http://www.scribd.com/doc/8656260/Smith
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2008
Met Letter to Jacqui Smith :
Tags: m'learned friends 12.21pm Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I invite the Home Secretary to correct a factual inaccuracy in her statement. She said that I was arrested “on suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office.” I have a copy of my arrest warrant here, and the phrase “counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office” does not occur. I was not arrested for counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office. She will understand the seriousness of her mistake, and I invite her to withdraw those words immediately. Mr. Speaker: I ask the Home Secretary to reply. Jacqui Smith: I would certainly be prepared to take that up with the Metropolitan police—[HON. MEMBERS: “Oh!”] Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should allow the Home Secretary to answer in the way that she wants to answer. It is not for me to tell the Home Secretary—or any other hon. Member—how she should answer. Home Secretary, have you anything to add? Jacqui Smith: I was quoting from a public statement made by the Metropolitan police on 28 November.* Machiavelli believes so. As he notes the Police said,I am Arrested For (Future) Shoplifting
Iain Dale 6:38 PM
"But officer, not only have I not stolen it, I haven't even been in the shop and touched it," I said in consternation. "Ah, sir, but you look as if you might. We can't be having that, can we? You're nicked."
Later on a police car turned up at my office and later at my home in Kent to conduct a search to establish whether I already had a secret stash of Blackberry Storms hidden away somewhere.
It was then that I woke up. Luckily it was all a nightmare. After all, how preposterous would it be to arrest someone on the pretext that they might, possibly, just might commit an offence.
Couldn't happen here, could it? That sort of thing doesn't happen in democracies.
I won't mention the words 'Police' and 'State' in the same sentence as I know how much it upsets Tom Harris.
For those who think I have lost it, this all relates to Jacqui Smith's statement in the Commons when she said that national security issues were involved in the Damian Green case as he might - might - have been leaked national security information, even if he hadn't used it. Hence he was arrested on the basis of an offence he might possibly commit, rather than one he necessarily had.Scrutinising the Home Secretary's Arse and Elbow
Iain Dale 4:42 PM
The words elbow, arse, from, not and knowing come to mind. But not necessarily in that order.
* From Hansard, 4 December"The officers informed the Serjeant at Arms that the provisions of Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act required that they first seek consent of the person who occupies or controls the premises where they believe evidence may be found."
However, the Speaker said yesterday that,
Letter: Assistant Commissioner Robert Quick QPM MBA to the Home Secretary, 3 December 2008, in House of Commons Library Deposited Papers.the police did not explain, as they are required to do, that the Serjeant was not obliged to consent, or that a warrant could have been insisted upon."
If you are required to SEEK consent, it necessarily follows that there is noOBLIGATION to give it. Does this not place the Speaker on flaky foundations?
UPDATE: The following letter from the Police to Harriet Harman argues that the law was followed in their view.
Posts
