Police state Britain: Tory MP Damian Green's crime was to reveal truths Labour didn't want you to

reply to post by neformore

The top civil servant at the Home Office asked for the Police involvement. That to me implies that Jacqui Smith had FULL knowledge of the arrest, because he should have consulted his minister on such a politically sensitive issue. The whole thing has her trademark "brashness" about it. She doesn't think things through.

I agree she must have had full knowledge,but would she and the others involved really have taken such action without consulting the PM first??
After all,this is not a 'normal' arrest that would have little repurcussion.



News update.
Police accused of using phone calls from Home Office mole in bid to entrap Shadow Minister.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Originally posted by jakyll
Sorry for the delay in replying,just been preening my feathers.

Cleanliness is important, is it not?

Originally posted by jakyll
I know that under the new laws police will not need to suspect that a crime has taken place and can use the power to gain information about “matters relevant” to terror investigations.

Can you be more specific as to what your complaining about here? Are you saying the Police can just do as they please with no judicial oversight?

Originally posted by jakyll
I know that if suspects fail to stop or refuse to answer questions,they could be charged with a criminal offense and fined up to £5,000.And i know that no general police power to stop and question has ever been introduced in mainland Britain except during wartime.

That's not true. You have the right to not say anything. You don't have to give your name or address, or say anything at all. They also need to suspect you of a crime unless they can clearly state it is Terrorism related. They'd have a hard time making that one stick to the vast majority of people.

Originally posted by jakyll
I know that my rights for privacy will be taken away if the police/government get their way concerning the monitoring of phone calls and emails.

What right to privacy is this? I don't remember seeing this on the Bill of Rights....

Originally posted by jakyll
I know that the counter-terrorism laws contain proposals that deny the due process rights of suspects (presumption of innocence,legal aid,a fair trial etc).

How does extended detention under judicial review deny due process and a fair trial? Legal access cannot be restricted either. Bottom line is, the Police have to make a damned good case to a judge before you can be held for anywhere near that long. 99.9% of people arrested will spend no more than 12 hours in custody.

Originally posted by jakyll
I know that we are the most monitored population in western Europe with 4.2 million CCTV cameras.Each one of us can be caught on camera up to 300 times a day,and there is no accountability or control over who uses or has access to the data collected from these cameras.

Now this is something I have debunked alot of times here. 95% of cameras are privately owned (as in shops, garages etc) and barely monitored by the staff hired to watch them. This fact comes from the very same report you're quoting as "Each one of us can be caught on camera up to 300 times a day". Have you read that report? Did you even know you were quoting it?

All tapes tend to be wiped within 4 weeks. The other 5% of cameras are owned by Local Authorities and mainly serve as traffic monitoring with some cameras focused on town centres for the purpose of public safety.

Originally posted by bingmat
Interesting, but mate, you cite THE DAILY MAIL....as some kind of evidence. Could you have used a more unreliable source?!?!?!

Not clever. At all.

it's all over various news sources, it isn't just the Mail having a rant.

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
In 1642 King Charles I mustered some soldiers, marched into the House of Commons and attempted to arrest five troublesome MPs.

It didn't have the outcome he was after. Civil war ensued, the King was soon head-less and the supremacy of Parliament over the monarchy was cemented

Do you work for the BBC? I ask because you seem to have written EXACTLY what they wrote on their website. You know plagiarism is against the T&C's, right?

In 1642 King Charles I mustered some soldiers, marched into the House of Commons and attempted to arrest five troublesome MPs.

It didn't have the outcome he was after. Civil war ensued, the King was soon head-less and the supremacy of Parliament over the monarchy was cemented.

BBC - Link to story

EDIT: To clarify, I am not supporting the Government, but just trying to make people realise what their "rights" are.


[edit on 30/11/08 by stumason]

Originally posted by kindred

What PCSOs can do:

* Issue fixed penalty notices for littering, breach of dog control orders and cycling on a footpath.

Under English Common Law, you have the right to be free from any fine or forfeture without a fair trial. What this means is that unless you give consent, no one can give you a spot fine.

This applies to any fine the PCSO's, Police or any other person tries to issue you. If you do refuse consent, there is a chance you may well be arrested but then the burden of proof is on them to show you did commit a crime and take you to court. This also works if they arrest you and try to let you off with a caution or "fixed penalty notice".

If they have proof, then you may find yourself in front of a Magistrate or Judge, but at least then you make the buggers work and they have to prove you did something wrong.

I use this one often, most recently when soemone tried to fine my missus for not having a train ticket. She did have, but left it on the train by accident and the jobsworth wouldn't have any of it. The Police got involved as she tried to leave and the train staff tried to issue a Penalty fare Notice. They asked her to sign the slip, I told her to refuse, which she did.

They tried to threaten us with further penalties viw letters, but I've had a stern conversation with them to advise that consent wasn't given to be fined and she wasn't arrested and charged, so we will not be apying any fine they send us.

On top of that, the onus is on them to prove she was even there, let alone didn't have a ticket, which is obviously impossible as no arrest was made or any evidence taken. so it won't stand up in court.

Originally posted by kindred
* Require name and address where they have reason to believe a person has committed a road traffic or antisocial behaviour offence or is inpossession of illegal drugs.

And you have the right to refuse without fear of arrest. If they wish to take it further, they'd have to arrest you on suspicion of a crime, but that would cause issues if they did and you had done nothing wrong and you could sue for harrassment. Just make sure you leave your weed at home

Originally posted by Damien_uk
I agree that jackie smith has to go! Also we should get rid of hazel blears, I hate that woman!! When shes talking she never gives an answer and just seems to be lieing to me.

Actually while where at it we might as well sack the rest of them too.

Don't forget Harriet Harman while you're at it! That woman's wilfull incompetence just shines through in every decision she makes.

Originally posted by infinite

"The civil servant at the heart of a Whitehall leak investigation was in hiding last night as a political storm raged over the arrest of the Tory frontbencher Damian Green. The 26-year-old civil servant was detained at his home in Middlesex at 6am on November 19. The assistant private secretary, who has been suspended from his job, is being looked after by the Home Office at a secret location because it owes him a “duty of care”, officials said."

TimesOnline

Lost in all the babble about "rights" and parliamentary procedure etc, this little aspect seems to be getting left out. Has anyone heard anything more about this guy?
The fact they are keeping this guy on ice implies he may know more that the government wants to keep away from the public eye.

reply to post by Britguy


yeah, tis what me and infi said earlier. Seems they don't want him to spill the beans about who told who to do what.

It seems Gordon Brown is throwing Jacqui Smith to the lions and forcing her to tour the studios. The Conservative party swept offices for bugs and it believed Damian Green was "honey trapped" by the Met.

Jacqui got a roasting by Andrew Marr this morning, car crash tv.

Gordon, from his statements, has not defended the Home Office or Jacqui Smith. Seems she may have to fall on her own sword to save General Gordo.

MPs have planned to protest to the Crown, when the Queen comes to Parliament.

Originally posted by infinite
Jacqui got a roasting by Andrew Marr this morning, car crash tv.

I wish I'd seen this.

Gordon, from his statements, has not defended the Home Office or Jacqui Smith. Seems she may have to fall on her own sword to save General Gordo.

Well, perhaps some good might come of this. I've no love for Smith at all.

reply to post by infinite


Ooh, interesting...

Entrapment, which is illegal, used to gain "evidence" on an opposition MP, who in turn is arrested despite parliamentary priviledge? Someone ordered all this to happen and it had to come from ministerial level.

This is going to be big news this week and I'd love to see Labour's latest polls

stumason

You seem to be under the impression that the police don't break the law and don't take advantage of it in anyway.

Something simple like drinking in designated areas becomes an issue when the police demand that all alcohol be handed over.This is an abuse of power on a small scale.It also happens on a larger scale.

Related links.
Protest is criminalised and the huffers and puffers say nothing.
www.guardian.co.uk...

New law to allow police to collect DNA in secret from teacups.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

U.K. turns CCTV, terrorism laws on pooping dogs.
news.cnet.com...

Police 'used anti-terrorism laws to arrest protesters'.
www.independent.co.uk...

If abuse of police powers and new terror laws wasn't an issue there would be no need for this thread.

Under English Common Law, you have the right to be free from any fine or forfeture without a fair trial. What this means is that unless you give consent, no one can give you a spot fine.

Huh?
The law means the exact opposite of what you say.

What if the person gives a false identity?

Police will need to see a proof of identity. If the offender does not have any or the officer does not believe they are who they claim to be, they can be taken to a police station.

If a person is visibly drunk they will be arrested until they sober up. A decision would then be taken to either release them with no further action or to impose a fixed penalty notice.

news.bbc.co.uk...





Britguy

Lost in all the babble about "rights" and parliamentary procedure etc, this little aspect seems to be getting left out. Has anyone heard anything more about this guy?

There's his web page,but that has little info.
www.damiangreen.org...

There's also wikipedia but that aint always the most reliable site.

Originally posted by jakyll
stumason

You seem to be under the impression that the police don't break the law and don't take advantage of it in anyway.

Something simple like drinking in designated areas becomes an issue when the police demand that all alcohol be handed over.This is an abuse of power on a small scale.It also happens on a larger scale.

Really? I would have thought that the fact I am protesting this aresst itself shows I don't think that. Not sure how we got from discussing our rights to you thinking I support the Police? Thats a bit of a stretch.

Of course the Police abuse their power, this and the BNP arrests show that. (I posted in that thread too)

reply to post by stumason


"but left it on the train by accident " Lol - bet the ticket collector has heard that one a few times before.

Anyway, what was the information the MP had that led to his arrest? Everyone's talking about the arrest, right or wrong but not the actual controversial information itself.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by infinite
Jacqui got a roasting by Andrew Marr this morning, car crash tv.

I wish I'd seen this.

This might be it:

www.bbc.co.uk...

EDIT: It is.

[edit on 30/11/08 by Smokersroom]

I guess the BBC doesn't want the rest of the world see these clowns get their comupance. The link only works for you blokes across the pond. Would love to see the video. It saddens me to see the bastion of one of the first peoples governments be abused in this manner!

Zindo

Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, has - surprisingly - come out in support of Damian Green and suggesting there should be an investigation into the Home Office and the police.

How unique to find a minister criticising the behaviour of her own government

Originally posted by infinite
Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, has - surprisingly - come out in support of Damian Green and suggesting there should be an investigation into the Home Office and the police.

How unique to find a minister criticising the behaviour of her own government

I'm wondering whether she's hedging her bets regarding public and ministerial concern over this story. She might have thought it in her best interests to distance herself as best she can.

I wonder whether she kept that stab vest from her walkabout? Depending on how badly she's played this card, she might need it yet.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Harriet must still want to be Prime Minister.

That could explain her defiance and protest regarding the Home Office.

reply to post by infinite


I think it is not a time for the usuall rivalization among the party leaders. the final countdown is ongoing. all the threats for the expected solution will be stoped.

it looks for me that some of them are just afraid of what is going to come and they are trying to stay out and/or even give some evidence on the issues. they are scared of beeing involved in the dirty games they usually play in this really crucial moment.

but the real power is still strong. they will kick out all the uncertain ones and finish the deal.

politicians are the puppets and only from time to time it happens that they are going out of control. and if so they are punished badly.

Updates.

Yard at war over arrest of Tory MP.
www.timesonline.co.uk...

MP's arrest not Stalinist - Smith.
news.bbc.co.uk...

MPs in threat to disrupt State opening of Parliament.
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Damian Green is accused of orchestrating up to 20 leaks.
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Some interesting developments have surfaced in the last 48 hours about this issue.

1) The civil servant involved, Christopher Galley, had stood as a Conservative candidate in a council election in 2004 (he came fifth). He also apparently applied for a job as a researcher, and Damian Green supposedly interviewed him but ultimately hired someone else.

2) It's getting pretty clear that neither the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Speaker of the Commons or Leader of the Opposition were specifically informed about what the police were up to. I can't find anything to suggest that any of them knew Green was going to be arrested, or that the PM/Home Sec signed off on the operation. Apparently it was the UK's most senior civil servant, Gus O'Donnel (the Cabinet Secretary) who was informed and approved the police operation.

3) The police have been very heavy handed in this issue... they seem to be when something like this crops up. Remember Ruth Turner, the adviser who was arrested over the Cash for Honours issue? She was arrested by the police in the early hours of the morning... and subsequently all charges were dropped. The police seem to be rather fierce when it comes to political issues like this.

Nevertheless, I think it's important that the conduct of the police in this whole affair (regardless of whether Green is innocent or guilty) must be closely scrutinised. The role of senior politicians must also be examined (before we all start calling for resignations, let's first ascertain exactly what happened and why it happened). So far, there doesn't seem to be any authoritative information on what has happened and why - just newspaper speculation, most of which wouldn't stand up in court (which is exactly what this information has to be able to do).

Apparently the government thinks there are six moles leaking information... and some of it is potentially dangerous. There are rumours that last week's Pre-Budget Report (or parts of it) have been leaked before the Chancellor delivered it to the Commons. Given the delicate situation the markets face, I think that's highly irresponsible at this time.

This whole issue is very difficult... there are constitutional implications about the police and Parliament, and also the issues about civil servants and leaks. I don't think we've heard the last of this story... not by a long shot.