Ar wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:35:06 +0100, Lou Ravi wrote:

He wasn't arrested on political grounds he was arrested for possibly
having contravened the Official Secrets Act.

There were no state secrets released. There was information released
that New Liebour tried to hush up because it was politically damaging
to them.

It doesn't matter. Even if you work for the Post Office you have to sign
the Official Secrets Act and I doubt if there are many workers there
that have state secrets to reveal.

abelard wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 05:44:59 -0800 (PST), Ariadne
wrote:

On 28 Nov, 12:34, abelard wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:35:06 +0100, "Lou Ravi"

wrote:
Alang wrote:
Police state. Thats what we have when the police interfere with
politics.
Any allegation against an MP on political grounds should be a job
for parliament and ultimately the electorate.

He wasn't arrested on political grounds he was arrested for
possibly having contravened the Official Secrets Act.

don't be ridiculous

That's his specialism this week.

he's a knee-jerk socialist...
in another time in another country he's have been defending
stalin or adolf

How high they fly your silly arguments.

Get an education, learn to write your language correctly, stop spouting
utter bull**** 20 times a day and I might take into account the
occasional piec of good sense you do write. Until then I shall continue
to treat you as the utter ****wit you are.

DVH wrote:
"Ariadne" wrote in message
...

That's his specialism this week.

And every week.

Oh how I love sock puppets.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 11:18:29 -0000, "DVH" wrote:


"Ar" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:35:06 +0100, Lou Ravi wrote:

He wasn't arrested on political grounds he was arrested for possibly
having contravened the Official Secrets Act.

There were no state secrets released. There was information released
that
New Liebour tried to hush up because it was politically damaging to
them.

Indeed, the information seems to have concerned Home office immigration
statistics and the fact that there was an illegal immigrant with a fake ID
pass working in Parliament.

It was information that embarrassed the Government.



And you have got this from where?


The Todal's link seems to confirm it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-conservatives

DVH wrote:
"Ar" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:35:06 +0100, Lou Ravi wrote:

He wasn't arrested on political grounds he was arrested for possibly
having contravened the Official Secrets Act.
There were no state secrets released. There was information released that
New Liebour tried to hush up because it was politically damaging to them.

Indeed, the information seems to have concerned Home office immigration
statistics and the fact that there was an illegal immigrant with a fake ID
pass working in Parliament.

It was information that embarrassed the Government.

ISTM the leaking of such information presents no threat to national
security and has nothing to do with terrorism, so why send in the
counter-terror police to arrest him?

James

"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
DVH wrote:
"Ar" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:35:06 +0100, Lou Ravi wrote:

He wasn't arrested on political grounds he was arrested for possibly
having contravened the Official Secrets Act.
There were no state secrets released. There was information released
that
New Liebour tried to hush up because it was politically damaging to
them.

Indeed, the information seems to have concerned Home office immigration
statistics and the fact that there was an illegal immigrant with a fake
ID pass working in Parliament.

It was information that embarrassed the Government.

ISTM the leaking of such information presents no threat to national
security and has nothing to do with terrorism, so why send in the
counter-terror police to arrest him?

James

I read somewhere that it was considered "convenient". I suppose they wanted
a team competent enough to strike in three places simultaneously, before
word could get round. I understand an unnamed "senior tory" arrived at
Green's home very soon after the raid, so they seem to have been effective.

DVH wrote:
"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
DVH wrote:
"Ar" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:35:06 +0100, Lou Ravi wrote:

He wasn't arrested on political grounds he was arrested for possibly
having contravened the Official Secrets Act.
There were no state secrets released. There was information released
that
New Liebour tried to hush up because it was politically damaging to
them.
Indeed, the information seems to have concerned Home office immigration
statistics and the fact that there was an illegal immigrant with a fake
ID pass working in Parliament.

It was information that embarrassed the Government.
ISTM the leaking of such information presents no threat to national
security and has nothing to do with terrorism, so why send in the
counter-terror police to arrest him?

James

I read somewhere that it was considered "convenient". I suppose they wanted
a team competent enough to strike in three places simultaneously, before
word could get round. I understand an unnamed "senior tory" arrived at
Green's home very soon after the raid, so they seem to have been effective.

Check some of the comments at one of Iain Dale's posts:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/11...t-tisdall.html

Apparently, special Branch once held the responsibility for
investigating cases like this but was subsumed into the counter
terrorism unit, and the latter thus gained responsibility for these
cases. Thus it can be presented merely as an organisational issue.
However ISTM if they're not anti-terror police they should not be called
anti-terror police...

Incidently, I think Dale's best post on the subject so far is at the URL
below (I've quoted only the first 5 questions from it):

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/11...h-need-to.html

"1. As an Opposition Health and Trade & Industry Spokesman, Robin Cook
built his parliamentary reputation as the receiver of leaked government
documents. Why is Damian Green's behaviour any different to Robin Cook's?

2. Many journalists - David Hencke and Robert Peston being two examples
- have built their journalistic reputations on being receivers of
Whitehall leaks. Why is Damian Green's behaviour different to theirs to
warrant an arrest?

3. Why are Ministers allowed to leak with impugnity? Why aren't they
covered under the same law which was used to countenance Damian Green's
arrest?

4. What did Jacqui Smith know and when did she know it?

5. Did she instigate the police investigation? If so, was it motivated
by a desire to give a warning to future whistleblowers?"

James

"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
DVH wrote:
"James Hammerton" wrote in message
...
DVH wrote:
"Ar" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:35:06 +0100, Lou Ravi wrote:

He wasn't arrested on political grounds he was arrested for possibly
having contravened the Official Secrets Act.
There were no state secrets released. There was information released
that
New Liebour tried to hush up because it was politically damaging to
them.
Indeed, the information seems to have concerned Home office immigration
statistics and the fact that there was an illegal immigrant with a fake
ID pass working in Parliament.

It was information that embarrassed the Government.
ISTM the leaking of such information presents no threat to national
security and has nothing to do with terrorism, so why send in the
counter-terror police to arrest him?

James

I read somewhere that it was considered "convenient". I suppose they
wanted a team competent enough to strike in three places simultaneously,
before word could get round. I understand an unnamed "senior tory"
arrived at Green's home very soon after the raid, so they seem to have
been effective.

Check some of the comments at one of Iain Dale's posts:

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/11...t-tisdall.html

Apparently, special Branch once held the responsibility for investigating
cases like this but was subsumed into the counter terrorism unit, and the
latter thus gained responsibility for these cases. Thus it can be
presented merely as an organisational issue. However ISTM if they're not
anti-terror police they should not be called anti-terror police...

Incidently, I think Dale's best post on the subject so far is at the URL
below (I've quoted only the first 5 questions from it):

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/11...h-need-to.html

"1. As an Opposition Health and Trade & Industry Spokesman, Robin Cook
built his parliamentary reputation as the receiver of leaked government
documents. Why is Damian Green's behaviour any different to Robin Cook's?

2. Many journalists - David Hencke and Robert Peston being two examples -
have built their journalistic reputations on being receivers of Whitehall
leaks. Why is Damian Green's behaviour different to theirs to warrant an
arrest?

3. Why are Ministers allowed to leak with impugnity? Why aren't they
covered under the same law which was used to countenance Damian Green's
arrest?

4. What did Jacqui Smith know and when did she know it?

5. Did she instigate the police investigation? If so, was it motivated by
a desire to give a warning to future whistleblowers?"

James

Sigh. They've turned into a serious public nuisance, haven't they?

On Nov 28, 9:35*am, "Lou Ravi" wrote:
Alang wrote:
Police state. Thats what we have when the police interfere with
politics.
Any allegation against an MP on political grounds should be a job for
parliament and ultimately the electorate.

He wasn't arrested on political grounds he was arrested for possibly
having contravened the Official Secrets Act.

He was arrested for being a suspected terrorist: very embarassing for
Cameron.

"Lou Ravi" wrote in message
...
DVH wrote:
"Ariadne" wrote in message
...

That's his specialism this week.

And every week.

Oh how I love sock puppets.

Am I supposed to care what you love?