But how would you like me to offer support while simultaneously thinking they’re a bit hypocritical in their approach to civil liberties, and that the comparisons to Robert Mugabe are clearly absurd?

The comparisons to Mugabe are clearly hyperbole, but you are no stranger to this yourself, Sunny.

It is fair to say that the Conservatives have on occasion called for more police powers. I think it is also fair to point out that they tend to be quite specific and narrow powers, while Labour tends to opt for powers applicable to any number of contexts, under the guise of being against terrorists, paedophiles, or – horror of horrors – terrorist paedophiles, particularly if they involve some sort of intrusive and expensive database that won’t actually make us any safer.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but there is a totalitarian streak in the Labour party, which is in fact regularly opposed by the Conservatives (and of course the LibDems).

That’s possible, ukliberty, however I still maintain that it’s a ridiculous choice of words. “This [arrest] is unprecedented in its heavy-handedness.” is frankly an absurd thing to say. It displays a complete lack of perspective as well as an insensitivity towards those who’ve been at the sharp end of genuine police harrassment that I find extremely distasteful. Quite aside from the fact that the tories have a track-record of supporting such harrassment when it’s happening to people they don’t like very much.

As for ‘Stalinesque’…? Let’s not even go there.

Unprecedented? Really? What complete tossers those tories truly are.

I think ‘unprecedented’ related to an MP being arrested for being the recipient of leaks, rather than a number of police officers turning up unannounced at one’s house.

Alasdair: I’m not denying them that support. But how would you like me to offer support while simultaneously thinking they’re a bit hypocritical in their approach to civil liberties, and that the comparisons to Robert Mugabe are clearly absurd?

Having said that, if someone held a gun to my head and ordered me to vote either Labour or Tory, I would reluctantly place my ‘X’ in the Labour box. I’d feel very dirty afterwards, and my choice would not be as a result of endorsing Labour, but merely due to despising them very slightly less than I despise the tory party. I am a vocal opponent of free-market capitalism and I see the tories as being marginally more supportive of that destructive and unsustainable philosophy than Labour. But I do acknowledge that it is marginal these days.

(It’s also worth stating that although I was based in the UK for a decade and a half, I currently live in Ireland. I still take a great interest in UK politics, however. Think of me as the anti-Guido… both in terms of his views and the fact that people actually read what he writes)

You write: Sunny Hundal quoted you, yes you, as a fellow traveller in the ‘Damien Green, Tory Crocodile Tears’ headliner.

Well, I stand by what I said in my blog post. I probably failed to make my point as well as I might have done, but there’s nothing new about that. Nor do I have a problem with Sunny quoting me, so long as he doesn’t do so out of context (and a link to the original piece provides all the context anyone needs). I’m not nearly familiar enough with Mr. Hundal’s politics to say whether or not we are “fellow travellers” though I suspect we are not (merely because I’m so far outside the mainstream as to make it highly unlikely that any given person shares my views).

So when you ask: Do you want your writing to subscribe to the obvious agenda here?

I have to respond that neither quoting my writing nor linking to my blog should be taken as my subscription to anyone’s agenda. If you choose to take it that way, then that’s your business. But I’ve quoted many people who have views I do not share. It is perfectly possible to agree with someone about Subject A (and quote them on it) while disagreeing profoundly with them about Subjects B through Z.

Frankly, reading your stuff, I don’t think you are a partizan. It seems to me that you don’t have an agenda. If I can be excused for having one, it is that democracy is more important than political parties agendas.

I’m not partizan in the party-political sense. Though I most certainly do have an agenda. It’s not a hidden agenda though, and in the (extremely rare) cases when that agenda is shared by a politician then I will support that politician on that issue whatever party they may belong to.

For instance, when I lived in London I voted for Ken Livingstone as mayor. I did so on the single issue of the Congestion Charge which I strongly support (though it doesn’t go nearly far enough for my liking). I did not support Livingstone’s position on most other issues, but felt that the introduction of the CC was worth a vote.

If you wish to read a generalised support of Labour policy into that vote then I certainly can’t stop you. You’d be wrong though.

Perhaps you see it as just another dose of internicene warfare between two tribes of idiots, a view I would largely share. But the fundament of our democracy has been challenged here, and that does require us complacent fools to stand up. Even if it means supporting a daft Tory.

I’ve made it quite clear that Green’s treatment may well have been unjustified (perhaps some as yet undisclosed fact will emerge that justifies the police harrassment, but based on what we currently know, the police were indeed somewhat heavy-handed). I don’t for a moment dispute that. My post on this subject includes the lines:

Don’t get me wrong, clearly what’s happened here is a little heavy-handed and demonstrates the craven hypocrisy of the Brown administration. When it suits the Labour party they are more than willing to leak stuff to the media. In fact, they’ve got such a consistent track-record of leaking stuff that it hardly raises an eyebrow any more.

That surely speaks for itself.

However, my piece was aimed squarely at those who tried to paint Green’s treatment as “Stalinesque”. Such a description is insulting (as I’ve said before) and shows a complete lack of perspective within the Tory Party. As someone who has been involved in direct action protests I’ve seen just how heavy-handed the police can be. So even without referring to well-known instances that have made headlines, the notion that Green’s treatment was “unprecedented” is just bloody stupid in my view. And I chose to express that view.

I’m also less than sympathetic towards an MP having his office searched and being subjected to a few hours questioning, when that MP actively champions (what I see as) the unmerited police-harrassment and incarceration of others. That does not mean that I support what happened to Green, and will denounce it — as I have done. However, I won’t shed any tears about it, nor see it as the Great Crisis in Democracy that the tories are depicting it as.

Finally, you asked:
So, where do you stand? In favour of an opposition of some ability, or not? Recall, if you will that the Labour Party has been as much out of power as it has been in power, and that it has handed a future Tory administration laws that are indefensible. But apparently fair and reasonable.

Again, let me reiterate the fact that I am no supporter of Labour. Many of the laws introduced by them are indeed indefensible and should be strenuously opposed at every turn. That the tories would have introduced similar laws in the same circumstances, however, is something that I do not doubt for a moment. And they’ll be more than happy to employ and even extend Labour’s indefensible laws once they take office.

As for where I stand. Well as I say, I stand a long way from the mainstream. In the first instance, I am not a supporter of representative democracy. I believe that there is a fundamental crisis facing us in the near-term — that of sustainability of our civilisation — and I do not believe that democracy is capable of dealing effectively with that crisis.

That’s going to take us a long way off-topic though. Perhaps if the subject ever gets raised in a post here, we can lock horns about it then?

All the best.

central tenet of liberal thinking is that even the vile, rogues and scoundrels get civil rights.

Quite, but you wouldn’t get that impression from the comments on LC articles relating to the BNP membership list.

There are also one or two references to the idea that Green has somehow been caught in a legislative trap created by the Tories in the form of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, whereas, as far as I can make out, the crime of Misconduct in a Public Office is actually a creation of the Serious Organised Crime Act, dating from, er, 2005.

Moreover, as I have pointed out before, according to wikicrime, the tests for a prosecution for Misconduct in a Public Office are:

The elements of the offence of misconduct in a public office are:

* 1. A public officer acting as such (paragraph 54).

* 2. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself (paragraphs 28, 30, 45 and 55).

* 3. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder (paragraphs 46 and 56 to 59).

* 4. Without reasonable excuse or justification (paragraph 60).

The idea that leaking information about the Government’s inability to implement its own policies could fulfill points three and four here is utterly absurd. I said last week that, if the police didn’t have either a more contentious leak or a better fitting charge up their sleeves then they would be in serious trouble.

This morning I heard that Green’s arrest was for “grooming” the civil servant to provide the leaks. Now there is a word with no legal bearing on the case and some pretty serious negative connotations.

Always assuming that no minister has had anything to do with this, I think Jacqui Smith is right to refuse to apologise. As far as I can see, this is a police screw up. If they don’t get a prosecution – and I can’t see that they will, someone in the Counter Terror section is going to be for the high-jump.

Douglas and Lee: good to see such comments.

Douglas – if you read the extended commentary by all of them on their respective blogs, which I’ve linked to, then they all point out this was the wrong thing to do. I’m not sure why you’re missing that point here. What further would you like? A demonstration in favor of Green?

The Tories only cry civil liberties when it affects them. Otherwise, people have to ‘follow the rule of law’. You had David Davis go out on a civil liberties limb, and a few weeks later Cameron announces that the Tories will give more power to the police! I’m sorry but you’re deluded if you think the Conservatives are going to protect civil liberties, let alone Labour. But they’re crying wolf now, after years of trashing those same liberties.

To continue.

Just to let you know, this is a considered assault on what I happen to see as like minded people who have completely lost the plot. These are folk that I would genuinely consider voting for if they stood as MPs. So their idiocy over this issue is a bit of a disaster from my point of view.

Sunny Hundal quoted you, yes you, as a fellow traveller in the ‘Damien Green, Tory Crocodile Tears” headliner.

Perhaps you see it as just another dose of internicene warfare between two tribes of idiots, a view I would largely share. But the fundament of our democracy has been challenged here, and that does require us complacent fools to stand up. Even if it means supporting a daft Tory.

So, where do you stand? In favour of an opposition of some ability, or not? Recall, if you will that the Labour Party has been as much out of power as it has been in power, and that it has handed a future Tory administration laws that are indefensible. But apparently fair and reasonable.

Naw……

Apologies for the name take error. Probably down to my dad have being Jim all his life, whereas his given name was James.

Question.

Do you want your writing to subscribe to the obvious agenda here? Frankly, reading your stuff, I don’t think you are a partizan. It seems to me that you don’t have an agenda. If I can be excused for having one, it is that democracy is more important than political parties agendas. Which, seems to match neatly with what you said here:

I can assure you that my contempt for mainstream politics transcends party lines.

Secondly, I’m not seeing this as a ‘party political issue’ as such. One can certainly read that into my blog post, but it’s missing the point a little. That said, it was a rather hastily-written piece and I’m the first to admit I probably didn’t make my point clearly enough.

My accusation of hypocrisy is aimed at the tory party in this instance, and I shan’t deny that. But my broader point is about the political class in general. Indeed, my post openly calls for Labour to be removed from power (not over this; just in general) while cautioning against viewing the tories as a sane replacement.

I find the tory claims that Green’s arrest was “Stalinesque” and “unprecedented in its heavy-handedness” to be insulting — both to those who have been subject to genuinely heavy-handed police tactics and to my intelligence. However, I don’t for a moment believe that the Labour party would have reacted any differently were the roles reversed. They may have name-checked Hitler, rather than Stalin, but beyond that there’d have been no real difference.

I can assure you that my contempt for mainstream politics transcends party lines.

I like you and all that stuff, but this is a seriously wrong take on the affair. You said at 49 this:

And it is.. all the blogs linked above say that.

. No they don’t, and you know it. So, sadly that has to be argued against.

James Bliss, in his key paragraph said this:

. I don’t recall the Tory outcry when police kicked down a door in Forest Gate and shot an unarmed suspect. I don’t recall the tories accusing the police of ‘Stalinesque’ tactics that day.

No, obviously not. Tories are incompetent arseholes. He would have had an even stronger case had he written about Brazillian electricians. Tories are firstly upper class twits, secondly complete idiots and thirdly represent a huge chunk of this nation. They are HMG’s official opposition. The fact that it ought to be a complete embarrassment for them to have stood up against a ridiculous increase in Police powers makes them idiots, right enough. But it does not make them common law criminals.

You either believe that despite the lack of a Tory outcry over Forest Gate, that still, MPs ought to have certain privileges. This particular individual, James Bliss, is clearly seeing this as a party political issue. What about the Lib Dems or the SNP? Why should they be tarred with this ridiculous brush? The right to leak ought to be endemic rather than restricted.

Onwards.

The very wonderful Dave Osler said:

Let’s not forget either Clive Ponting – a senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence – who in 1984 sent two documents concerning the sinking of Argentinian warship General Belgrano in the Falklands War to a Labour MP. It transpired that the vessel had been sighted a day earlier than officially reported, was steaming away from the Royal Navy taskforce, and was outside the exclusion zone when it was attacked and sunk. That a jury subsequently acquitted Ponting on two charges under the Official Secrets Act is not the point; the fact is, a Conservative government made damn sure the case came to court.

So? Two wrongs don’t make a right, do they?

Septicisle surpasses his own standards with this:

It therefore takes some chutzpah for David Davis, whose stance I have deeply admired, to say he now believes we are living in a police state because one of his own has been raided. When other individuals have said similar things, such as one of the men wrongly arrested in connection with the Birmingham beheading plot, who said that this country was now a police state for Muslims, they have been shot down, especially by politicians. Politicians themselves after all have no one other than themselves to blame for the power the police now have and routinely wield. Only the Liberal Democrats have anything approaching a decent record on opposing the almost yearly measures brought in in reaction to tabloid demands.

Do you not appreciate how poignant this is:

Politicians themselves after all have no one other than themselves to blame for the power the police now have and routinely wield.

That is the state that we have set for ourselves.

Or finally: Unity who says this:

However, its it final piece of leaked information cited by the BBC that could, were it be linked to Green, give him a serious problem – a list, compiled by Labour’s Whip’s Office of potential Labour rebels on the 42 days pre-charge detention vote. That is a (party) political matter that, while it may of interest to the public (and the oppostition, of course) is not a matter of legitimate public interest, not least at relates to the voting intentions of members of the legislature and not to a matter of government – although one hestiates to use the ‘W’ word (Watergate), the leaking of party political information to opposition members falls outside the legitimate scope of the public interest and amounts to political espionage.

Which deserves a response on it’s own because of it’s fundamental core value of Labour Party secrecy.

Sunny, you are completely wrong to stand with people like that.

And it is.. all the blogs linked above say that.

The police not just taken papers relating to the alleged leaks – but all his computers and other papers to read. So people who have complained about the police, a government department or even just their neighbours in some other entirely unrelated matters, as people frequently do to their MPs, will now have the papers relating to that read by “anti-terrorist” coppers who have no right to know about those matters.

Green has broken no laws as far as I can tell. In fact he has done what Parliamentarians have always done – such famous leaders as Churchill relied on leaked information when in opposition to help them prepare for government and to expose the truth about the government of the day. Brown himself has admitted on camera that when in opposition he received and used such leaks when trying to hold the Major government to account.

If we accept this behaviour by the government I suppose we will also have to accept less well informed MPs. There is, a VAST amount of business which goes on, some formal, some informal, some under “Chatham House Rules” in which the government, civil service, NGOs and the Opposition discuss information which is deniable, potentially embarrassing and sometimes technically secret. Usually, most people involved know the game and respect each others’ positions and roles. Most of the infomration is incredibly unspectacular. I would expect that an MP would see masses more such stuff, as they are involved in these kinds of exercises continually over a range of topics.

What the drying up of that information will do for the quality of debates and legislation would be interesting to consider. I suspect there are a number of government ministers who would be only too happy if they don’t get asked difficult questions, as there would be civil servants who feed them the policies. On the other hand, civil servants who know when the government has lied or is ignoring the facts, might find they have no-where to go with that knowledge except the media, which might not be such a good thing for the government compared to them quietly going to an elected MP.

http://loveandliberty.blogspot.com/2008/11/ian-blair-is-blinkered-to-last-tories.html

or this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/29/do2902.xml

I’m not confused. This is not a party political point as far as I’m concerned. It is about how we conduct our democracy. If Tony Benn thinks it’s wrong then it probably is.

I agree with what he has to say here:

“It is a total breach of what accords the privileges of parliament and therefore, the electors. His computers have been searched, his e-mail has been frozen.”

He said that it was tantamount to a Contempt of Parliament. “Once police can interfere in parliament, then we’re into a police state.”

But I’m neither going to compare Brown to Mugabe and neither am I willing to listen to lessons on civil liberties from authoritarian Tories who have previously only clamoured for more police powers.

1) A ‘whistleblower’, a person who goes outside an organization to raise its failings externally after having raised them internally and being systematically ignored;

2) A person who had no interest in actually solving the problem but instead looked for whatever documents embarrassed the organization and then disclosed them to do it maximum embarrassment.

At the moment we have no evidence that the civil servant involved (who stood as a Conservative Party candidate in local elections in 2004, and applied for a job with Damian Green) had raised the issues internally.