be unaware of the constitutional role of parliamentary privilege.

I dare say the Home Office may have been right to call in Police, the actions of the civil servant involved may not be as honourable as some people suppose, but the Police reaction was entirely disproportionate to the alleged offence, and that is what the issue is. And who directed them to behave like that.
10

Number 6,

Germany 03/12/2008 11:18:09
This is what Liebour under Brown have become. A self-loathing,spiteful gang of cowardly thugs.

Oh how I long for the next GE to see them being politically wiped from the map.

The re-introduction of repulsive figures like Mandleson, show their contempt for the voter. This disgusting, over the top US style tactic shows they are not setting the bar at any given hight and will go as low as they have to to keep their places at the trough. And to hell with the country, democracy and all that other "Rubbish".

I for one do not believe a word of Brown's denial that he knew nothing about this raid. Once a compulsive liar, always a compulsive liar.
11

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 11:18:29
#9 I agree completely. My point is that disproportionate policing has been the norm in this country for decades. Search and seizure can be far worse than this for completely innocent people. The Tory response to this is merely about scoring political points, and the Labour response is merely about avoiding dealing with it. I'm just saying that they need to take this as a wake up call and deal with the underlying reasons for this - which is largely the state of the law with regard to police powers.
12

Nikostratos,,

03/12/2008 11:22:31
Police officers made the decision to arrest Tory MP Damian Green, not ministers, the acting head of the Metropolitan Police has said.

Sir Paul Stephenson said he "would strongly refute" any suggestion they came under any "improper influence".
13

Number 6,

Germany 03/12/2008 11:23:51
#6 Your quite right of course. However, Liebour have never put much faith in intelligence, just look at the state of the cabal in the Scottish Parliment. A collective embarresment to Scotland if ever I have seen one.

Remember all their lies about Alexander and her huge intellect, or even funnier, Brown and his "Financial prudence",this a man who had never worked in the finance industry.

Trash like Gorbals Mick and ex waiter Prescott, are recruited as a sop to the "Working man". Competency, intellect, integrity etc, these are Labour after-thoughts of nil relevance.
14

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/12/2008 11:31:53
I just love reading those posters who would ape the right-wing reactionary and anti-working class snobbery of the tory extreme right wing. 'Gorbals Mick' a vile and loathsome assault on a catholic boy from Springburn perpetrated by those who are offended by the idea of a working class lad having the effrontery to have reached such an exalted position.
Pathetic.
15

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 11:34:03
#13 You must know these people very well to be able to pronounce on their intelligence. I think in fact you just disagree with them, which doesn't mean they are unintelligent at all.
16

Number 6,

Germany 03/12/2008 11:35:39
#14 Your mock outrage and inverted snobbery are pathetic.
17

Number 6,

Germany 03/12/2008 11:36:31
#15 Do they come across as intelligent to you ?.
18

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/12/2008 11:48:27
I also love those posters who accuse others of being thick but can't seem to spell even the simplest of words....
19

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/12/2008 11:54:46
I can actually see both sides of this.

If it were simply a case of information being leaked to Mr Green then, quite clearly, an argument can made that parliamentary privelege applies. However, it appears that may not be the case here.

Instead, it has been alleged that Mr Green deliberately groomed the civil servant to leak information on a regular basis - an act of "conspiracy to cause misconduct in public office" - and one where parliamentray privelege is actually suspended. One fact may have made the police investigate was that the civil servant was a Conservative activist who had previously applied for jobs in Mr Green's office.

From what I can see the police did have a duty to carry out an investigation. I can accept the need to involve the Counter-Terrorism Command of New Scotland Yard because it includes the old Special Branch which investigates matters with a security element - which this clearly is. What can be queried is the manner in which the investigation took place.

Despite all of the bluster from MPs the two important questions remain unanswered. Was it necssary to investigate Mr Green? Was it necessary to do so in the manner that they did?

Running behind parliamentary privelege as many are doing is not an answer. No politician should be above the law. If Mr Green is guilty he should be prosecuted. If he is innocent and it is shown that the arrest was politcially motivated then heads should roll.
20

Number 6,

Germany 03/12/2008 11:55:30
#18 You seem very easily amused.
21

Number 6,

Germany 03/12/2008 11:59:38
#19 Excellent post. What should happen if Gorbal's finest is found to have prior knowledge of this raid
despite his denial.

Do you think it's believable that Brown had no prior knowledge that this was going to occur ?.
22

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/12/2008 12:00:15
19
Absolutely spot on.
23

caithness,

the snowy north 03/12/2008 12:57:36
Grahamski, don't use the snobbery argument. George Thomas and Betty Boothroyd were two working class Labour MPs before they became Speaker widely respected and admired for their roles as Speaker. Gorbals is a Labour placeman out of his depth and a standing joke.
24

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/12/2008 13:10:04
23
I note you use the right-wing tory 'Gorbals' epithet - a partcularly nasty and snide smear which I'm disappointed but not surprised that the tartan tories have picked up on.
25

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 13:14:27
19 - there is NO ''security element'' to this. There is no question of any risk to national security, in fact the civil servant involved hasn't even breached the official secrets act. The law being breached here is a very obscure one, little used, and the chances of attracting a custodial sentence are zero.

In view of that, to use anti-terrorist officers to search the Palace of Westminster is an outrage that must not be accepted, even if the civil servant was wrong to leak information to Mr Green.

Incidentally Gordon Brown made his career in opposition through well placed sources who leaked.

Grahamski - Michael Martin a ''working class lad'' - you jest.
26

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 13:16:02
Drop the tartan tories Grahamski, it's a bore and you have no evidence to support it. It is your party who are misusing powers supposed to be used against terrorists to silence political opposition.
27

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/12/2008 13:24:31
Observer,
I would take the whining from the tories more seriously than from those serial coppers narks the SNP - who have previous for running to the polis and wasting their time with malicious complaints.

In the unlikely event of you actually wanting the facts here is what the polis heid bummer had to say:

.... Sir Paul said he wanted to set the record straight over the investigation into Mr Green.

He said the controversial inquiry has "generated a great deal of publicity and important debate" but he suggested some was ill-informed.

He said: "There is a large amount of comment and speculation already in the public domain and I think it is right and proper to present some facts surrounding this investigation which lie at the heart of how the Metropolitan Police operates."

Sir Paul outlined the investigation conducted since the arrest of a junior civil servant on November 19 by officers from Counter Terrorism Command.

He said officers from this branch of the force were involved because they include former Special Branch officers whose responsibilities include official leaks.

Sir Paul said: "It is our duty to follow the evidence wherever that may take us. It was as a result of the initial investigation and arrest that the decision was made by officers under the command of Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick to arrest an MP and to search three addresses connected with him under authority of warrants."

28

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 13:27:25
#25 As far as I am aware no charges have been laid in this case. How, then, can you possibly know what law is being breached, if any at all?

I agree that anti-terror legislation is routinely misused by police - but why is it only news when it happens to an MP? Why not when arms trade protesters were arrested in Wales under anti-terror legislation without reasonable grounds? And why is it the government's fault when it happens to an opposition MP, but nothing to do with the government when it happens to a Labour supporter?
29

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/12/2008 13:29:57
26
If a poster uses the language of a tory then they deserve all they get......
30

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 13:31:43
Grahamski 0- do you seriously expect anyone to believe that the Police did this unilaterally ? Special Branch do not need to get involved in leaks which do not threaten national security. To involve them was heavy handed and inappropriate. And the Palace of Westminster is not just another ''address''. And sending nine anti terrorist officers to someone's house, removing their blackberry, computers, mobile phone, and blocking their e mail was not proportionate to what in essence was a piddling few leaks about illegal immigration.

What Labour have done here is hand a huge cachet to both the Tories, and the BNP, who will have a field day squealing about the Government trying to keep illegal immigration a secret.

It was a massively stupid thing to do, and deep down I think you know that.
31

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 13:34:22
28 - I know what law has been breached from coverage in the press. I agree that anti terrorist laws are misued, but to use them against an MP when there is no risk to national security is taking us even further towards a Police state.
32

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/12/2008 13:41:50
#25

Mr Galley's own solicitor has admitted that he sent Mr Green 20 documents, by admitting they had been "close to regular" over the past two years.

Sorry but that is a bit more than the odd leak as it has been protrayed by some.

Clearly there are security issues. Ask yourself this - if Mr Green were not an MP would the likes of Davis and Harman been as ready to defend him?

I doubt it very much.
33

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 13:42:44
But he is an MP. You don't seem to get the significance of that.
34

Alan B,

03/12/2008 13:48:51
The other problem with this is. The info leaked that was then reported in the press is not of national security issues but about government hiding information and not making it public as it could embarrass them.

Labours reaction has been bordering on facism and is to the detriment of democracy. Every decent person should reject them at the next election.
35

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 13:50:56
#33 But you do seem to be overplaying it. Parliamentary privilege does not circumvent the rule of law. If this abuse of anti-terror powers and over-zealous search and seizure is wrong, then so are all the others. Why no stushie until now?
36

Alan B,

03/12/2008 13:52:51
#The Federalist

Unfortunately politics in the uk has become a game between the parties for power and nothing to do with the people they are meant to serve. And labour have taken steps that go well over the line about control of power eg bbc etc that undermines democracy.

The game seems to be the government in the uk hide info and claim trivial stuff as of national security when it is nothing of the sort, but just embarrassing to the government. The opposition then get hold of the info and leak it.

In many ways it is our approach to democracy as it gets info that should be in the public domain anyway into the public domain.

While we should not need this approach the fact we do and the fact that the government has seen fit to try to prevent it undermines uk democracy.
37

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 13:53:43
#34 Alan, you seem to be equating the police's behaviour with "Labour". That is a pretty unsustainable position. There is no evidence at all that the police were acting under ministerial instruction, and quite a substantial piece of logic arguing that they couldn't have been - since any minister would have been well aware of the storm these actions would generate, and the negative impact it would have on the government, so they would never have instructed it.
38

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/12/2008 13:54:14
Parliamentary privelege does not allow an MP to do what has been alleged.

Hiding behind parliamentray privelege as many are doing here ignores the issues.

It sends the message that MPs are above the law.
39

Grahamski,

Falkirk 03/12/2008 13:58:46
30
The polis say they acted without fear or favour. You obviously have information to contradict this view denied the rest of us. It is, however, amusing hearing the nats whine about the police becoming involved in politics when you consider just how often they have attempted to drag plod into all things political in the past year or so.
Hypocritical chancers springs to mind......
40

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

03/12/2008 13:59:28
#36 The problem is though that there appears to be much more than leaking here.

Instead of accepting that it happens and taht's the way things are I would prefer us to compleetly reassess how information reaches the public domain.

I would much prefer a system where information was presumed to be in the public domain unless a case could be made to perevnt its publication. Using a simple cath-all of "natioanl security" is not acceptable either. If information is not to be published then the onus should be on the government to outline in unamibiguous terms why that information should not be published.

As it stands the onus is on us as individuals to prove information should be published not the other way round.
41

Alan B,

03/12/2008 14:00:47
#Duncan

I am taking my view after listening to Jackie Smiths dreadful interview on tv.

Labour have also politicised the police ie Ian Blair. He came across very much as Tony's placeman.


Michael Martin who waved parliamentary priviledge is labour's guy. He also got his position when Tony Blair went against parliamentary procedure and put a labour mp into position when the precedent said it should alternate between labour and tory. The tories had Betty Boothroyd a labour mp during part of their stint.

Tony Blair did the same thing to the BBC. Previously 2 senior positions were held by one tory and one labour supporter. Blair changed that and put 2 labour supporters in.

It is behaviour like that that is unacceptable. You are a labour supporter but even you must cringe with the biased nature of the bbc in scotland and the uk in general towards labour.

The issues that made the press from the leaks regarded issues over illegal immigrants working for the home office. That is not the type of leak that should warrent arrests of mps. Whisteblowing by civil servants is somethig we all should support to ensure open democracy.

42

Alan B,

03/12/2008 14:06:19
#40 The Federalist

I agree information should be in the public domain.

But the whole system of leaking has been part of our democracy because it has not. As such until that time we have a constitution that forces government to make public info then we need leaked information to ensure openess and democracy.

I completely agree governments lie and use national security when it is not such thing. That is very dangerous as uk government is based on government abusing power.

Look at a simple example where brown ordered the civil service not to cooperate with the scottish equivilent because that info may fall into the hands of the scottish government and be used to embarrass them. That is just not acceptable.



43

Alan B,

03/12/2008 14:11:35
#The Federalist

"Hiding behind parliamentray privelege as many are doing here ignores the issues.

It sends the message that MPs are above the law."

I think the point is parliamentary privelege is a protection of democracy from the abuse of power by the government using the state powers in an abusive way.

It is only by having alot of checks and balances that you can assure in a serious way the continuation of democracy. What after all would/could prevent the government setting up a totalitarian state in the uk.

Labour have abused power to such a degree and taken democracy for granted or abused it for their own political end that means that people start to question the serious implications of what is going on.
44

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 14:17:31
#41 I don't disagree with some of what you say. Ian Blair's position was indeed politicised by Labour and Boris Johnson has embedded that problem with his heavy-handedness. The MPS is currently in a very dangerous position and needs to be steered back to unimpeachable neutrality; this recent action has not helped.

But Tony Blair did not appoint the speaker and had no control over the appointment - a vote of the whole house appoints the speaker. It is most common for the speaker to be taken from the ranks of the government because otherwise an opposition party would lose a vote. And there is no evidence that either Betty Boothroyd or Michael Martin have ever acted in the interests of Labour when speaker. So your suggestion of impropriety over the speaker's election is not reasonable.

I agree that the government's attempts to control the BBC have been wrong, but you need to have a slightly longer memory and look at what the Tories did in Thatcher's time - they packed the governors and owned the DG. Sadly all governments seem to inexorably slide towards such foolishness.

But none of this permits one to say that the police were acting in Labour's interest in this matter. There is no evidence to suggest that, and plenty of logic to suggest otherwise.
45

Alan B,

03/12/2008 14:38:04
#Duncan

"But Tony Blair did not appoint the speaker and had no control over the appointment - a vote of the whole house appoints the speaker. It is most common for the speaker to be taken from the ranks of the government because otherwise an opposition party would lose a vote"

ok let me rephrase it. The labour dominated house of commons lead by Tony Blair appointed Michael Martin.

My point was the way the commons operated meant that the role should rotate between the parties. After Betty Boothroyd completed here terms it should have switched to another party.

Labour under tony blair abused that power and voted in one of their own again. Why? Labour did that and abused powers as they thought it may help them in some way. I do not think that is acceptable.

re the BBC. As far as I know thatcher did not change the system whereby it was one tory and one labour in the 2 senior roles. That was under labour and Tony.

Also the BBC were also seen to be anti tory and anti thatcher during here rein. I do not think anyone would say the BBC were pro tory or pro thatcher during the thatcher years. They were alway seen by the right as being leftish with what they would call a left wing liberal agenda.

But even if the tories did do things to try to politically control the BBC that is wrong. The BBC is a way of trying to push impariality and allow all view to be heard without favour. Otherwise you end up with Murdoch and sky censoring our news.

Jackie Smith's interview showed that she refused to condemn police arresting an mp and the abuse of power. She also admitted she knew much of what was going on. The government ie home office must have called for this investigation. Smith was aware of it. As home sectretary you should not interfere but should and would be in the loop of what is going on. She pretty well admitted she knew what was going on.

In her interview she said leaking was legitimate but then seemed to contradict herself by allowing this thing to
46

Alan B,

03/12/2008 14:38:34
...go forward.

Breaches would be important if about national security eg terrorism but not about breaches that embarrass the government.

The problem is if the government politicise the police and put in their own people with their own agenda and then these people then act for the benefit of the party that put them in power.

But at the end of the day i agree with the Fed that most of this info should be in the public domain anyway. And that is the other problem with labour. In the same way they said they would clean up politics and then proceded to have all the dodgy financial donations and loans, they said they would run and open government with freedom of information. In power they have been so interested in controlling information released.
47

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 03/12/2008 14:55:25
to all posters
The Prime Miinister
The Home Secretary
The Speaker
THE KNEW ALRIGHT
It would not surprise me if it was not instigated by Lord of Sleaze and Muck

48

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 03/12/2008 14:55:57
to all posters
The Prime Miinister
The Home Secretary
The Speaker
THEY KNEW ALRIGHT
It would not surprise me if it was not instigated by Lord of Sleaze and Muck

49

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 15:45:11
#47/8 The fact that you have typed that bit in capitals has made me believe it, despite the complete lack of evidence.
50

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 15:49:57
#45 First of all, Blair was not a House of Commons man, and he certainly never led the house in the way past prime ministers have done. He would not have been interested in who the Speaker was, and he would not have had any reason to massage the process. Honestly, this is a red herring - there is no evidence of any bias by the current Speaker - incompetence perhaps, but no bias. Your persistence in this just belies your prejudice against everything Labour.

The Home Secretary could not possibly condemn the police's actions at this stage in a live investigation. If she did so she would be doing exactly what you are condemning - interfering in police operational matters! By your logic she is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't!

As I have said, there is no possible way this police action could have reflected well on the government, and therefore no possible reason for the government to instigate it. And no evidence that the government did instigate it.
51

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 03/12/2008 16:01:35
#49
Evidence is not required.ask GB and Co
52

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 16:05:50
35 You haven't noticed a stushie over anti terrorism laws before now ? Where have you been.
53

Observer. 1,

03/12/2008 16:08:21
39 I can only assume you are purposefully misunderstanding the point that I am making. I have no issue with Police investigating a leak from the Home Office. I have no sympathy with the people concerned. But that doesn't excuse the inappropriate use of force designed to deal with terrorists over a matter which has got hee haw to do with national security.
54

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 16:12:07
#52 Okay; no stushie from the Tories until now. They said very little about the Wales arms fair case, very little about other cases. And they are not even playing up the anti-terror stuff in this instance - they are playing the "MPs right to hold the government to account" thing.

My point was about double standards from the Tories, who actually just see this as an excuse for a bit of Labour-kicking.
55

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 16:13:12
#51 I know - the emphatic capitalisation that you employed was enough for me. IT MUST BE TRUE.
56

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 16:23:17
54, I have no love for the Tories. They have been using a mole to sneak out information about illegal immigrants to appeal to the red top tabloid vote. Hell mend them, but it's the misuse of Police powers that concerns me, that is not dependent on the particular context that it happens in, as far as I am concerned, and is part of a growing pattern of misuse.
57

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 16:28:07
It says in the Herald that the search was conducted without a warrant. Michael Martin is claiming that, essentially, ''it wisnae me''.

What a mess. No one wants to take responsibility for this.
58

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 03/12/2008 17:10:13
### Duncan in Edinburgh
You are either avery trusting soul or you have been severely brain washed.
Now Mr Martin states he did not"PERSONALLY"(Sorry capitals are for emphasis only)authorise the search ....so he obviously knew about it. will GB and Js also own up?
59

Scunnert,

03/12/2008 17:31:04
Apparently the prevailing wisdom is that the palace of Westminster has no privilege against police searches - with or without a warrant. I expect to hear the same for lawyers offices and confessionals in the coming days.
60

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 17:33:30
Well the prevailing wisdom is wrong Scunnert. No search warrant, or improperly executed search = inadmissable evidence. My, how conveneient, court case crashes before charges can even be laid.

Or is that me being cynical ?
61

Scunnert,

03/12/2008 17:52:10
60 Observer

Personally I believe there was a search warrant issued by Jaqui Smith. But that is now the smoking gun and must be buried. The exercise was one of intimidation - charges were never to be upheld. Broon's goons were just putting the frighteners on the opposition.
62

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 03/12/2008 18:09:47

''Broon's goons were just putting the frighteners on the opposition'' - aye, and everybody else.
63

Alan B,

03/12/2008 18:16:29
#Duncan

I am not saying the Martin is biased or not. What i am saying is the house of commons rotated the speaker between the parties.

After labour were elected and Betty Boothroyd had run her term it should have gone to another party. Labour broke with convention and appointed another labour speaker. That is fact.

Labour used their majority to break the conventions of the HOC for party political advantage.

Do you deny that there was a convention meaning that the next speaker should not have come from labour?

You say that it is my anti labour view that means i persist with this. But it is actually labours approach to power that has made me not anti labour but anti the labour party under brown and blair. I cannot imagine John Smith acting in this way.

So conversely i would say you are making excuses for labour as you support them as a party. I can understand that but it is about like a Michael Jackson fan thinking the his behaviour towards children was acceptable.

64

Alan B,

03/12/2008 18:28:43
#50 Duncan

I think you are being a tad niave with the rest of your post.

Others within the labour party and cabinet are reportedly not happy with Jackie Smiths approach.

The facts will drip and out and we will see. But if labour politice the police and then are seen to do the labour parties bidding then it is not surprising people will point the finger at labour and particularly the home sectretary.

Already Michael Martin has said he regrets what happened. There was not warrent. Procedures were not followed.

Jackie Smith should have condemned the abuse of parliamentary priviledge. She should have condemned the approach to raiding an mps house. Did the police raid Tony Blair for much more serious offenses. No it was about coming in voluntary for questioning. That shows the police double standards.

Jackie Smith said leaking was an ok way for parliament to work. But then how can she then think it is acceptable for police raids when it happnes? That simply does not make sense.

The real question is was the info seriously anything that would jeopordise national security. Or was it just embarrassing info about labour. From the leaks printed in the press if was just about labour incompetence with things like the number of illegal immigrants working for the home office. Quite simply you do not arrest people for whistle blowing.

I think your rose tinted glasses obscures you from the seriousness and abuse of power we are getting from labour. There sheer lust for power is almost scarey and far worse than anything i can remember before. It is hardly in any way related to the ethical party labour used to be.
65

Alan B,

03/12/2008 18:31:30
#Raymond Thomas Brooke

I have no idea whether Michael Martin knew or not. But he should have known. Breaking parliamentary priviledge without express authorisation of the speaker and not having things like search warrents say there is alot of dodgy stuff going on.

Was it just the result of a labour politiced police force or was it directed by Mandelson and co?
66

Scunnert,

03/12/2008 18:58:18
Just watched Michael Matin adressing the house. He looked like he was close to a heart attack as he read out the statement no doubt prepared for him by others. What a creep.
67

Duncan in Edinburgh,

03/12/2008 21:49:51
#64 Alan, there remains absolutely no basis for your repeated assumption that what happened was according to the will of the Labour party, or any member of it.

I would suggest very strongly that the government would not have embarked on such a blunt and self-destructive path. It would be utterly illogical. There is no reason currently to doubt the word of the new Acting MPS Commissioner who has emphatically denied that there was any political interference in this investigation. He has every reason to distance himself and his force from political control, and he seemed genuinely angry at the suggestion that the MPS had been told to pursue this. I have no reason to disbelieve him.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More UK

More UK >>

More Conservative Party

More Conservative Party >>

Features

Dating
Free financial brochures & guides Dionami
Scotsman Digital Archive

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.