Lord (Robin) Butler has just said on the WEEK IN WESTMINSTER that when he was Cabinet Secretary the Police often refused to investigate leaks from government departments. So here's a question for Sir Paul Stephenson (or Bob Quick).
Seeing as there are clearly no national security issues, what persuaded the Met to investigate this particular leaks as opposed to others?
25 comments:
Easy peasy. The man making the complaint (Sir David Normington) has a bog say over who gets a promotion.
Any other questions.
Probably explains why the official portrait is being kept under wraps then.
Will they investigate this leak then?
A "bog" say Benedict?
Some leaks in British history have been incredibly damaging and arguably cost hundreds or even thousands of lives. The state has a duty to try to stop them.
And the word verification is appropriately Billy given one such leak.
Chris Paul "Some leaks in British history have been incredibly damaging and arguably cost hundreds or even thousands of lives. The state has a duty to try to stop them."
Oops on the typo.
1.name on leak that has cost either hundreds or thousands of lives that has gone via an MP.
2.Even Jacqui Smith admits nothing affecting national security had actually been leaked yet.
See my comment this morning on what happened when there was a REAL national security leak at the Home Office:
http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/12/greengate-lest-we-forget.html
I think Iain had some articles on it at the time.
A question for Members of Parliament
Do you think you will be protected from arrest and search under the CORPUS JURIS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS of the European Union?
Ever closer union!!!!
The Lord is correct, obviously.
and, also, Benedict is spot on!
The Labour Government made Chief Constables sackable (Blunkett) and thus easily controlled by the Home Office.
Gone are the days of independent Chief Constables who told the Home Office and the Police Authorities -who are politicians- to go and take a running jump if they attempted to influence his operational role!! That is a fact.
Tell me of one instance in the last ten years when, what was quite a normal incident, that happenned!
So the police are now Nationally and Locally, whatever the politicians attempt to make out, Under the control of politicians.
This is all, when you consider it, part and parcel of the EU. In europe the other countries have Ministers of the Interior who are able - and do- direct the police!
Our politicians attending the EU meetings felt neutered by our long established (BY Parliament- never forget!) system of independent policing.
SO, whatever the politicians say, police have to be politically aware.
The Acting Commissioner, The Assistant Commissioner, One of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (former Met Officer and Chief Constable of Dorset) based in the Home Office. plus the other runners and riders all know who holds the gift of Commissioner.
The Home Secretary advises the Queen whom to appoint. The Home secretary is advised by Normington.
So when the previous Commissioner, the most politically biased Commissioner in the history of the Met, has agreed to investigate leaks.....then resign...those left
behind, and in the running, want to impress!
Enter Boris, stage left, and the whole game has changed. It was he that really setthe Damian Green story rolling.
The Home Secretary will have to show absolute even handedness now in her recommendation to the Queen or the new person will be labelled a Labour appointee!
Can she? I have never heard of any recommendation ever being declined by the sovereign, could it happen? I rather doubt it. but it would certainly be an interesting development.
The police are now, through Blunketts law, political pawns.
Perhaps Cameron will now announce that he will ensure the neutrality of the police by abolishing Blunketts changes!
Seeing as there are clearly no national security issues, what persuaded the Met to investigate this particular leaks as opposed to others?
Because the Police WERE told that there was "possible national security implications" by the complainants?
Iain, this isn't a question for the Met, its a question that needs asking of the Cabinet Office (as I pointed out in the comments a few days ago).
Jacqui Smith
Chris Paul: "Some leaks in British history have been incredibly damaging and arguably cost hundreds or even thousands of lives. The state has a duty to try to stop them."
Agreed. That is the purpose of the Official Secrets Act.
Benedict: The particular leak I'm thinking of was a good long time ago. And included in a Daily Telegraph precursor. Not sure whether there were MPs involved, but I'll have a root around and report back.
The leak illustrated by Steve Bell and linked from my post was I think within the period during which Green's mole was active. You may recall that HMG sources and the Police got the flack on that.
If Green's boy was active then and involved in anyway in those that might help explain the apparent fervour of the police who took the rap for the leaks, or OTR briefings might be more sensiible.
That was probably more serious than the shock horror claim that crime might go up if more people were skint. Though it was little more than an invitation for the press to witness some terror swoops as I recall.
I don't agree with Iain at all when he says "there are clearly no national security issues". I'm not sure that is really known in the case of the substantive leaks to Green in this case. Including of course any he has received but not passed on. Those might have got further in other hands. And there is by definition a national security issue if the Home Department is a leaky sieve when it comes to information.
This particular muppet and his muppet master may have so far kept it safe but the channel is open and the churl might get over excited one day, albeit not perhaps via the presumably highly responsible DG.
With or without extreme leak anecdotes and histories it is a reasonable observation don't you think that preventing leaks is as legitimate an activity for the state as getting them may be - within limits - for HM's opposition and the 4th estate.
Can still remember the blink rate of the Home Secretary on the Marr show last Sunday when she was asked if she knew about the arrest from the start. Banged to Rights
A Question for Iain:
Do you think the police shouldn't investigate leaks of official papers?
Depends on the circumstances. If it relates to national security and could be an offence under the OSA, certainly.
That wasn't the issue here though. And even if it had been, I would question the heavy handed tactics.
Chris Paul you say "With or without extreme leak anecdotes and histories it is a reasonable observation don't you think that preventing leaks is as legitimate an activity for the state as getting them may be - within limits - for HM's opposition and the 4th estate."
You acknowledge leaks are part of politics , and it is also the case that government would like to stop them, but they are very seldom a criminal matter. In this case, having read the criminal law on the subject, this one certainly isn't. You can see my arguments here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2008/12/greengate-jill-pays-speaker-martin-and.html
You also, on your linked to post claim;
"Iain and others may argue that it is journalists and oppositionists job to procure and publish leaks but it is certainly also for the government, the police, the judiciary to try to stop them."
It is most certainly not the job or the police to get involved in politics, and were this case to go to court, (which it will not because it will not get past the CPS) then a judge will throw it out before a jury even sits.
You also claim "In British History leaks from the Home Department and others have undoubtedly cost lives and prevented progress. "
Name one.
So if the civil servant promises he won't leak anything he thinks might affect national security he should be left alone? Anyone would think they didn't trust him.
Some Prime Ministers have been incredibly damaging and arguably cost hundreds or even thousands of lives. Are you advocating a charge of "misconduct in a public office" for them ?
The pro-authoritarians here seem unable to understand that disciplinary action is the appropriate response to leaks which don't involve national security.
Stretching the use of arcane common law offenses isn't.
Nigel,
It's a difficult situation. Assuming for the sake of argument a situation in which a party activist is actively seeking a career in his party of choice and has, again for the sake of argument, been led to believe that his party offers some sort of safety net in the event he gets caught, then it's difficult to see how dismissal acts as an effective deterrent.
Chris Paul: "I don't agree with Iain at all when he says "there are clearly no national security issues". I'm not sure that is really known in the case of the substantive leaks to Green in this case. Including of course any he has received but not passed on. Those might have got further in other hands. And there is by definition a national security issue if the Home Department is a leaky sieve when it comes to information. "
That's rubbish. If the leaks were concerned with national security they would be protectively marked and covered by the Official Secrets Act. Restricted, Confidential, Secret etc. If the leaks are not covered by the OSA, they are not concerned with national security. If Damian Green (or others) received or receives protectively marked material, they would be smart enough to hand it to the cops unless it was absolute dynamite (eg. Iraq war cabinet minutes pre-war).
If leaked material isn't covered by the OSA, then there should be no prosecutions and administrative sanctions - instant dismissal for gross misconduct - are adequate.
Just because information is held by government does not mean it is special - unless it is protectively marked and covered by the OSA. In the case of protectively marked material, it would be restricted access, kept under lock and key etc to various levels of security. It would be ludicrously expensive to vet everyone and protect every document in government!
I haven't got on to the subject of government leaks...suffice to say that every document has an originator, and if a document is leaked without the originator's authority then this should attract whatever sanction regardless of whether it is a special advisor/minister leaking or someone with a conscience/agenda.
@ Chris Paul
"Green's boy"
Remind us, how old is this 'boy'? Is he not capable in some way? Is he not well over the age of legal responsibility? Is he controlled by some sort of spooky alien forces? Wow!
Let me put it to you that he's an adult, obliged to be responsible for his own actions, and perfectly capable of making his own mind up as to his own actions.
Clown.
I think BW 11:33 hit the nail on the head.
@ Jimmy 5:57 PM
Yep, anything can happen in the next half hour. Let's try to consider probabilities (or even, facts) rather than convoluted and very elastic fiction, eh? I mean, do we really have to discuss (for the sake of argument) a whole plethora of hypothetical 'scenarios'?
Unsworth,
Of course you don't. If you can't answer then don't. One could argue of course that any criminal law was an answer to a hypothetical question.
strapwolrd said: "Gone are the days of independent Chief Constables who told the Home Office and the Police Authorities -who are politicians- to go and take a running jump if they attempted to influence his operational role!! That is a fact.
Tell me of one instance in the last ten years when, what was quite a normal incident, that happenned!"
I don't know if this meets your criteria, but the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire was publicly vocal in his opposition to the Government's plans to amalgamate the Gloucestershire Constabulary with neighbouring ones. He, along with others, managed to see off those plans.
@ Jimmy
And one could also argue that the moon was made of blue cheese.
Why bother?
Post a Comment