Monday, December 22, 2008

Two possibilities

1. Met Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick is a paranoid nutcase
2. The Tories are prepared to go to any lengths to discourage Constable Quick from asking his questions.

If number two is correct, why the desperation?

Here is The Mail - the paper where grovelling apology = talking to my lawyers tomorrow about taking this matter further.

In the meantime, I wonder how long it will be before the Tories start to acknowledge - in public - that the offence that a number of their senior figures appear to be implicated in (and for which there appears to be a good deal of prima facie evidence) is serious enough to torpedo their claims to be a fit party of government?

Unless they are prepared to condemn the co-ordination of informers within Whitehall (a significant step-up from what Gordon Brown allegedly did in the 1990s), there is no reason why Labour shouldn't run that ad.

Could any party govern effectively under such circumstances?

9 comments:

mikeovswinton, just askin' said...

The lesson of the Mandelson- Deripaska- Rothschild - Osborne brouhaha is surely that no respectable British political party could ever possibly be involved in using the press to stir things up. Isn't it?

mikeovswinton said...

PS Try the link to the Mail now, Paulie.

Paulie said...

Ooooo. Good point Mike. Perhaps m'learned friends are taking a view on the Mail's story?

Mike said...

The outcry against the arrest of Galley and Green demonstrates the complete hypocrisy of the Tory party and its supporters, and their contempt for the laws regular citizens obey. They have no cause for complaint against their brethren in the Tory-voting senior Civil Service, or the Tory-voting Police force. The Government tackles the recession induced by the Tory-voting bankers and the Tory-voting city whizz-kids, while the Tories can muster nothing better than mud-slinging.

A coroner's jury all-but declared De Menezes unlawfully killed; while Nickell's killer confessed, confirming that the wrong man had been jailed for 13 months. Yet, there was no outcry from the Tory party and its supporters, nor from Liberty (13 months is a lot longer than 42 days). Clearly, the ancient liberties and parliamentary privilege so vocally defended don't extend to the basic right of an innocent man to freedom, or even life.

As the self-appointed champions of law and order, the Tory party should waive any need for a search warrant. In court, the right to silence is used to imply guilt.

As to the information leaked, Galley's solictor stated that it was embarassment material, thereby confirming that Galley was entirely politically motivated, did not act out of conscience, and had broken the fundamental Civil Service requirement of political neutrality.

What was the leaked information? After 2 years, Galley failed to produce any evidence of Government dishonesty or deceit.
1) 5,000 illegal immigrants given Whitehall security jobs. Fact, but not number, already disclosed. This is Civil Service incompetence, not a result of Government policy. Probably already resolved.
2) Illegal immigrant given cleaning job in Parliament, using fake ID. As 1).
3) Draft letter stating that the recession will increase crime. Self evident fact.
4) List of Labour MPs intending to vote against the Government. Party housekeeping, probably already disclosed.

The Government should tackle Civil Service incompetence, not only by sacking dishonest, thieving incompetents like Galley, but by adopting the private sector practice of suing them for breach of contract and costs. For neutrality, the Civil Service should question whether to hire candidates who have run for political office, like Galley.

stephen said...

A coroner's jury all-but declared De Menezes unlawfully killed; while Nickell's killer confessed, confirming that the wrong man had been jailed for 13 months. Yet, there was no outcry from the Tory party and its supporters, nor from Liberty (13 months is a lot longer than 42 days). Clearly, the ancient liberties and parliamentary privilege so vocally defended don't extend to the basic right of an innocent man to freedom, or even life

Who the fuck isn't complaining about that? I certainly am. As for positioning against 42 days ... you are not surely arguing that the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes and the incompetent fuck up over the investigation of Rachel Nickell's murder are grounds to give the filth more powers? Jesus wept. The tossers can't manage the powers they already have so I find it a less than compelling argument to give them the power to intern people for 6 weeks.

mikeovswinton said...

If the reports are correct, the Mail story gave away the home address of the UK's top anti-terrorism cop. That might be why it vanished. See, the Mail is very much in favour of loranorda. And it would be quite incorrect to say that they drop that support to make a cheapo partisan point. Absolutely incorrect.

Tim J said...

you're not seriously still maintaining that there was an offence here are you? The judicial ruling in the Sally Murren trial stated clearly that unless national security was at stake - in which case the OSA is used, it is no offence to leak documents. That's why no-one has ever used the Misconduct in Public Office in this way before.

By all means keep on defending this though, as I'm sure the police need all the friends they can get. You notice incidentally that Quick has now issued a total retraction?

Mike said...

Stephen:
Who isn't complaining about that?
Well, Keith Vaz has requested a procedure review regarding the Nickell investigation. So, that's everyone who opposed the Galley/Green arrests and extension to 42 days, minus Vaz.

You are not surely arguing to give the filth more powers?
No, I haven't. Read the comment.

The extension to 42 days came with safeguards. Its opposition was mud-slinging and political opportunism. As I've already said:
"Personally, I'd like to see campaigns against bullying at work by managers. No legal protection; not even the unions care. I was bullied for eight years, made mentally and physically ill for years, finally laid off and now long-term unemployed. Forty-two days in chokey looks like a cake-walk."

Mike said...

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a charge for Galley and Green to answer.

Galley is certainly guilty of Misconduct in Public Office under a general interpretation:
a) Public officer.
b) Wilfully misconducted himself.
c) Abused the public's trust. (Stole confidential information.)
d) No excuse or justification. (He admitted he was entirely politically motivated, and did not act out of conscience.)
As an aside, in 2 years, he failed to expose any Government deceit or deception.

Prior to 1989, the Official Secrets Act made leaking any Government confidential information illegal. Then, the Act was changed and only leaking security information was illegal. Unless an exception can be made because the information was leaked serially over 2 years.

Of course, the Police are still entitled to arrest and question Galley and Green. They need to determine what else they've had their grubby hands on. Note that it was counter-terrorist Police.

With respect to Quick's complaint:
"The Tory machinery and their press friends are mobilised against this investigation in a wholly corrupt way" is legitimate comment. It's the apology that rings false. No doubt the Tories reached out to Quick's superiors.