Lou Ravi wrote:
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

The OSA has not been invoked here.

James

Logician wrote:
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:

False.

He was arrested for common law offences related to misconduct in a
public office.

James

James Hammerton wrote:
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?
..
Most police forces across the country have now re-named their 'Special
Branch' departments as 'Anti-Terrorist Units'. Special Branch are/were the
police department that deals with things like this.

Ret.

Lou Ravi wrote:
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.

Exactly, and that is my position on this. Confidential information is
confidential information, and employees have no right to go passing it to
people outside the organisation. It is a matter of principle.

Ret.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:16:26 -0000, "DVH" wrote:


"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



Thanks - I assume you meant the bit which said :

The Tories have highlighted four documents that were passed to Green,
but Home Office sources say that there were other leaks and that the
problem had been going on "for an extended period of time".

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:51:54 +0000, James Hammerton
wrote:

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 have answered elsewhere in the thread

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:48:31 +0000, James Hammerton
wrote:

snip

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


No thanks - why would I want to?

It appears to be stuff which has already appeared in the Daily Mail -
or alternatively stuff which will soon appear in the Daily Mail.

In article , Ret. xxx wrote:
Most police forces across the country have now re-named their 'Special
Branch' departments as 'Anti-Terrorist Units'. Special Branch are/were the
police department that deals with things like this.

Why did they do that? Was it for PR purposes?

Francis

"judith smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:16:26 -0000, "DVH" wrote:


"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



Thanks - I assume you meant the bit which said :

The Tories have highlighted four documents that were passed to Green,
but Home Office sources say that there were other leaks and that the
problem had been going on "for an extended period of time".

Yes.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:13:52 +0000, James Hammerton
wrote:

Lou Ravi wrote:
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

The OSA has not been invoked here.

The OSA was modified so as only applying to information where the
release could harm the nation. I think 1988 but I'd have to dig...

Someone else has already mentioned whistleblowers charter. ISTR case
law has already accepted an MP is a suitable person to whom the
whistle may be blown and is now in the list.
http://www.pcaw.co.uk/law/uklegislation.htm

"Subs. (3)(a)
The range of people to whom such a disclosure might be made is
potentially vast. It could include the police, a professional body, a
non-prescribed regulator, a union official, an MP, the relatives of a
patient at risk, a contracting party whose rights were being flouted,
shareholders or the media."