Shadow Immigration Secretary arrested under Official Secrets Act

dirtydog · 30 Nov 2008 at 13:22

meghatronic said:
That's ridiculous. Of course they can.

Explain.

meghatronic · 30 Nov 2008 at 13:24

dirtydog said:
Explain.

I don't think I'm qualified to do so, and it is just an opinion.

But, do you honestly believe if Brown called a chief police officer and asked him to investigate dirtydog, but if anything comes up about meghatronic to ignore it.. they wouldn't?

Cosimo · 30 Nov 2008 at 13:31

dirtydog said:
Was the police operation justified or carried out correctly? I don't know - that is a matter for the police to justify, not the government.

So the Home Office don't come into this.

dirtydog · 30 Nov 2008 at 13:33

meghatronic said:
I don't think I'm qualified to do so, and it is just an opinion.

But, do you honestly believe if Brown called a chief police officer and asked him to investigate dirtydog, but if anything comes up about meghatronic to ignore it.. they wouldn't?

Yep.

dirtydog · 30 Nov 2008 at 13:34

simulatorman said:
So the Home Office don't come into this.

?

scorza · 30 Nov 2008 at 13:39

Having read a bit more about this in today's Sunday Times, it would seem that leaking non-classified information isn't a criminal offence. So why exactly did the police open an investigation to this? Sounds like a massive ****-up by the met.

meghatronic · 30 Nov 2008 at 13:41

dirtydog said:
Yep.

I don't. I honestly don't. Conspiracy theories aside, I really believe the police answer to the governments beck and call. (e.g. Saudi thing).

Cosimo · 30 Nov 2008 at 13:46

scorza said:
Having read a bit more about this in today's Sunday Times, it would seem that leaking non-classified information isn't a criminal offence. So why exactly did the police open an investigation to this? Sounds like a massive ****-up by the met.

Not just the Met, most probably by their political masters as well. We shall see how this develops in the coming days. The Mumbai terror attacks will take second place to this event.

Von Smallhausen · 30 Nov 2008 at 18:57

dirtydog said:
Why would the government be incompetent by not knowing details of an ongoing police operation?

The original complaint came from a senior Home Office official / civil servant.

If Jaqui Smith didn't know about this at the very least then I will be amazed. I do not believe the Government in their denials that they didn't know.

Azagoth · 30 Nov 2008 at 18:59

Von Smallhausen said:
I do not believe the Government in their denials that they didn't know.

I don't believe a word this government says, full stop!

Cosimo · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:01

Azagoth said:
I don't believe a word this government says, full stop!

You probably have most of the country behind you on that sentiment.

dirtydog · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:24

Isn't it ironic that those saying this is Stalinist or like 1984, are themselves presuming someone (the government) guilty until proven innocent? I think so.

Von Smallhausen · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:29

dirtydog said:
Isn't it ironic that those saying this is Stalinist or like 1984, are themselves presuming someone (the government) guilty until proven innocent? I think so.

No. I am saying that I find it very hard to believe that the Home Secretary and Prime Minister were not aware of his impending arrest given that leaking information could constitute a threat to national security and the security services brief the PM, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary on such matters.

dirtydog · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:31

Von Smallhausen said:
No. I am saying that I find it very hard to believe that the Home Secretary and Prime Minister were not aware of his impending arrest given that leaking information could constitute a threat to national security and the security services brief the PM, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary on such matters.

Yes, then - you are assuming guilt.

Von Smallhausen · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:33

dirtydog said:
Yes, then - you are assuming guilt.

Quite justifiably I think.

dirtydog · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:34

So they are guilty until proven innocent in your eyes. I rest my case.

mattheman · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:43

Jacqui Smith defended the police action, she also said she couldnt interfere in the process, as it would be stalinist, hold on didnt she interfere in other police matters and stopped investigations before?

Von Smallhausen · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:48

dirtydog said:
So they are guilty until proven innocent in your eyes. I rest my case.

Well you can scalpel it how you wish.

I do not presume the Government in it's entirety guilty as that would include hundreds, if not thousands of people who knew.

I do believe that the Home Secretary and the PM knew, who are senior members of the Government.

How's that for spin.

dirtydog · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:49

Let me remind people in this thread that I am second to nobody in despising New Labour.

However, I won't jump on the witch hunt bandwagon over this issue.

dirtydog · 30 Nov 2008 at 19:50

Von Smallhausen said:
Well you can scalpel it how you wish.

I do not presume the Government in it's (sic) entirety guilty as that would include hundreds, if not thousands of people who knew.

I do believe that the Home Secretary and the PM knew, who are senior members of the Government.

How's that for spin.

Why are we still having this conversation? To you they are guilty despite no evidence. Worrying for a police officer to think this way but perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.