MP Arrest - Has the government opened a can of worms?

[TygerTyger]

A top police officer is to investigate the handling of the inquiry into Home Office leaks which led to the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green.

British Transport Police chief constable Ian Johnston will report to the Metropolitan Police in two weeks.

MPs are angry that Mr Green, the shadow immigration minister, was held while his Commons office was searched.
Ministers say it would have been wrong to interfere in the inquiry and deny prior knowledge of the arrest.


More to be found here: Further Investigation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7760223.stm)

I'm no fan of the Conservative Party but I do value what few freedoms we have left. I hope the investigation castigates those concerned, including members of the government who claim that they knew nothing, which is ridiculous considering what was involved in the decision making process!

[LostSheep]

I'm no fan of New Labour, and this is just what you can expect to happen, this exploitation of the law to suit their own purposes, when the goverment itself is run by criminals. Classic behaviour of corrupt and incompetent goverments, desperate to cling onto power by any means possible, worldwide. (q.v. the justification for the invasion of Iraq, and the hounding of the scientist who blew the whistle on the fact that they were lying, and of the journalist who took up the story).

[Cassie]

I am not sure what to make of all this. While the Conservatives and their press supporters are harping on about this being an infringement of Parlimentary and constitutional rights, I can't help thinking it would be worse if the police were not allowed to investigate MPs just as easily as any other members of the public.
If they have reason to believe a crime was committed, why shouldn't they investigate, detain or arrest people just as they would do in any other case?

[TygerTyger]

You have a point Cassie, only no crime was committed either by Damian Green MP nor Christopher Galley. The information was not, as far as I am aware, restricted nor did it concern national security, which is why the use of 9 anti-terrorist officers to search a home is worrying!

Mr Galley was arrested by the police and released without charge, as was Mr Green - eventually! Both were initially held under anti-terrorism laws, which were not appropriate to the nature of the investigation.

The Home Office itself is actually guilty of trying to hide or misrepresent information that is of interest to the public against its' own code of conduct, a fact that seems to have been missed by everyone else!

[Thunder]

I am not sure what to make of all this. While the Conservatives and their press supporters are harping on about this being an infringement of Parlimentary and constitutional rights, I can't help thinking it would be worse if the police were not allowed to investigate MPs just as easily as any other members of the public.
If they have reason to believe a crime was committed, why shouldn't they investigate, detain or arrest people just as they would do in any other case?
I thought you didn't have a constitution.

[TygerTyger]

I thought you didn't have a constitution.

We do but it is unwritten!

[Thunder]

We do but it is unwritten!
Then you don't have one.

[TygerTyger]

The British constitution is defined by a body of constitutional law, not a single document, although in many respects it could be argued that it began with the Magna Carta.

Constitutional law covers accession to the British throne, eligibility to stand as a Member of Parliament, the powers of the Prime Minister, the powers of the monarch, etc.

Constitutionalists have vociferously resisted any move to codify the British constitution into a single document, arguing that its' amorphous existence makes it more flexible than a single declaration that would reguire a complext series of amendments to alter.

[Cassie]

You have a point Cassie, only no crime was committed either by Damian Green MP nor Christopher Galley. The information was not, as far as I am aware, restricted nor did it concern national security, which is why the use of 9 anti-terrorist officers to search a home is worrying!

Mr Galley was arrested by the police and released without charge, as was Mr Green - eventually! Both were initially held under anti-terrorism laws, which were not appropriate to the nature of the investigation.

The Home Office itself is actually guilty of trying to hide or misrepresent information that is of interest to the public against its' own code of conduct, a fact that seems to have been missed by everyone else!
The implication, as far as I can understand, is that the police were suspicious that Damian Green was grooming Galley with bribes; which would be both un-constitutional and very illegal. Thus, the investigation. Maybe now it is legitimate to ask why the police were suspicious and perhaps The Home Office have some uncomfortable questions to answer on that score. But the original investigation into a suspected crime would still be justified.


The British constitution is defined by a body of constitutional law, not a single document, although in many respects it could be argued that it began with the Magna Carta.

Constitutional law covers accession to the British throne, eligibility to stand as a Member of Parliament, the powers of the Prime Minister, the powers of the monarch, etc.

Constitutionalists have vociferously resisted any move to codify the British constitution into a single document, arguing that its' amorphous existence makes it more flexible than a single declaration that would reguire a complext series of amendments to alter.
The British way of doing things! :uhhuhuh:
I think the Lib-Dems favour a written constitution similar to what they have in the States. It will never happen though.

[TygerTyger]

The implication, as far as I can understand, is that the police were suspicious that Damian Green was grooming Galley with bribes; which would be both un-constitutional and very illegal. Thus, the investigation. Maybe now it is legitimate to ask why the police were suspicious and perhaps The Home Office have some uncomfortable questions to answer on that score. But the original investigation into a suspected crime would still be justified.


The British way of doing things! :uhhuhuh:
I think the Lib-Dems favour a written constitution similar to what they have in the States. It will never happen though.

Well, that is what the police are saying now, however, that still does not make it a terrorist offence, more one of malfeasance or public corruption, a bit like what the media in this country does on a regular basis but you don't see many newspaper editors getting arrested....yet!

The point remains, however, that senior civil servants in the Home Office appear to have been trying to either bury or misrepresent information, which is contrary to the Civil Service Code and coudl (should) lead to discipline action, although prosecution seems a bit too much, hence the questions over arresting a sitting MP!

[Thunder]

The implication, as far as I can understand, is that the police were suspicious that Damian Green was grooming Galley with bribes; which would be both un-constitutional and very illegal. Thus, the investigation. Maybe now it is legitimate to ask why the police were suspicious and perhaps The Home Office have some uncomfortable questions to answer on that score. But the original investigation into a suspected crime would still be justified.


The British way of doing things! :uhhuhuh:
I think the Lib-Dems favour a written constitution similar to what they have in the States. It will never happen though.And the USA is proof that having a concise codified constitution is no guarantee that it will be adhered to. Even by those who took public oaths to uphold it. Rock on Brits.

[TygerTyger]

The House of Commons Speaker is to make a statement over the decision to allow police to search the offices of shadow immigration minister Damian Green.

Michael Martin is expected to face a protest unless he grants a full parliamentary debate on the issue.

Some of the most senior Tory and Lib Dem MPs including Ken Clarke and Menzies Campbell are understood to be prepared to interrupt the statement.
Many MPs are angry Mr Martin allowed police officers to enter Parliament.


Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7762005.stm)

Regarding Sir Gus O'Donnel, or GOD as he's sarcastically referred to by members of the Home Civil Service, he's quite right to state that there are internal system for staff to raise matters of concern, but he should also comment on the efficiency of such systems, especially when the matter of concern is raised by a junior officer and it implicates the decisions of senior managers!

I would also suggest that it is important for ministers to retain the trust of the civil servants who do all the work for them, but that would suggest politicians should enter into a relationship of mutual respect, which would rob them of the opportunity to kick public sector workers in the media to disguise their own failings.