It’s murkier and murkier. With cataclysmic events elsewhere this may
seem small beer but all our liberties depend on it. We may not like
or respect all our politicians but they are there to protect us and
parliament is there to protect them on our behalf.
Therefore this - as Ian Martin says, is a major constitutional crisis.
-----------------
And as is being asked “ Did Speaker Michael Martin authorise the Met
to search the Commons?”
Douglas Carswell MP has the answer! (His blog today)
Speaker Martin sanctioned raid on opposition's office
Anti-terror police raided the Commons office of an opposition
spokesman. Not in Zimbabwe, or Pakistan. But in Britain yesterday.
Why? The opposition spokesman, Mr Green, has had the audacity to
hold the executive to account and expose their failure to tackle
illegal immigration.
If it turns out that the Speaker of the House of Commons gave the go-
ahead for this raid, I will be demanding to his face, on every
occasion that I can, that Mr Martin now quit.
The purpose of the Commons Speaker is to preside over an institution
that holds government to account - not to give the green light to
police raids against legitimate opposition . His excuse had better
be good.
MPs cannot have confidence in Martin if he sanctioned this.
UPDATE: I 'phone the Speaker's office to find out if Mr Martin
sanctioned the raid. Am told "there is a process to be followed that
was followed". I shall take that as a yes, Speaker Martin sanctioned
the raid on Damian Green's office.
UPDATE: Guido Fawkes bog is brilliant today - pointing out that no
action was taken when public officials conspired to give the BBC's
Robert Peston sensitive information - allegedly.
-----------------
Walter Wolfgang, Iceland and Damian Green - anti-terrorist laws used
against them. We were warned. Can anyone now doubt the nature of this
government?
xxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========================
TELEGRAPH Blogs 28.11.08
1.Damian Green's arrest triggers a constitutional crisis
Posted By: Iain Martin
What on earth possessed the Met to arrest Damian Green in the manner
it did, with, according to reports, nine anti-terrorist officers in
attendance? Did it even merit an arrest at all? Let's see what
unfolds but the first question forming is: who the hell do those
involved in this decision think they are treating an elected member
of parliament in this way?
This entire episode is quite chilling and the implications of his
arrest in connection with information he gathered from a
whistleblower (information which was true) are horrendous for
parliamentary authority. The encroachment of the Executive and the
police on the business of an MP going about his business, who was
working to put legitimate information in the public domain, is
seriously sinister.
A fire storm will result and David Cameron is already said to be
furious. Mayor Boris Johnson, who chairs the Met police authority, is
highly exercised on the subject too.
This type of outrage is what happens when parliament gives away its
powers to external authorities - the Executive and the EU - and comes
to regard itself as unimportant. Institutions which show they care
too little for their own rights, find that gradually others notice
and start to operate on the assumption that incursions will not be
resisted. This is a cross-party matter and Parliament needs to stick
up for itself with vigour immediately.
Some questions which need answering by the appropriate authorities
this morning:
1) Is it true anti-terrorist officers were involved in Mr Green's
arrest? If so, what on earth is the possible justification for this
abuse of power?
2) Was Mr Green's Commons office searched? If so, on whose authority?
Their explanation had better be good. Much blood was shed for the
rights of parliament against an over mighty Executive fond of using
arbitrary power. This search should probably have been barred by
officers of the House.
3) Who exactly in the Met authorised the arrest? Why?
4) What did the Home Secretary know? Did she inform Number 10? What
was the exact flow of information?
5) Number 10 denies advance knowledge. Are they absolutely sure? They
had better be sure the PM had no prior knowledge of the investigation
or the arrest.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-
2. Damian Green's arrest: the police state is coming
Posted By: Philip Johnston
How often do we watch the news from Zimbabwe or some other despotism
to hear that an Opposition MP has been arrested, detained and
questioned for disseminating information embarrassing to the
governing party and be glad we live in a liberal democracy?
No longer, it would seem. The arrest of Damian Green, the Tory MP for
Ashford and the party's immigration spokesman, is one of the most
extraordinary events in recent parliamentary history.
Many questions will need to be answered, as Iain Martin points out in
his blog.
But this goes to the heart of what MPs do and are far. A civil war
was even triggered by this issue. In 1642, King Charles entered the
House of Commons with an armed force to arrest five MPs who were
considered troublemakers only to find the birds had flown. He asked
the Speaker, William Lenthall, where they had gone, to which the
Speaker replied, "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to
see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to
direct me, whose servant I am here."
What has happened to Mr Green is an affront to all MPs, who are
protected by the privileges of parliament from the arbitrary power of
the state. Receiving information from officials who feel the
government is covering something up is commonplace and has been for
centuries. Many members of Labour's front bench, including Gordon
Brown, made their reputations in politics using information leaked to
them from within Whitehall.
Most famously, Winston Churchill in the 1930s was able to warn of
Britain's lack of preparedness for war with Germany because he had
officials inside the Air Ministry and other departments willing to
help him.
Many of these officials felt, rightly, that what they were doing was
in the national interest because the government was seeking to give a
false impression of what was happening.
At a lower level, this is true with the leaks to Mr Green. The
Government was saying one thing but the information received by the
MP told another story. It is the ministers who lied or dissembled who
should be called to account, not the whistleblower or the MP.
This astonishing development cannot be allowed simply to end with an
apology and claims of crossed wires. Whoever was responsible should
be arraigned before the highest court in the land, parliament itself,
and admonished by the Speaker. If it turns out, despite their
denials, that this was instigated by a minister their resignation
must follow. Anything less than that and we really are on the way to
becoming a police state.
===================
DAILY MAIL 28.11.08
Is Labour using the police?
By JAMES SLACK
Within minutes of the news of Damian Green’s ‘Stalinesque’ arrest
breaking at Westminster, dark questions were forming in the minds of
the Tory high command.
Namely, just how involved was the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a
decision to arrest a man who had been a thorn in her side for the
past 14 months? And, even more worryingly, was this the final proof
- if any were needed - that Labour has turned the police service into
a political beast, defending the Government’s interests at every turn?
The fact the drama all unfolded on the final day in office of Sir Ian
Blair - probably the most politicised Met Commissioner in history -
only added to the intrigue.
Certainly, it is inconceivable the police did not inform the very
highest levels of the Home Office that Mr Green was about to be
pulled in. What is also true is that the leak inquiry that led to
yesterday’s arrest began within the Home Office itself. It has a
dedicated unit to carry out such probes. Thus, any decision to call
in the police - once they thought they had identified the source of
the alleged leaks - must have been the Government’s.
Just how closely involved was Miss Smith herself in this process? And
did she have Mr Green in her signs all along? These questions are
certain to dominate the next 48-hours, and could yet prove explosive
for the Home Secretary.
Political rivals are entitled to exposes the shortcomings of
Government, if that is what Mr Green has done. The public’s right to
know has to override any determination of a Cabinet minister not to
look foolish.
If there is a hint Ms Smith has invited the police - of whom she is
the ultimate boss - to help save her party’s skin, the same public
will not be pleased.
Equally, there will be huge questions over the role of the police,
and Sir Ian in particular. Just how much did he know about the
inquiry, and the decision to unleash a political firestorm by
arresting a senior frontbench politician? The news broke while he
was enjoying his leaving drinks. If nothing else, it is a curious
twist. Under his reign, the Met has done much to help Labour’s
cause. During the 2005 election campaign, Sir Ian backed the case
for ID cards - opposed by both major opposition parties.
He also allowed police Range Rovers driving the Prime Minister during
the same election to carry ‘Vote Labour’ slogans.
There has also been the lobbying by Sir Ian and other major figures
in the force on behalf of both defeated attempts to extend beyond 28-
days the detention of terror suspects without charge.
Tories will wonder if the police are now going one step further. By
helping the Government in its attempt to mute a highly successful
opponent.
seem small beer but all our liberties depend on it. We may not like
or respect all our politicians but they are there to protect us and
parliament is there to protect them on our behalf.
Therefore this - as Ian Martin says, is a major constitutional crisis.
-----------------
And as is being asked “ Did Speaker Michael Martin authorise the Met
to search the Commons?”
Douglas Carswell MP has the answer! (His blog today)
Speaker Martin sanctioned raid on opposition's office
Anti-terror police raided the Commons office of an opposition
spokesman. Not in Zimbabwe, or Pakistan. But in Britain yesterday.
Why? The opposition spokesman, Mr Green, has had the audacity to
hold the executive to account and expose their failure to tackle
illegal immigration.
If it turns out that the Speaker of the House of Commons gave the go-
ahead for this raid, I will be demanding to his face, on every
occasion that I can, that Mr Martin now quit.
The purpose of the Commons Speaker is to preside over an institution
that holds government to account - not to give the green light to
police raids against legitimate opposition . His excuse had better
be good.
MPs cannot have confidence in Martin if he sanctioned this.
UPDATE: I 'phone the Speaker's office to find out if Mr Martin
sanctioned the raid. Am told "there is a process to be followed that
was followed". I shall take that as a yes, Speaker Martin sanctioned
the raid on Damian Green's office.
UPDATE: Guido Fawkes bog is brilliant today - pointing out that no
action was taken when public officials conspired to give the BBC's
Robert Peston sensitive information - allegedly.
-----------------
Walter Wolfgang, Iceland and Damian Green - anti-terrorist laws used
against them. We were warned. Can anyone now doubt the nature of this
government?
xxxxxxxxxxx cs
=========================
TELEGRAPH Blogs 28.11.08
1.Damian Green's arrest triggers a constitutional crisis
Posted By: Iain Martin
What on earth possessed the Met to arrest Damian Green in the manner
it did, with, according to reports, nine anti-terrorist officers in
attendance? Did it even merit an arrest at all? Let's see what
unfolds but the first question forming is: who the hell do those
involved in this decision think they are treating an elected member
of parliament in this way?
This entire episode is quite chilling and the implications of his
arrest in connection with information he gathered from a
whistleblower (information which was true) are horrendous for
parliamentary authority. The encroachment of the Executive and the
police on the business of an MP going about his business, who was
working to put legitimate information in the public domain, is
seriously sinister.
A fire storm will result and David Cameron is already said to be
furious. Mayor Boris Johnson, who chairs the Met police authority, is
highly exercised on the subject too.
This type of outrage is what happens when parliament gives away its
powers to external authorities - the Executive and the EU - and comes
to regard itself as unimportant. Institutions which show they care
too little for their own rights, find that gradually others notice
and start to operate on the assumption that incursions will not be
resisted. This is a cross-party matter and Parliament needs to stick
up for itself with vigour immediately.
Some questions which need answering by the appropriate authorities
this morning:
1) Is it true anti-terrorist officers were involved in Mr Green's
arrest? If so, what on earth is the possible justification for this
abuse of power?
2) Was Mr Green's Commons office searched? If so, on whose authority?
Their explanation had better be good. Much blood was shed for the
rights of parliament against an over mighty Executive fond of using
arbitrary power. This search should probably have been barred by
officers of the House.
3) Who exactly in the Met authorised the arrest? Why?
4) What did the Home Secretary know? Did she inform Number 10? What
was the exact flow of information?
5) Number 10 denies advance knowledge. Are they absolutely sure? They
had better be sure the PM had no prior knowledge of the investigation
or the arrest.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-
2. Damian Green's arrest: the police state is coming
Posted By: Philip Johnston
How often do we watch the news from Zimbabwe or some other despotism
to hear that an Opposition MP has been arrested, detained and
questioned for disseminating information embarrassing to the
governing party and be glad we live in a liberal democracy?
No longer, it would seem. The arrest of Damian Green, the Tory MP for
Ashford and the party's immigration spokesman, is one of the most
extraordinary events in recent parliamentary history.
Many questions will need to be answered, as Iain Martin points out in
his blog.
But this goes to the heart of what MPs do and are far. A civil war
was even triggered by this issue. In 1642, King Charles entered the
House of Commons with an armed force to arrest five MPs who were
considered troublemakers only to find the birds had flown. He asked
the Speaker, William Lenthall, where they had gone, to which the
Speaker replied, "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to
see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to
direct me, whose servant I am here."
What has happened to Mr Green is an affront to all MPs, who are
protected by the privileges of parliament from the arbitrary power of
the state. Receiving information from officials who feel the
government is covering something up is commonplace and has been for
centuries. Many members of Labour's front bench, including Gordon
Brown, made their reputations in politics using information leaked to
them from within Whitehall.
Most famously, Winston Churchill in the 1930s was able to warn of
Britain's lack of preparedness for war with Germany because he had
officials inside the Air Ministry and other departments willing to
help him.
Many of these officials felt, rightly, that what they were doing was
in the national interest because the government was seeking to give a
false impression of what was happening.
At a lower level, this is true with the leaks to Mr Green. The
Government was saying one thing but the information received by the
MP told another story. It is the ministers who lied or dissembled who
should be called to account, not the whistleblower or the MP.
This astonishing development cannot be allowed simply to end with an
apology and claims of crossed wires. Whoever was responsible should
be arraigned before the highest court in the land, parliament itself,
and admonished by the Speaker. If it turns out, despite their
denials, that this was instigated by a minister their resignation
must follow. Anything less than that and we really are on the way to
becoming a police state.
===================
DAILY MAIL 28.11.08
Is Labour using the police?
By JAMES SLACK
Within minutes of the news of Damian Green’s ‘Stalinesque’ arrest
breaking at Westminster, dark questions were forming in the minds of
the Tory high command.
Namely, just how involved was the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a
decision to arrest a man who had been a thorn in her side for the
past 14 months? And, even more worryingly, was this the final proof
- if any were needed - that Labour has turned the police service into
a political beast, defending the Government’s interests at every turn?
The fact the drama all unfolded on the final day in office of Sir Ian
Blair - probably the most politicised Met Commissioner in history -
only added to the intrigue.
Certainly, it is inconceivable the police did not inform the very
highest levels of the Home Office that Mr Green was about to be
pulled in. What is also true is that the leak inquiry that led to
yesterday’s arrest began within the Home Office itself. It has a
dedicated unit to carry out such probes. Thus, any decision to call
in the police - once they thought they had identified the source of
the alleged leaks - must have been the Government’s.
Just how closely involved was Miss Smith herself in this process? And
did she have Mr Green in her signs all along? These questions are
certain to dominate the next 48-hours, and could yet prove explosive
for the Home Secretary.
Political rivals are entitled to exposes the shortcomings of
Government, if that is what Mr Green has done. The public’s right to
know has to override any determination of a Cabinet minister not to
look foolish.
If there is a hint Ms Smith has invited the police - of whom she is
the ultimate boss - to help save her party’s skin, the same public
will not be pleased.
Equally, there will be huge questions over the role of the police,
and Sir Ian in particular. Just how much did he know about the
inquiry, and the decision to unleash a political firestorm by
arresting a senior frontbench politician? The news broke while he
was enjoying his leaving drinks. If nothing else, it is a curious
twist. Under his reign, the Met has done much to help Labour’s
cause. During the 2005 election campaign, Sir Ian backed the case
for ID cards - opposed by both major opposition parties.
He also allowed police Range Rovers driving the Prime Minister during
the same election to carry ‘Vote Labour’ slogans.
There has also been the lobbying by Sir Ian and other major figures
in the force on behalf of both defeated attempts to extend beyond 28-
days the detention of terror suspects without charge.
Tories will wonder if the police are now going one step further. By
helping the Government in its attempt to mute a highly successful
opponent.
Posts
