MM wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:37:47 -0800 (PST), Logician
wrote:

All police operations are secret. By informing someone of a pending
arrest points every officer taking part in the arrest at risk (in
general, and not really in this case). It is a gross breach of police
procedure. The only exception I can think of is that Cameron is a
member of the Privy Council or some such organisation which affords
him special rights. The Speaker was also informed. Cameron is not a
Minister, and his only power is as an MP, and party leader.

And of course the very same officers who told Martin, Cameron and
Johnson (and maybe others we don't yet know about) will NOT have
contacted the Home Secretary and NOT have contacted the Prime
Minister's office...

Maybe the Home Sec and Gordon went around the whole day with their
fingers in their ears, saying, la-la-la not listening not listening!

MM

Worse, they could have had their fingers in each others' ears!

;-)

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Logician wrote:
On Nov 30, 9:09 am, "DVH" wrote:
"Logician" wrote in message

...
On Nov 29, 9:11 pm, ®i©ardo wrote:



Logician wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:15 pm, James Hammerton wrote:
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
Anti-terror police officers (10 of them) searched his offices and he
was held for 9 hours under anti-terror laws. He is a suspected
terrorist. Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7756047.stm
Leaking information to undermine the Crown or HM's Government is
basically terrorism and that is why counter-terrorism units were
involved. Otherwise the Met would have handled it with other officers.
However you look at it, his career is over and Cameron looks like the
biggest fool in London.
Don't you live in London then?
Cameron was even told in advance.
Cameron was given 5 minutes notice of this.
--
Moving things in still pictures!
I see no legal basis to inform Cameron who is just an MP about pending
police arrests. The fact he has admitted he was informed seems to
indicate a breach of law by the police.
I'm not aware of a law preventing the police from informing anybody about
what they're doing.

Official Secrets Act.

All police operations are secret. By informing someone of a pending
arrest points every officer taking part in the arrest at risk (in
general, and not really in this case). It is a gross breach of police
procedure. The only exception I can think of is that Cameron is a
member of the Privy Council or some such organisation which affords
him special rights. The Speaker was also informed. Cameron is not a
Minister, and his only power is as an MP, and party leader.

But what is not really being publicly said much is the arrest was a
simple statement by the Police that the attack by Boris Johnson was
unacceptable. Immediately after the arrest, the former Commissioner
publicly berated Boris Johnson and demanded new laws to prevent a
Commissioner being forced out of office. It is also a gross breach of
police procedure for an officer to openly challenge actual law. The
timing of the arrest coincided with Sir Ian's statements and the
taking on of the new office by the new Commissioner. The Police has
sent a clear message to Boris Johnson, David Cameron, and the
Conservatives. You can be sure Cameron and his supporters have heard
it.

The arrest was done in a forceful manner and done very publicly to
make a point.

Making arrests in a forceful manner and doing it very publicly sometimes
has its own rewards:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/-Inquiry...ice.4746748.jp



--
Moving things in still pictures!

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:41 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:

For the opinion of a real expert, try

That is merely the opinion of ONE man. The contrary view is being
expressed by dozens of others.

Take your pick!

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:41 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:

For the opinion of a real expert, try

That is merely the opinion of ONE man. The contrary view is being
expressed by dozens of others.

Take your pick!

See if you can find even one eminent lawyer or expert in constitutional law,
who agrees with your point of view.

MM wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:41 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:

For the opinion of a real expert, try

That is merely the opinion of ONE man. The contrary view is being
expressed by dozens of others.

Take your pick!


And the dozens of others mainly have an axe to grind on this issue!

Ret.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:52:16 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:41 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:

For the opinion of a real expert, try

That is merely the opinion of ONE man. The contrary view is being
expressed by dozens of others.

Take your pick!

See if you can find even one eminent lawyer or expert in constitutional law,
who agrees with your point of view.

Everyone has a vote. Whether road mender or city high flyer, whether
captain or deckhand, all votes are equal. It is assumed we all have a
degree of common sense sufficient to form a decision on most things.
This is one of those things. The voices are buidling to a cacophony.
Vernon's, though, is rather a lonely voice. We need to know the facts
to help us form our decisions. We do not need details. Most people
cannot understand the details. They see the big picture. Our picture
right now is: Anti-terrorist police; nine (or twenty) officers; nine
hours in detention; distraught daughters; entering precinct of
Parliament by allegedly misinforming serjeant at arms that DPP gave
OK; in other words, all hell has broken loose over leaks from
government which suppressed information we should know about.

MM

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:52:16 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:41 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:

For the opinion of a real expert, try

That is merely the opinion of ONE man. The contrary view is being
expressed by dozens of others.

Take your pick!

See if you can find even one eminent lawyer or expert in constitutional
law,
who agrees with your point of view.

Everyone has a vote. Whether road mender or city high flyer, whether
captain or deckhand, all votes are equal. It is assumed we all have a
degree of common sense sufficient to form a decision on most things.

That's *your* assumption.

However, it's much the same as saying "if most Radio 2 listeners are content
to have Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand entertaining them, without making
any complaint until the Daily Mail interfered, it must mean that this is
good mainstream modern comedy which should not ever be censored".

This is one of those things. The voices are buidling to a cacophony.
Vernon's, though, is rather a lonely voice. We need to know the facts
to help us form our decisions. We do not need details. Most people
cannot understand the details. They see the big picture. Our picture
right now is: Anti-terrorist police; nine (or twenty) officers; nine
hours in detention; distraught daughters; entering precinct of
Parliament by allegedly misinforming serjeant at arms that DPP gave
OK; in other words, all hell has broken loose over leaks from
government which suppressed information we should know about.

Unfortunately there is no impartial source of information to enable the
public to evaluate these facts. The press rates freedom of speech as far
more important than commercial or political confidentiality. You may recall
that when confidential files were left on a train by a civil servant, a
passenger handed them to the BBC who, instead of publishing the contents,
gave them to the police. That was the responsible thing to do. Obviously it
cannot be left entirely to the discretion of a BBC correspondent to decide
whether or not it is in the national interest to publish the information.
Such decisions would be way above his pay-grade.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7449255.stm

MM wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:52:16 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:41 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:

For the opinion of a real expert, try

That is merely the opinion of ONE man. The contrary view is being
expressed by dozens of others.

Take your pick!

See if you can find even one eminent lawyer or expert in
constitutional law, who agrees with your point of view.

Everyone has a vote. Whether road mender or city high flyer, whether
captain or deckhand, all votes are equal. It is assumed we all have a
degree of common sense sufficient to form a decision on most things.
This is one of those things. The voices are buidling to a cacophony.
Vernon's, though, is rather a lonely voice.

Because, unlike the people you refer to above, he is an expert in the
workings of government and the law!


We need to know the facts
to help us form our decisions. We do not need details. Most people
cannot understand the details. They see the big picture.

But whilst they can certainly have an uninformed view about the issue - they
are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the law to know whether this issue
has been handled correctly or not. They form their decision on emotion
(mainly a loathing of the government and a desire to see the gov't brought
down!).

Our picture
right now is: Anti-terrorist police; nine (or twenty) officers;

Three police officers of the anti-terrorist unit (previously known as the
Special Branch) arrested Green. All the others were employed in searching
his home and offices.

nine
hours in detention;

Not at all unusual to hold a suspect while premises are being searched for
evidence with which to question him.

distraught daughters;

Any relative will clearly be upset by an incident like this - is that a
reason for the police not to investigate alleged crimes?

entering precinct of
Parliament by allegedly misinforming serjeant at arms that DPP gave
OK;

An allegation that has now been firmly refuted by the Met Police who state
quite clearly that they *did* inform the Sergeant at Arms that no search
could be conducted without written permission for either herself or the
Speaker.

in other words, all hell has broken loose over leaks from
government which suppressed information we should know about.

Who says they supressed it? Did anyone ask for it?

Ret.

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:35:06 -0000, "Ret." xxx wrote:

MM wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:52:16 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:41 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:

For the opinion of a real expert, try

That is merely the opinion of ONE man. The contrary view is being
expressed by dozens of others.

Take your pick!

See if you can find even one eminent lawyer or expert in
constitutional law, who agrees with your point of view.

Everyone has a vote. Whether road mender or city high flyer, whether
captain or deckhand, all votes are equal. It is assumed we all have a
degree of common sense sufficient to form a decision on most things.
This is one of those things. The voices are buidling to a cacophony.
Vernon's, though, is rather a lonely voice.

Because, unlike the people you refer to above, he is an expert in the
workings of government and the law!

And notwithstanding his alleged status he only gets one vote, like the
rest of us.

We need to know the facts
to help us form our decisions. We do not need details. Most people
cannot understand the details. They see the big picture.

But whilst they can certainly have an uninformed view about the issue - they
are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the law to know whether this issue
has been handled correctly or not. They form their decision on emotion
(mainly a loathing of the government and a desire to see the gov't brought
down!).

Oh? And why is such loathing not a valid basis for voting? How did
that loathing come about? We don't adopt loathing as our normal
default position. We all started May 1997 with a hopeful feeling.
Crikey, I even voted Labour that first time!

Our picture
right now is: Anti-terrorist police; nine (or twenty) officers;

Three police officers of the anti-terrorist unit (previously known as the
Special Branch) arrested Green. All the others were employed in searching
his home and offices.

And removing privilged material from constituents and probably looking
through it.


nine
hours in detention;

Not at all unusual to hold a suspect while premises are being searched for
evidence with which to question him.

What is the police's cod quota for December?

distraught daughters;

Any relative will clearly be upset by an incident like this - is that a
reason for the police not to investigate alleged crimes?

It is a reason for the police to become more considerate in the way
they deal with people. That girl will NEVER forget that experience. I
have many recollections from my youth where I almost died - the time I
fell off the tractor and ended up inches from the spade lugs; the time
my mates and I found some WWII bullets on a dump, then built a fire
around them to see what would happen; the time my jacket got caught in
the boot handle of the car I had just helped to push free of ice and
snow then it sped away - these pale into insignificance when one
considers how that girl in the Green household must have felt when the
police officers bundled in in their size nines and threatened her
whole raison d'être. She probably cried out of desperation and fear,
living through exactly the same kinds of emotions experienced by the
Jews when the Gestapo came a-knocking.

No, that memory will have probably alienated that girl - and the
entire Green family - from the police for all time.

entering precinct of
Parliament by allegedly misinforming serjeant at arms that DPP gave
OK;

An allegation that has now been firmly refuted by the Met Police who state
quite clearly that they *did* inform the Sergeant at Arms that no search
could be conducted without written permission for either herself or the
Speaker.

Is that the same Met police whose boss attempted to bypass the IPCC
over Menezes?


in other words, all hell has broken loose over leaks from
government which suppressed information we should know about.

Who says they supressed it? Did anyone ask for it?

How can you ask for something whose existence you are unaware of?

MM

MM wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:35:06 -0000, "Ret." xxx wrote:

MM wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:52:16 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:40:41 -0000, "The Todal"
wrote:

For the opinion of a real expert, try

That is merely the opinion of ONE man. The contrary view is being
expressed by dozens of others.

Take your pick!

See if you can find even one eminent lawyer or expert in
constitutional law, who agrees with your point of view.

Everyone has a vote. Whether road mender or city high flyer, whether
captain or deckhand, all votes are equal. It is assumed we all have
a degree of common sense sufficient to form a decision on most
things. This is one of those things. The voices are buidling to a
cacophony. Vernon's, though, is rather a lonely voice.

Because, unlike the people you refer to above, he is an expert in the
workings of government and the law!

And notwithstanding his alleged status he only gets one vote, like the
rest of us.

I don't dispute that fact. I understand that the best selling newspaper in
the UK is the Sun. Does that make it the best newspaper? !!


We need to know the facts
to help us form our decisions. We do not need details. Most people
cannot understand the details. They see the big picture.

But whilst they can certainly have an uninformed view about the
issue - they are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the law to
know whether this issue has been handled correctly or not. They form
their decision on emotion (mainly a loathing of the government and a
desire to see the gov't brought down!).

Oh? And why is such loathing not a valid basis for voting? How did
that loathing come about? We don't adopt loathing as our normal
default position. We all started May 1997 with a hopeful feeling.
Crikey, I even voted Labour that first time!

I'm not sure why you are mixing up the notion of 'voting' with the notion of
commenting upon whether a certain act is devious and dishonest or not.


Our picture
right now is: Anti-terrorist police; nine (or twenty) officers;

Three police officers of the anti-terrorist unit (previously known
as the Special Branch) arrested Green. All the others were employed
in searching his home and offices.

And removing privilged material from constituents and probably looking
through it.

Green should have thought about that before he made the decision to act as
he did. Unfortunately, when certain types of crimes are alleged, the police
have no choice but to search through personal and official documents and
records for evidence.



nine
hours in detention;

Not at all unusual to hold a suspect while premises are being
searched for evidence with which to question him.

What is the police's cod quota for December?

distraught daughters;

Any relative will clearly be upset by an incident like this - is
that a reason for the police not to investigate alleged crimes?

It is a reason for the police to become more considerate in the way
they deal with people.

The Tories have released video of the police searching Green's Commons
officer. Why, I just don't know because on the video they act perfectly
properly and politely - as I have no doubt that they did when they went to
search Green's home. No family member will welcome his/her home being
searched by strangers - but again, Green should have thought about that when
he first become involved in this shady business. I have personally had
people complain about the way I have dealt with an incident even though I
know full well that I acted perfectly properly, respectfully and politely
throughout. People tend to exaggerate when they are upset about something.

That girl will NEVER forget that experience. I
have many recollections from my youth where I almost died - the time I
fell off the tractor and ended up inches from the spade lugs; the time
my mates and I found some WWII bullets on a dump, then built a fire
around them to see what would happen; the time my jacket got caught in
the boot handle of the car I had just helped to push free of ice and
snow then it sped away - these pale into insignificance when one
considers how that girl in the Green household must have felt when the
police officers bundled in in their size nines and threatened her
whole raison d'être. She probably cried out of desperation and fear,
living through exactly the same kinds of emotions experienced by the
Jews when the Gestapo came a-knocking.

Oh come on.................. talk about blowing things out of all
proportion. The police search homes every single day of every single week.
Every time a shop-lifter is arrested, his/her home is searched to look for
other stolen property. The people who are in the house when the police
visit are never exactly happy about the experience but it's hardly the
life-shattering experience you seem to suggest. What nonsense!


No, that memory will have probably alienated that girl - and the
entire Green family - from the police for all time.

And the only person to blame is Green himself. He brought this on himself
when he acted in the way he did.

entering precinct of
Parliament by allegedly misinforming serjeant at arms that DPP gave
OK;

An allegation that has now been firmly refuted by the Met Police who
state quite clearly that they *did* inform the Sergeant at Arms that
no search could be conducted without written permission for either
herself or the Speaker.

Is that the same Met police whose boss attempted to bypass the IPCC
over Menezes?

And is that Speaker Martin, who claims that the police did *not* act
legally, the same Speaker Martin whose colleagues, according to you, have
been deceiving the public by supressing information about immigration?



in other words, all hell has broken loose over leaks from
government which suppressed information we should know about.

Who says they supressed it? Did anyone ask for it?

How can you ask for something whose existence you are unaware of?

Exactly - so you seem to be suggesting that any document the government is
in possession of, that we are not aware of, is being deliberately suppressed
or hidden from us!! What nonsense.

Ret.