Be Excellent To Each Other

BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7753557.stm



We'll have to wait for more information. Regardless of the law, I do feel somewhat uneasy with the idea that a member of parliament could be arrested under such alleged circumstances.

Norty.

Um. This describes the circumstances of *all* arrests, chap. It's all "alleged" until they're convicted.

Yes, poor wording on my part.

It'll be interesting to see how Cameron plays it.

It seems unusual to me that an MP would be arrested for leaking, especially when the subject matter (if the BBC is to be believed) isn't particularly a "National Security" issue, and because they're all at it. Even Tony B Liar wasn't arrested in the "Cash for Honours" scandal - even though he's as guilty as hell - he was merely "interviewed".

I suspect either:

a) The vile machinations of Fatty "Prudence" Brown in an effort to discredit the Opposition, or
b) An effort by the Tory Party to discredit the Government.

Either way it'll be three column inches, two day's worth of TV coverage and then a hurried sweeping under the carpet.

My initial thought is that Cameron should simply keep quiet about it. It doesn't strike me as particularly likely that Labour will jump on this, given the ease with which Cameron could simply point at pretty much any Labour minister and fold his arms.

Yeah, *that*'s worked before.

See, this is the kind of sharp legal thinking that we all pay our subs for.

So whilst we don't know what this is about now, apart from that it's to do with him leaking stuff to the media about the Gov.

I didn't believe it when I heard it on channel 4, but it has just been stated on BBC news now that it was Anti Terrorist Police that arrested him.

Why?

Seriously. Why?

Wonderful Feature creep* that. Great stuff.

* Not saying it is, I just want some justification why police given extra powers to fight exclusively terrorists were needed. Especially when they are (apparently) on high alert because of India.

Talking of which doing this now reminds me of that email that was leaked (ho ho) about how 7/7 was a good day for the Gov to 'bury news'

Ignore me being paranoid. Just sleepy and grumpy.

I think this affair matters. Whilst we might despise individual MPs, the right of the Commons (and, indeed, the Lords) to scrutinise the executive and hold it to account is vital and must be protected. If this case has to do with embarrassing stories about immigration, then this is a serious overreaction by the police and the government (I find the claims of ignorance by the Prime Minister and Home Secretary hard to accept).

I remember an earlier affair, back in the 17th Century, when the executive tried to trample over the legislature...

I have now actually looked at the article, and heard about this on the radio this morning. And heavens, it's worrying. I " " at Kern's post above.

Fucking hell, could the Met have been any more heavy handed with this? 9 counter terrorism officers in the bloke's house? As Cameron said, they could have just picked up the bloody phone.

Any coincidence that it was Blair's last day in his job? "One last favour, lads...."

He's been arrested for leaking Government information.


And all those articles over the weekend about 45% income tax and 15% VAT were just wild stabs in the dark, then?

And somethign about "counselling or procuring misconduct in public office"

I'd thought that if info isn't rated "secret" or whatever, and not subject to national security laws, it isn't illegal to leak government info.

Aren't American Congressmen immune from arrest except in specific circumstances? I think that was partially to stop them being detained when a vote is taking place though.

I agree that this seems very heavy handed. Did they really think that he was going to go down all guns blazing screaming "You'll never take me alive coppers!"?

Unlike, say, shagging one's secretary.


Let's face it: all politicians know how, and when, to leak. And it's not like he's been revealing troop positions or such like.

I'm reminded of a quote by that well-known fan of internment Abraham Lincoln, who once commented that it would be better to move to some country where they made no pretence of loving liberty, so the despotism can be taken pure.

That's what Nixon did, isn't it?

Yes:


I think Parlimentary Privilege here only extends to the Palace of Westminister.

According to this Guardian article it is a very serious charge. Examples given in a copper having someone die in their custody and a court clerk who made a court order giving himself thousands of pounds.

The plot thickens.

I was listening to Today earlier, and that blithering idiot Phil Woolas claimed that neither the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or any other minister had any knowledge about the arrest.

Wait a minute... a member of Parliament has been arrested and no one in Government knew anything about it?

The Government line seems to be that they only heard about it *after* it happened. Only Boris and Cameron had prior knowledge of the arrest, I think.

The PM not knowing I can buy. The Home Secretary not knowing is a bit of a jump.

The police don't have to ask permission to arrest folk, do they?

Can you still be hanged for treason?

Not since Capital punishment was revoked... but you might not see sunlight again

An MP? Not officially no but they've ALWAYS informed the HS in the past.

Not since 1998.

Especially as it's a shadow cabinet minister in relation to leaked government data. If he was stealing cars or selling crack or murdering homeless people it might be a bit different, but I'm very surprised the HS didn't know in this case.

Well indeed - otherwise who told the police he had obtained leaked Home Office data?

If they informed the Mayor of London and the Leader of the Opposition, then I would expect the Home Secretary to be on the list.

This blog explains how the Police got access to Greens Parliamentary Office. They should never have been able to apparently, and if Parliament had been sitting, would have most likely been unable to gain access.

Yes - in this case. I think the Police would have needed an Arrest warrant.

Another thought: While this brouhaha eats up all the media attention, watch out for the Government slipping something contentious silently through the back door. This is exactly the sort of trick Mandy gets up to.

Look, I think we're all sick and tired of jokes about Mandy's back door, okay?

haha, (1)984 Bananas

I also would like to add my chortling.

But, yes, you're probably right.

How this country get so fucked up?

[EDIT Ah yes, M'Lord Mandy has been telling the press that Gordon 'Brezhnev' Brown is concentrating on important world affairs : http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5250311.ece ]

Gahhhh!

The country faces a worse financial state of affairs than even that of the previous grand Labour fuck up leading to the '79 election. So naturally enough, Premier "Flash" [sic] Gordon indulges in a media-managed daliance with Brain Dead Reality Television, all under some sickeningly cynical premise of 'unlocking hidden talent'.

It's enough to make one vomit copiously, is it not? Someone should mention that they'll be much scope indeed for the talent of the peoples of this country to be laid to waste in the coming months and years, thanks almost in entirety due to his disastrous stewardship of the UK economy - especially when you consider that, unlike any other administration before (and most certainly not the Tories in '79), the guy had it made in '97.

Is Brown even on the same planet as the rest of us? He's proposing a doubling of our national debt, at a single stroke destroying a key benefit of our economy over most of our peers in the EU pretty much forever, and he's arsing about with drivel like this. If it were me I would be having sleepless nights wracking my brains for a way out of this that doesn't leave a terrible legacy for our kids, never mind worrying about who's going to be the next manufactured pop star.

As for the Green arrest itself, it doesn't exactly bode too well for our parliamentary democracy does it. Nu Labour obviously doesn't like home truths and mere MPs are treated with the utmost contempt. Apart from anything else, this looks like the antics of some banana republic; hardly the British way of doing things?

I know. All that and the Tory party is still unelectable.

Mehhh. You scoundrel, sir!

Hehe. My joke has a serious edge though: even as a left-leaning voter from working class South Wales, I would prefer to have an effective opposition party. I don't think we've had any effective opposition in this country for a decade, not from the Tories, the Lib Dems, or anyone else. It's this power vacuum that is being exploited, with varying levels of success, by the previously single-issue parties like Plaid Cymru, the SNP, UKIP, and even the BNP.

Even though the Tories would have come second in a one horse election in 1997, at least Labour had policies and plans. They worked for it. Cameron just seems to be sitting back and waiting.

I wonder if it might have been a shot across the bows from the Met itself? Given that it took place on the last day of Ian Blair's reign there?

Cor. Great minds. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Who at, though? It's not like Green had anything to do with Blair taking a dive, is it? Boris?

Oops. You know, I read page 1 this morning, but obviously forgot. I blame the flu, y'honour!

The Tories. I Blair is massively pissed off about Boris, and the Tories fully backed the floppy-haired one on that. They've not been a fan of I Blair's for a while anyway.

I pretty much agree with you, somewhat surprisingly perhaps, given that I am your typical One Nation Conservative type of the Portillo/Clarke/Heseltine variety (a 'Wet' as famously defined by Maggie Thatcher in the 80s).

It has to be said that the opposition was basically non-existent during Labour's first and second terms, and this was a bad thing as it emboldened them considerably, with demonstrably disasterous results in economic and libertarian terms. (ID cards anyone? Iraq War perchance? No? Ah, sir would like an economic meltdown, clearly a man of taste!)

The thing is, Nu Labour was/is a formidable marketing machine, if nothing else. Lord Mandelson & Co. may be reprehensible and repugnant, but they are hugely effective. The hapless Tories with their 18 years of stored up bitterness, sleaze and divisions stood no chance, notwithstanding the unavoidable fact that any *sensible* and fair minded analysis of their management of the ecomomy from 1979 bankrupcy to 1997's five years of growth would invariably come out most favourably for that administration - how could it not do? More importantly, in 1997 we had massive continued growth immediately thereafter, hardly to the credit of Labour's first term - they just did precisely what the Tories planned to do, as per their key manifesto pledge at the time.

Things only started to go wrong in the UK economy from 2002 onwards with the deliberately encouraged massive spiralling of consumer debt and yet another housing boom, spookily enough at the precise time of Labour's true colours being shown. They were no longer shackled to Tory Prudence spending plans unlike their first term, and the fruits of this are there for all to see.

Still, the Tories had more or less self destructed as a party, and it is only now that they are in recovery - far too late of course. Had they elected Clarke as their leader in '97, things could have been very, very different for us all (we wouldn't be in Iraq for a start). Ironically, I am no fan of Cameron at all; he's just another smiling face/Blair type of no substance whatsoever, precisely as per Blair. Whatever happened to real politicians and visionaries like Atlee, Churchill, Thatcher?

While I'm with you on the civil liberties bit, and the vision one too, you're bringing rather too much in to one thing, and seeing causation where there is none. Or little, anyway.

There is no coincidence in the fact that the downturn is global (or 'global', since poorer countries won't be affected internally, only to the extent to which their economies (perhaps that should be apostrophised, too) depend on other countries'. This is not a downturn 'caused' by policy changes, it's a downturn caused by the general thrust of Western countries' political leanings towards less regulation, trickle down economics (ah, how glad i was to see that old canard mentioned in the press - here but not forgotten) and a belief generally that growth is good for all and must be maintained at all costs. Growth isn't always good for all - unrestricted growth of the type we've seen sees avaricious spirals of profit-seeking, which in the case of credit leads to some dreadful decisions being made as people head for the bottom. Can't be competitive any more at the edge of 'normal' mortgage lending? Then lets unleash our cash-lending ratios and go after people with less income, we can grab loads there, and so on until something finally breaks the cycle. Possibly in a more regulated economy people might think "that's enough growth for now" and pause, but then I'm sure there would be siren voices crying out at the restrictions - like testing an injury (speaks the runner) you only know you've overdone it when you go too far, and I suspect going too far is an essential part of the process, causing restraint.

None of that, though, avoids the fact that whatever is done or not done, things will happen that will lead to years of growth and (fewer) years of stagnation. Boom and bust is the old term, which has been linguistically cleansed but perhaps we can just say 'ups and downs'. These things will happen. Spotting why they have is useful and interesting but we shouldn't be too keen to look at the past and try to apply the lessons to the present - history may repeat itself, but it forgets some of the lines and thus changes things. Apply the Japan 1990s play book here and we won't get the same result, nor will we if we use the knowledge of the Great Depression. This downturn is different and you *can't* go through it without making mistakes. Doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but appeals to history just don't work.

I'm an odd mix of lefty Marxist in places and true free marketeer. I've lost much money on various companies being nationalised or going bust (bye Woolies, bye Bradford and Bingley) but am still wedded to the belief that in a recession companies go bust and that's right. Yes it's painful, but ultimately businesses should fail so that into the gap can come something else. Short (ish) term pain, long term gain, and it's their populist "we will help business" agenda that is going to do the most harm - something that would undoubtedly be shared by any party in power until we get one of those visionaries back.

There is a slight difference in the financial sector meltdown at the moment though - if the Western governments hadn't stepped in at the various points where they have over the past year, it was possible that the entire world economy could have ground to a halt - much more serious than the pain of losing a few companies here and there; we were talking about the state of California being only weeks away from bankruptcy at one point.

Some of that is definitely post hoc ergo propter hoc, Cavey old boy.