Losing the plot / What about the searchlight? / Rush hour …

[RAENORTH]

Richard North-

If you think that Green really had the option of using this information effectively in Parliament, your thought processes are rather confused. Aren't you the one who bemoans the insignificance of today's Parliament? If he had used his information directly in Parliament it would have been lost, and in any case wouldn't Mr (impartial!) Speaker have simply ruled that it should be set aside as being classified and not proper for public debate? While I am sceptical about all politicians, I know that the Conservatives care more about parliamentary democracy than nu-Labour, so your attack is gratuitous. Secondly, of the four leaks which you refer indirectly to from the Times report, two were certainly in the public interest. Of the other two, one concerned internal Labour politics which is hardly classified, not should it be.

What we are dealing with here, and what you fail to acknowledge, is that what is business as usual for a spinning Labour Government is criminalised when even a hint of equally effective information handling appears from the Opposition. The Opposition, in several of the revelations made, was operating directly in the public interest. So far we haven't even mentioned the use of terror police, or the fact that the arrest was made when the police chain of command was muddied by the departure of Sir Ian Blair.

In sum, what we have here is blatant below-the-belt use of Government power for political purposes. The rule of game have indeed changed. It's sad, given your powers of observation, that you seem to miss this vital point.

If you have actually read the posts I have written over time, you would have seen that I bemoan the reluctance of MPs to use parliamentary tools, having written many times of their nature - and indeed having used them myself. Far from my thought processes being confused, it seems I have a far better idea of parliamentary procedure than either you or Mr Green.

The point about Green's action is that, had he used information to "guide" parliamentary questions (which could just as well be written) - on the basis of a good lawyer always knowing the answer to a question he asks - then he could have trapped the government either into giving the information of lying about it ... which is a win-win situation. There could be no reason for the Speaker to intevene - Green would have been acting perfectly properly.

Failing that, Green could openly have revealed the information in Parliament (without revealing its source) during a debate or by other means (for instance, getting one of his pals to raise it in a Home Affairs select committee meeting, which would be televised) in which case he would have been protected by Parliamentary privilege. Nor, in this case, could (or even would) the Speaker have intervened - not that he could in a select committee session anyway. To speak or write information into the record is entirely within the rules of the House.

As to the criminalisation, it has always been the case that civil servants are bound by confidentiality rules which are included in the criminal code, and it is thereby an offence to "procure" or conspire to obtain infomation through this means. It is quite another thing for an MP to be the passive recipient of information, perhaps even sent anonymously.

Where you seem to be losing sight of the issue, therefore, is that this was not a case of a civil servant spontaneously giving - for whatever motivation - information to an MP, who then used it in the House, but an ongoing "partnership" between a civil servant and an MP, the one repeatedly feeding him information and the other selectively feeding it to the media, knowing full well its source.

If you cannot see that that is wrong, then that is very troubling. The end, in this case, does not justify the means ... an MP is supposed to uphold the law and the consitution, and Green does not appear to have done either.

[Robin]

Losing the plot

The jewel in the crown of our public administration – so we are told – is a strictly politically neutral civil service, a central tenet of the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854. That embodied four core principles of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality – including political impartiality.

Much has been made of the growing politicisation of the civil service, url]

They dont have any integrity, they`re shifty scum, they dont have honesty, they`re lying bastards,they dont do objectivity, they`re too stupid , and they aren`t impartial, they`re self serving half wits.
The only politicisation is the perpetuation of the ststem which keeps their sinecures.

[RAENORTH]

Losing the plot

The jewel in the crown of our public administration – so we are told – is a strictly politically neutral civil service, a central tenet of the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854. That embodied four core principles of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality – including political impartiality.

Much has been made of the growing politicisation of the civil service, url]

They dont have any integrity, they`re shifty scum, they dont have honesty, they`re lying bastards,they dont do objectivity, they`re too stupid , and they aren`t impartial, they`re self serving half wits.
The only politicisation is the perpetuation of the ststem which keeps their sinecures.

That's an informed comment is it?

[TrevorsDen]

What a pathetic parsimonious post.

It does not matter what the leaker was leaking (he has to take his chance), unless it was treason, and info about labour rebels and illegal immigrants in security jobs is hardly that - no you ungrateful fool, its the arrest of an MP for merely receiving such leaks - something Brown and Cook made their careers doing - merely doing his job and its a national disgrace his commons office was raided.

By this post you entirely undermine all your other campaign.

You despise everyone except your own super virtuous self.

Pathetic.

Any by the way I am I can assure you a rabid 'Europhobe'

[Chris Palmer]

While I am sceptical about all politicians, I know that the Conservatives care more about parliamentary democracy than nu-Labour, so your attack is gratuitous.

How exactly do you justify this statement? When have the Conservatives recently shown any greater degree of 'care' for the system of Parliamentary democracy in Britain than Labour? I can't think of many myself - there really is little between the two parties in that respect.

A question that I have for you though, Richard, is the source of your statement 'in the context of upwards of eighty percent of our legislation coming via the European Union'. I know that 70% to 80% is a commonly mentioned range, but where exactly does this come from? I know that there was a House of Commons research paper by Vaughne Miller which detailed EU legislation and regulation - and how the UK attempted to pre-empt EU law etc. There is also the argument that it is, as you have said before, quality not necessarily quantity of legislation - but I would like to know nonetheless how the 80% plus figure was worked out - and a source if there is one.

[Chris Palmer]

It does not matter what the leaker was leaking (he has to take his chance), unless it was treason, and info about labour rebels and illegal immigrants in security jobs is hardly that - no you ungrateful fool, its the arrest of an MP for merely receiving such leaks - something Brown and Cook made their careers doing - merely doing his job and its a national disgrace his commons office was raided.

It does indeed matter that a civil servant was leaking information to a Conservative MP as Richard explained because it damages the neutrality and impartiality of the civil service. It does not matter if Gordon Brown did similar when he was in opposition. Two wrongs do not make a right.

By this post you entirely undermine all your other campaigns. You despise everyone except your own super virtuous self. Pathetic.

Where do idiots like you come from?

[RAENORTH]

What a pathetic parsimonious post.

It does not matter what the leaker was leaking (he has to take his chance), unless it was treason, and info about labour rebels and illegal immigrants in security jobs is hardly that - no you ungrateful fool, its the arrest of an MP for merely receiving such leaks - something Brown and Cook made their careers doing - merely doing his job and its a national disgrace his commons office was raided.

By this post you entirely undermine all your other campaign.

You despise everyone except your own super virtuous self.

Pathetic.

Any by the way I am I can assure you a rabid 'Europhobe'

My! Aren't we the angry one!

What pray, was the "job" Mr Green was doing? Was he acting as a parliamentarian in the national interest, or as a party apparatchik, intent on seeking advantage for his party?

And, in either case, if leaking of the information was illegal and there was "reasonable suspicion" that Mr Green was actively conspiring in its procurement - and thereby acting outside the realms of parliamentary privilege - why should he be treated any differently from any other person? Or are you suggesting that MPs are above the law and should be treated differently from the rest of us?

[Robin]

Losing the plot

The jewel in the crown of our public administration – so we are told – is a strictly politically neutral civil service, a central tenet of the Northcote-Trevelyan Report of 1854. That embodied four core principles of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality – including political impartiality.

Much has been made of the growing politicisation of the civil service, url]

They dont have any integrity, they`re shifty scum, they dont have honesty, they`re lying bastards,they dont do objectivity, they`re too stupid , and they aren`t impartial, they`re self serving half wits.
The only politicisation is the perpetuation of the ststem which keeps their sinecures.

That's an informed comment is it?

Yes. Ask anyone who has to deal with them.

[David]

Re earlier post:

The British Constitution is not a 'written constitution', even if elements that form parts of it are written.

[HenryWood]

One certain outcome of this episode is that future whistleblowers will have been frightened off, even if they are genuine whistleblowers and not party animals with an axe to grind. For that matter, I only hope my own M.P. does not have his offices raided in a like manner and his computer files etc. taken away by the local Constabulary for "examination". I have had a couple of communications with him concerning certain matters which I would not like the local police to have access to at this stage. This whole affair will most certainly make me think more than twice before again communicating with my M.P. on what I always thought was an inviolable, confidential status. I wonder how many of Damien Green's constituents are now worrying about communications with their M.P. over the past few years?

[SandyRham]

Magna Carta, Declaration of Rights and the Act of Union are all written Constitutional documents. There is no one document that encapsulates it all. Unfortunately our perfidious judiciary consider that 'unwritten' is synonymous with irrelevant.

[Stuart]

What do you expect from a society that allows its own democracy to be flushed down the toilet.

[Helen S]

One certain outcome of this episode is that future whistleblowers will have been frightened off, even if they are genuine whistleblowers and not party animals with an axe to grind. For that matter, I only hope my own M.P. does not have his offices raided in a like manner and his computer files etc. taken away by the local Constabulary for "examination". I have had a couple of communications with him concerning certain matters which I would not like the local police to have access to at this stage. This whole affair will most certainly make me think more than twice before again communicating with my M.P. on what I always thought was an inviolable, confidential status. I wonder how many of Damien Green's constituents are now worrying about communications with their M.P. over the past few years?

What on earth do you mean? What has communication with your MP has to do with this? I take it you are not forwarding confidential documents that you should not reveal because you signed the Official Secrets Act? If you are, then you might be in trouble. Also, take the trouble to read my colleague's latest posting. Chris Galley is not a whistleblower in the real sense of the word as, for instance, Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall were whether you agree with them or not. This is a young man who wanted to have a career some time in the Conservative Party and, to achieve this, passed on documents that came into his hands to an opposition MP who then passed the information on to the newspapers. Maybe you should start wondering about where that leaves the confidentiality that one expects from a Minister's office if any little squirt considers it his right to reveal correspondence between Ministers to somebody else, knowing that it will find its way into the media.

[Teuchter]

Richard,

Losing the Plot

I fear that you have allowed your (understandable) dislike of the "Conservative" party to cloud your judgment on this one.

As you have been banging on for some time, Parliament now is virtually ignored by the Government, so is it surprising that an MP decides he'll get more coverage for his discoveries if they are proclaimed in the press rather than from the green benches? The fact is that 11 years + of this abominable Government have so destroyed our constitution that anyone who tries to play by the rules is unlikely to be heard.

Given the politicisation of our Civil Service, is it any wonder that an employee in the CS feels that it is hopeless to go through the approved channels of complaint (ie to a civil servant appointed for that purpose) and instead chooses to go straight to an MP. The encouraging thing in this episode is that there is at least one civil servant who is still not in thrall to ZaNuLabour.

You also overlook the fact that the Home Secretary is almost certainly being less than truthful in denying knowledge of the intention of the police to raid DG's homes & offices. The Met is the one force that is directly responsible to the Home Sec. If she didn't know, then she should be banging the table asking why she was not informed of the imminent arrest of not just an MP but a front bench spokesman. (btw, have you seen the way Brown avoids eye contact when replying to questions on this subject? He looks out of the window every time. sorry, no link). You also ignore the despicable behaviour of the sergeant-at-arms and the Speaker. This was not a matter of national security and the police should not have been permitted access to an MP's office.

I appreciate your incisive comments on your blog, but on this occasion I think you are wrong in principle even if nerdishly correct on the legal technicalities.

All the best, all the same.

(d'Ancona a Tory groupie??? Always struck me as a panting Blairite)

[HenryWood]

One certain outcome of this episode is that future whistleblowers will have been frightened off, even if they are genuine whistleblowers and not party animals with an axe to grind. For that matter, I only hope my own M.P. does not have his offices raided in a like manner and his computer files etc. taken away by the local Constabulary for "examination". I have had a couple of communications with him concerning certain matters which I would not like the local police to have access to at this stage. This whole affair will most certainly make me think more than twice before again communicating with my M.P. on what I always thought was an inviolable, confidential status. I wonder how many of Damien Green's constituents are now worrying about communications with their M.P. over the past few years?

What on earth do you mean? What has communication with your MP has to do with this? I take it you are not forwarding confidential documents that you should not reveal because you signed the Official Secrets Act? If you are, then you might be in trouble. Also, take the trouble to read my colleague's latest posting. Chris Galley is not a whistleblower in the real sense of the word as, for instance, Clive Ponting and Sarah Tisdall were whether you agree with them or not. This is a young man who wanted to have a career some time in the Conservative Party and, to achieve this, passed on documents that came into his hands to an opposition MP who then passed the information on to the newspapers. Maybe you should start wondering about where that leaves the confidentiality that one expects from a Minister's office if any little squirt considers it his right to reveal correspondence between Ministers to somebody else, knowing that it will find its way into the media.

If you want to know what on earth I mean, as you appear to be asking, I suggest you go back and read my post, particularly my reference to "genuine whistleblowers and not party animals" just as your colleague was also referring to.

And no, I was not forwarding confidential documents to anyone: In my correspondence with my M.P. referred to, I was asking if my M.P. could possibly investigate certain provable facts and how the local Constabulary had decided to handle the whole incident following reports to them about that incident. As often seems to be the case these days, actual crimes are glossed over or even ignored by the police in their never ending pursuit of targets as laid down by their political masters. My reference to communication with my M.P. meant exactly what it said, when I wondered to myself just how a constituent of Damien Green might today be feeling if he had laid before his M.P. certain matters which also contained comments on the actions, or non-actions, of the local Constabulary, as I had done, and now realised his supposedly "private" communications with his M.P. were now widely available to many possibly interested police readers.