I was aware of the Guardian and the Telegraph’s reputations, but it seems irrelevant to me. What exactly would you expect a newspaper to verify in this case? What exactly is the claim that you mistrust? That the “questioning under caution” took place at all?
From the discussion above, it seemed to me that you’re asking the Guardian to prove the charge of violating the law, which seems a bit misplaced to me.
Well, this UK doper thinks “very left-wing” is a stretch (or at least a very dated view). These days it’s at most centre-left, leaning modern liberal, and its factual reporting is (in my opinion) at the very top of the scale. The Telegraph is more Hello! than Tory these days, and if any broadsheet is liable to just make shit up, it’s the Times, and it’ll do it whenever it suits one R. Murdoch.
In any case, I really don’t see the point getting that precious about major news sources, particularly on points as fine as that one. Apart from anything else, they were reporting it as an allegation, not pronouncing on the factual nature of said allegation.
True enough to still be funny, but I wouldn’t treat it as gospel or anything.
(Ah, good old Yes, Minister.)
Now that we’ve determined English and American law are similar enough that we can speak intelligibly about them, back to my earlier question.
Why arrested rather than questioned? The only additional power the police gain is the power to force him to listen to more questions, but not actually answer them. Oh, and to make him take dumps in uncurtained toilets, and give him a rectal exam as they process him into the holding facility. Maybe that’s what it’s about.
So, how long can they hold him without making a charge? That varies in the US, but I believe it’s usually no more than a few days.
What the fuck are you whittering on about?
What he’s saying is that being under arrest may subject you to a series of indignities and inconveniences that might act as an incentive to loosen your tongue.
Yes, as an MP, he probably has quite a sense of privilege and invulnerability. Nothing like some humiliation to rattle his world.
Never read an English newspaper, huh?
There’s nobody in Britain who gets humiliated more routinely than MPs, except the manager of the national football team.
This is just part of the gradual whittling away of liberties which governments of both complexions have indulged in over the last half-century. I happen to think that the absolute right to silence was one of the bulwarks of suspects’ rights but there was hardly a squeak of protest from the public when it was snatched away.
Double jeopardy went down the plughole a few years ago too.
So when did these rights vanish? And what is the penalty if you insist on not answering questions? Is it that a jury is allowed to infer guilt if you refuse to answer the question, “Did you kill that guy?” Has the whole concept of protection from self-incrimination disappeared? Obviously, if you are guilty, you CAN’T answer the question truthfully without incriminating yourself.
Gradually.
Yes.
Sort of.
The protection from self-incrimination is designed to prevent the practice of torture to secure confessions. Of course, if you’re in open court, it should be fairly obvious whether you’re being tortured or not.
Couple more bits on this story…
The civil servant who was the source of the leaks has been identified as a Conservative Party activist, who had applied (unsuccessfully) for a job with Damian Green.
Two Tories working togther… they must be guilty of something. 
So it looks like there was an element of partisan politics involved, rather than a disinterested crusade for the public well-being… and the information released was not all “public interest” stuff, some of it was private documents released with no other purpose than to embarass the government.
Tories are busy quoting “parliamentary privilege”, which seems to me to be a stretch in this instance; surely MPs cannot break the law (hypothetically) and then stash the evidence in the Palace of Westminster secure in the knowledge that the police can’t touch it.
You can’t paint this as the Tories trotting out some made-up defence - pretty much everyone bar Jacqui Smith and Gordon Brown has criticised the arrest to varying degrees. It’s elicited the most cross-bench agreement I’ve seen since they voted for extra subsidy at the Parliament pie shop.
The “private documents” line seems pretty dubious, too. Perhaps the government ought to decide what’s leakable? “Dossier draft? No, nobody’s interested in that old thing…”
Yikes, and I thought the US government was bad about destroying our civil liberties, but we ain’t got nothin’ on you folks. Did this all happen during the Tony Blair poodle years?
If it was a Labour MP who was due to be arrested, and the Home Secretary had stepped in to prevent it (claiming parliamentary privilege etc) the Tories would have been livid. Yet the Tories criticise Jacqui Smith for not interfering…
That’s another question entirely. Whether the Home Secretary should have interfered (I think she shouldn’t) has nothing to do with whether it was correct to arrest Green. And what the Conservatives might have said in some fictional land of Tu Quoque has nothing to do with anything. Let’s not turn this into a pointless partisan pissing contest, they drive me insane.
Of course, if Smith knew about the arrest in advance (I tend to believe her when she says she didn’t) then it becomes a whole different kettle of stinky fish. The Speaker is going to have an interesting time explaining allowing the police into Green’s Parliament offices, too.
Indeed. [
](Q&A: Damian Green affair | Damian Green | The Guardian)If the institution of Parliament is going to take this counter-terrorism sanctioned shit they might as well pack up and go home.
Why? Parliamentary Privilege covers statements made in the House and correspondence with constituents.It doesn’t make your whole office a no-go area, particularly if there’s evidence that your keeping illegally obtained material there. There’s no way that elected office should bring with it legal immunity from breaking the law- that’s the Italian system.
Precisely. One of the BBCs stories on this matter contains a quote from a consitutional law expert from oxford:
Excerpt from : BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Row over Green 'grooming' claims
I read this to mean that many of the claims from MPs (of all stripes) about privilege are in fact without constitutional basis. If someone is breaking the OSA to get information the fact that they are an MP should not be a defense or even a hinderance to the investigation. Nor should the use to which they intend to put this information.
I’m afraid you’re wrong - Parliamentary Privilege at its very core is, in effect, immunity for officers of Parliament from arrest and prosecution for breaking certain laws. Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice says Privilege, “though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.”
The question, then, is which laws. It doesn’t protect you from criminal arrest or prosecution, which is why it appears to be pertinent that the Speaker believed the DPP was on board with the search, something the DPP denies. It’s nowhere near as simple as either of you are making out (not least because of an almost total lack of precedent), which is why I maintain that Martin will have an interesting time explaining his actions on Wednesday.