Shadw immigration spokesman Damian Green has been arrested. BBC article. Telegraph article.
This feels well dodgy to me. I sure hope it isn’t politically motivated. But the timing is interesting: he’s been arrested the day after Parliament has risen. That’s one hell of a coincidence.
And why were counter-terrorist police involved?
Something majorly stinks here.
No it doesn’t.
There’s been leaks from the Home Office and he’s been linked to them and it seems fair to question him about it considering the leaks were to the Conservatives. If he’s cleared he won’t be charged, being arrested just gives you the right to legal representation and makes the questioning admissable as evidence. My guess is that they’re trying to find out if the alleged whistleblower arrested earlier had contact with him, and whether he received other documents. The alleged whistleblower potentially breached the OSA, so that has to be investigated where ever and to whomever it might lead.
Yes, it does.
The Labour party did exactly the same thing (using info revealed by departmental whistleblowers to embarrass the government) when they were in opposition.
This is a very unusual and worrying move on the part of the government.
Would you like to elaborate on that last line?
Colour me unsurprised - the party of “lock them up now, figure out what crime they’ve committed later” is not overly burdened with scruples in this arena.
However, without knowing exactly what Green has supposedly done it’s difficult to say whether this is right, wrong or somewhere in between. There are legitimate reasons to suppress data under the OSA, there are dubious uses of the OSA to hide embarrassing information, and there is a grey area in between. The Government must account for their actions properly or face the presumption of playing silly buggers with the OSA for political reasons.
Boris Johson knew in advance that the arrest would happen, so it’s not like it was carried out totally in secret.
As mentioned, being questioned under caution means the evidence can be used in court… I would imagine some of the docs in question are much more sensitive than we think (hence involvement of counter-terrorist police).
And although the grass-roots Tories are frothing at the mouth, the reaction from the Shadow Front-Bench hasn’t been as virulent as I thought it’d be… they’re cross, but it’s more that although they know they’ve been breaking the rules, they thought it was OK because Labour did it too.
It’s not about the Tory using the info it is about a Civil Servant politically leaking. When the Tories were in power they went after Civil Service leakers with equal rigour.
I remember reading somewhere that there were something like 35 leak inquiries per year towards the end of Thatcher’s premiership.
Yes. And as the politically blinkered here have already forgotten. Numerous Labour politicians have had their collar felt in the last 11 years and Blair questioned several times. The Police are not under direct government control and at times it has looked like they have gone out of their way to harass Labour.
I don’t know about UK law, but in the US one has the right to legal repesentation whether or not one is actually arrested. Being arrested does not grant you more rights than you already have.
Presumably this refers to being questioned after being informed that anything you say can be used against you in court. Again, in the US there is no requirement that the authorities actually arrest you before informing you of these rights and questioning you.
So, my question would be, why was it necessary to arrest rather than question him?
You can walk out when they are questioning you. If you are arrested they have you for the timelimit the law allows until they have to charge you or let you walk.
I think “arrest” has a different meaning in the US.
In the UK if you question someone under caution what is said and what is not said carries more weight. I can’t remember the wording but the arresting caution goes something along the lines of ‘if you later rely in court on something you haven’t mentioned under questioning’ the jury can be directed to note this point.
It gives police and the accused more rights. And basically he was in receipt of information he knew had to be illegal to convey to him, under laws the tories bought in to stop leaking against them when they were in power. Play with fire and you risk being burned.
I do hate how anti-terror laws are being used inappropriately. A colleague of mine had a friend arrested under anti-terror laws (the actual inciting incident was basically the good old British ‘Being black and in a nice car’. Being a lawyer who knew his rights he argued the toss of the stop and they arrested him under anti-terror legislation).
I believe that in the UK you can be questioned under caution but not be under arrest.
Getting arrested for any reason, with or without charge, means that they can gather and retain your fingerprint and DNA profile for the database, for one.
So, it wasn’t just the police, it was the serious police? Well there must have been a reason. The serious police is always right. I’ve never trusted that guy anyway. Did you? Thought so, comrade. Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
Nice reasoning. It’s probably about sensitive terrorist stuff, because the counter-terrorist police got involved since it must be sensitive terrorist stuff, thus the counter-terrorist police got involed because it’s likely sensitive terrorist stuff, so obviously the counter-terrorist police needed to…
I do not recall them going after the MPs.
Here is some information on the arrest
This seems to be the reason for the arrest, it’s not just that Green received leaked info.
It seems that if you receive documents as an MP it is one thing, but if you actually encourage a civil servant to leak it’s an entirely different matter. Now, he may or may not have done that, but it seems that that’s what is being investigated.
And I don’t recall the leaks being made to MP’s. Ponting and Tisdall leaked to the media.
Unless you can show that the government influenced the police decision and them explain why they were not able to use this influence to stop their own people being arrested - the whole Gongs for Cash thing - then this outrage has no legs.
OMG!!!11!!!1! It’s totally like 1984 or Kafka or something, and we’re living in a FASCIST POLICE STATE, and it’s another plot by ZaNu-Liebore to DESTROY DEMOCRACY!!!11!!
Gimp. :rolleyes:
Leaks happen all the time, on both sides of the House (as well as news media), and no action happens.
So do you not think that there might just be something slightly more to this than meets the eye? As suggested, that maybe Mr Green is actively trying to get a state official to break the OSA? Which is rather more important that leaking the text of Yvette Cooper’s next speech to Sky News.
Well, it’s got legs all right - they’re just pointing in the wrong direction. You’re quite right, the cash for honours affair rather suggests that the Government aren’t behind this. What it also suggests is that the Met have recently acquired something of a taste for grandstanding with political cases, regardless of which party is involved.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. If, as with the cash for honours investigation, it turns out to have been a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing, then I think the high-ups in the Met are going to face some very irritable committees.