Cameron has meade it clear from the start that he’s there for the full five long awful years and nothing will dislodge him, certainly not a cabinet of has beens and half wits who he chose for their inability to plot against him. The biggest threat to Cameron will come if Boris loses the mayoral election, he’ll want a safe seat ASAP, he regards Cameron with contempt, his credentials with the right of the Tory party are stronger and, as he has some public popularity based on his buffoon act, the Tories could see him as a better bet for the next election.

You have lost me entirely, was there any suggestion that this should “Bring down Cameron”? Ed has taken a little bounce out of it but who is suggesting Cameron is in trouble ? His ratings were slightly up last time I looked and his suppsed crime was ” Misjudgement” over an ex employee … big deal.

Governments don’t just topple. Sometimes in the past they have been pushed, not least by organised labour, as Heath and Callaghan found out.

Even that’s pushing it a touch. Callaghan lost the election in ’79, but he was hardly toppled by organised labour. He just lost an election. Heath went early in 74, but not drastically so.

The last Prime Minister to be forced to resign because of a scandal was Eden in ’57. And even that didn’t lead to an election until two years later – which the Tories won anyway.

For Cameron to be forced out over this, there would have to be incontrovertible evidence of him commissioning or ordering provably criminal acts. Not employing someone who, in a previous job, had employed someone who commissioned criminal acts.

By way of a parallel: in cash for honours, the accusation was that the Prime Minister employed someone for the purpose of soliciting cash in return for honours. An awful lot of excitement was generated about it. What happened? Worth noting too that in that instance the PM was directly involved, and was interviewed by the police. Didn’t bring him down though.

Nor should it be forgotten that the combined Conservative and Lib Dem opinion poll showing still equals or outstrips Labour’s.

In an election, this doesn’t mean anything if Labour wins an overall commons majority.

In opinion polls, it doesn’t mean much about the popularity of the government either. The number intending to vote for the Conservatives or LibDem may include many who hope that there will not be another coalition and thus that their chosen party may go back to being true to its own values, free from the need to compromise and cut deals with an unloved opponent.

Pollsters ask a direct question about whether people approve of the job that the government is doing. The government’s approval rating has been at minus 20 and below for several months. That’s the relevant figure.

But my best guess would be that at a time of year when the political classes are packing their bags for Tuscany, the holiday season will defuse the situation. We’ll see if this one still dominates the front pages in September

I find this unlikely, given the fact that we now have a judicial inquiry and a police investigation (possibly to be followed by court cases) which may continue for many months, or even years. There have also been broad hints (not least from Brooks) that there is more and worse information yet to emerge.

The question re.Cameron is probably less whether he will resign and more a question of under what conditions he would be summarily retired by the men in grey suits. If they had no compunction in knifing Thatcher after three election victories when she started to show signs of being a drag on the party then they’ll certainly take an unsentimental view of Cameron, who missed an open goal in the election last year.

There was apparently much consternation within the Tory party about the failure to win in 2010. If something particularly bad comes out about Cameron – say that he knew the worst of what we’re now discovering, but ignored it – then I wouldn’t bet against him being asked politely but firmly to stand down.

Tim J @ 3

By way of a parallel: in cash for honours, the accusation was that the Prime Minister employed someone for the purpose of soliciting cash in return for honours. An awful lot of excitement was generated about it. What happened?

Yes, another Yates-of-the-Yard inquiry that led nowhere.

Time another detective took another look, perhaps?

Very reminiscent of the crash; people get very excited but ultimately nothing changes.

You are peobably right Dave but if these crisis continue and continue to be mishandled as they currently are even the most ardent coalition supporters will start to question their ability to govern.

Given that the latest growth figures are set to be bad news its not a particularly good time to be in governement, however Labour still look some way short of providing a credible alternanative at the moment so they must just keep on highlighting the coalition failings for now

A coalition makes a change of leader even harder to accomplish- the Conservatives would need someone acceptable to Lib Dems or be willing to hold an immediate election.

Skooter:

The thing is, none of this is stopping the coalition from governing, except in the sense they’re having to waste time answering stupid questions from the media (among some more pertinent ones, of course). The reasons that legislations is being made hasn’t been called in to question, the manifesto’s and coalition agreement are untainted, there has been nothing so far that constitutes even remotely a conflict of interest.

At some point this fervor will end up petering out, either because it starts to become farcical, or because the government start to see a threat and engineer an end point (which arguably is what the Lib Dems have started to do today).

“This government clearly has a social base that is fully convinced about the need for austerity, from which it derives democratic legitimacy.”

Any figures on this? My understanding was that LibDem support has imploded since Clegg signed up to full-blooded neoliberlism, while the Tories have hardly prospered since convincing 25% of the electorate to vote.

Personally, I’m always a little suspicious of polls commissioned by corporate media outlets with a vested interest in the results which, in any case, are largely formed by the relentless T.I.N.A. case for cuts from the plutocrats playground otherwise termed ‘the media’, and the revisionist travesty of its scapegoating of pre-crash public spending.

Good to see, though, yet another blogger who holds himself to be above the ideological fray between naive lefties and diehard rightwingers. If only we could all be so rationally even-handed.

The coalition dynamics definitely make things more interesting than in previous “disgraced leader but not so disgraced he has no choice but to resign” scenarios.

On the one hand, they make it less likely that the right-wing Tories (who largely aren’t Murdoch-tainted, for all their other sins) will want to force out DC in favour of one of their own, because the LDs are much less likely to want to continue a coalition with a right-wing Tory leader.

On the other, they make it more likely that the LDs (who are the least Murdoch-tainted of the three parties) will want to end the coalition anyway, if they want to avoid electoral oblivion next time round.

I’d agree with Tim J that DC’s more likely to survive than not barring (unlikely) evidence that DC is directly involved with illegal behaviour. But the possibility that the LDs will pull the rug out is possible, depending on how opinion polls go over the next couple of weeks.

So Yates has resigned… and Cressida Dick is in charge…

But the possibility that the LDs will pull the rug out is possible, depending on how opinion polls go over the next couple of weeks.

Erm, yes. But the opinion poll rating that the Lib Dems must be keeping their eyes on is presumably their own. And they’re still down in single figures, meaning that an election now would be suicide.

To coin a phrase, they are “in blood stepped in so far that should they wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er”. Hang on in there, Libbers. Only way is up…

I would be very surprised if this brings Cameron down because tories have no shame, and they think this sort of thing is fair game. Remember, most Conservative Republicans thought Nixon had done nothing wrong in breaking in to his opponents offices to try to bug them. In fact, what they learned from Watergate was they needed to take over the media, which they did by getting rid of the fair doctrine. The other thing they learned was they need to control the Supreme Court which they did after 20 years of putting right wing nuts on the court they now have a 5-4 majority.

Cameron is safe unless someone can prove he knew what Coulson was up to. But his judgement is now in tatters, but that has never bothered tories before so he will be fine.

would be very surprised if this brings Cameron down because tories have no shame, and they think this sort of thing is fair game.

The phone-hacking occured on Labour’s watch, when Blair and Brown were very cosy indeed with the Murdoch press, so why should it bring down Cameron? What strange people you are,

16 Too stupid to reply to.

Shit shit shit

“Sean Hoare, the former News of the World showbiz reporter who was the first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead, the Guardian has learned.

Hoare, who worked on the Sun and the News of the World with Coulson before being dismissed for drink and drugs problems, is said to have been found dead at his Watford home.”

@ 15:

“Remember, most Conservative Republicans thought Nixon had done nothing wrong in breaking in to his opponents offices to try to bug them.”

I don’t see why that’s relevant to the behaviour of our Tory Party. One might as well say that Stalin’s purges are evidence that Labour politicians secretly want to send people to prison camps in Siberia.

“The other thing they learned was they need to control the Supreme Court which they did after 20 years of putting right wing nuts on the court they now have a 5-4 majority.”

Presidents have appointed SC judges who share their political philosophies since long before the Watergate scandal. This applies to Democrats as much as Republicans, so trying to paint this as some sort of sinister right-wing conspiracy won’t really wash.

@ 17:

“Too stupid to reply to.”

Translation: “I can’t think of any point in reply, so I’m going to just dismiss it and hope that this makes me look like I know what I’m talking about.”

@16

“The phone-hacking occured on Labour’s watch, when Blair and Brown were very cosy indeed with the Murdoch press, so why should it bring down Cameron?”

Because – and you may be unaware of this, naturally – Cameron is a close personal friend of Andy Coulson & let him work at the heart of government at a time when people from all corners (including from his own party) were warning Cameron about him. Cameron has also had meetings with the recently arrested Rebekah Brooks over the past couple of months despite the gathering storm that has been engulfing News International.

When Watergate was being investigated the idea that the conspiracy could reach the top was seen as a ridiculous notion, worthy only of conspiracy-theorists and loons. Right now the idea of Cameron being implicated is seen as similar, but time will tell.

FWIW I agree with the OP – this probably won’t be enough to being down DC alone. But it’s a hell of a start.

Scooby @ 16

Ah, but the investigation into it happened on Tory Boys watch.

The initial investigation was basically scuppered because the Met had incompetently handled it. Evidence was not looked into, because no-one wanted to sift through bin bags.

It is a sheer co-incidence of course that Paul Stephenson happened to be at the helm. Stephenson is not some kind of ‘good honest copper’ who worked up the ranks and got into the job on merit. He got the job because Boris Johnston hounded the incumbent out the job within weeks of being elected mayor of London. He owed his job to being able to appease Johnston, thus making the job of Commissioner a political appointment.

Sir Paul Stephenson is not some innocent bystander of a political bomb that has caused collateral damage. He was a Tory placeman who had been chosen (let us not pretend otherwise) because his political views closely resembled that of the ideology of the Mayor of the day.

Nobody should be too surprised to find that the Met could not find evidence that would have deeply embarrassed News International those who had most to lose if NI where found out. On the other hand, nor should we be surprised to find that during the demonstrations in London by students and Ukuncut, that the police had unlimited resources and ‘Carte Blanche’ to use ‘whatever force necessary’ to put down the protesters.

If the political leaders of the day have the ability to choose the Leaders of the police, then we should not be surprised to find that the police cease to be keepers of the peace and the law, but become a junta for the Government.

Cameron is a close personal friend of Andy Coulson …

Cameron was a guest at Coulson’s wedding? His wife threw a slumber party for him? Who knew?

From Wikipedia:

A Cabinet Office freedom of information response, released the day after Blair handed over power to Gordon Brown, documents Blair having various official phone calls and meetings with Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation and Richard Desmond of Northern and Shell Media.[124]

The response includes contacts “clearly of an official nature” in the specified period, but excludes contacts “not clearly of an official nature.”[125] No details were given of the subjects discussed. In the period between September 2002 and April 2005, Blair and Murdoch are documented speaking 6 times; three times in the 9 days before the Iraq war, including the eve of the 20 March US and UK invasion, and on 29 January, 25 April and 3 October 2004. Between January 2003 and February 2004, Blair had three meetings with Richard Desmond; on 29 January and 3 September 2003 and 23 February 2004.

@23

So… Blair’s a scumbag too? You won’t hear me saying anything different (as far as I’m concerned he should be in the dock for war crimes, not phone hacking).

Doesn’t let Cameron off though, does it?

Both parties may have dated NI, but only one put out.

The trolls are wriggling as usual.

This is Cameron’s Bernie Ecclestone moment. His honeymoon is over. But Blair went on to win three more elections. I just don’t see this impacting Cameron as severely as the Left fantasizes. I suspect they are still suffering a hangover from the disappointment a few weeks ago of the general strike that wasn’t, and this has distorted their perception. In left-wing mythology, the likes of Rupert Murdoch and tabloid readers loom very large. In ordinary, rational people’s world-view, they simply don’t. People were pretty disgusted, rightly, about the poor taste of what some “detectives” in the employ of journalists have done. But not quite to the point of refusing to buy those papers. The appetite for tabloid “journalism” remains and nobody, except a few histrionic-on-cue lefties, has any real illusions about the methods they will employ to get a story. Besides which, this story has peaked. A star witness is out of the picture and the US investigation of News Corp is going to go nowhere. Enjoy the fizzle while it lasts.

Sorry, I meant to say Blair won two more elections after the Ecclestone affair. Then he was replaced by the Left’s favourite son who went on to not even win a single election. Perhaps it would be wise for lefties here to remember just how vast is the gap between the way they look at the world and the way the rest of us do, before issuing bold predictions on what they think is bound to happen.

Latest Guardian poll shows tories stay on 37%. Which just proves my point. tories have no shame. There is nothing the scum can do that will ever piss off their rabid right wing supporters.

@27 – “Besides which, this story has peaked.”

That’s what they were saying 3 years ago.

“tories have no shame. There is nothing the scum can do that will ever piss off their rabid right wing supporters.”

I think most of the tory supporters felt just as disgusted about the hacking of murder victims and dead soldiers as the rest of us. They just felt – quite reasonably really – that responsibility for it lay elsewhere.

All this horror and outrage at the phone hacking of News International, from people who a few months ago were cheering on Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, and loyally supported a government which turned Britain into the most spied-upon country in the world, where even the local council can secretly intercept your communications if they suspect you aren’t separating your recyclables from your ordinary rubbish.

It’s very hard to take you people seriously sometimes, but I promise I will try harder.

Jim @22, Paul Stephenson was appointed January 2009. The Home Secretary appoints the chief of the Met. The home secretary was Jacqui Smith – a Labour MP.

The Left is in full-on airbrush-history mode right now, I doubt mere facts are going to affect them, ukliberty. Full marks for trying though

UKL @ 33

Blair (no relation, AFAIK) was ousted because of Johnston. Johnston was part of the interviewing team and had a major say in rewarding his placeman the job.

@11 – Yes, and the Tories trumpet their success in the local elections.

Where, I’d note, a LOT of the Tory base came out to vote against AV. If the timing of that had been different, I think you’d of seen a few hundred less Tory councillors, at a minimum.

@28 – Left’s “favourite son”? LMAO

Jim, I’m sure Johnson did have some kind of say. But the fact remains that Stephenson was ultimately approved by Jacqui Smith, a Labour Home Secretary.

If the story goes as far as Cameron and he is linked to a top Policeman and Andy Coulson he could be gone. If it doesn’t he probably wont be gone.

Blair stated in terms that he was resigning because of Johnson’s opposition to him which he felt prevented him from functioning. Of all the truth twisting that’s gone on here, the idea tht the Home Secretary was responsible is amongst the most absurd. The tories wanted their man in lace and they got heir way. Worked out a treat didn’t it?

Dear Dave,

You say:

Hackgate: don’t bet on this scandal bringing down Cameron.

What odds?

What money?

I, a mere novice at this gambolling thing, would be willing to bet a pound at a thousand to one in my favour.

So, if I were to understand the rules of the game, if Cameron eventually collapses, say in the next ten years or so, then you owe me, and not vice versa?

What bet do you wish to make kind sir, and who shall hold your thousands and my pound?

>>Hackgate: don’t bet on this scandal bringing down Cameron.

Dave – does this view alter now the whistleblowers are being bumped off in plain view?

Depends how good he was, Strategist.

And who his secrets cache gets sent to, if he was good enough to ensure it wasn’t found.

The Guardian ICM poll put the Conservatives ahead of Labour, with the Lib Dems up on 16%. Even with a massive margin for error it shows very little impact on the electorate.

Milliband needs to be careful how he handles this – he went from statesman to partisan in one question during PMQs and that is a tone that just doesn’t go down well.

UKL @ 37

Boris had more than ‘a say’, in this. He had ousted a man because he wanted a direct influence on how the Met was being run. And Sir Iain Blair was not Boris’ ‘type’ of copper. Irrespective of what you think about who was to blame for the original bungled ‘investigation’, the appointment of Stephenson has Tory fingerprints all over it. Stephenson owed his job the Tory Party, not because a Tory had final say, we are looking at something subtler than that. Stephenson knew that his job was on the line every time he deviated from Tory policy.

Boris Johnston’s blundering has driven us into a politised police force. Not only that, but it shows. It cannot just be dismissed as a coincidence that the entire ‘hackgate’ was waved away by senior Tory policemen, at a time when Cameron desperately needed News International support. The point of the Met is not to enforce the law as the Mayor of the Day’s (Labour or Tory) supporters see fit, but enforce the law of the land under any circumstances.

During the student demonstrations or UK uncut we see a partial police force on parade. The police have a set agenda, decreed from on high, direct from the mayors office. When people sat down in a Vodafone shop, for example, it was not up to the police on the ground to decide how to deal with it. The Mayor had a political interest in that little incident. No matter what the copper on the ground’s vast experience told him needed done to keep the peace, the Mayor has friends who tell him different. A word in the appropriate shell-like and a political result is achieved.

We are now a banana republic and we don’t even get cheap bananas from it.

Jimmy @39,

Blair stated in terms that he was resigning because of Johnson’s opposition to him which he felt prevented him from functioning. Of all the truth twisting that’s gone on here, the idea tht the Home Secretary was responsible is amongst the most absurd.

I haven’t seen anyone here suggest Jacqui Smith, then Home Secretary, was responsible for Ian Blair’s resignation.

Jim @44, you said Stephenson was a “Tory placeman”, a Tory “political appointment”. He wasn’t. He may well have been a compromise candidate, but do you really think a Labour Home Secretary is going to approve a wholly Tory candidate?

More likely, I think, is the suggestion made in yesterday’s Evening Standard that Stephenson was seen as a ‘safe pair of hands’, someone who wasn’t going to piss off either party. That doesn’t make the situation much better than your fantasy, but unlike your fantasy it is the fault of both parties.

I don’t actually disagree with you about the dangers of politicising the police force. Where I disagree with you is your insistence on solely blaming the Tories when ISTM Labour are equally to blame – ISTM there is plenty of blame to go around. I think they’re all up to their necks in it (except for MPs like Bryant and Watson – Labour, you’ll note).

When people sat down in a Vodafone shop, for example, it was not up to the police on the ground to decide how to deal with it.

You said just a few words before the police must uphold the law of the land. You do realise aggravated trespass is against the law?

UKL @ 46

The point is that when Boris became involved in the process, it ceased to be an appointment based on policing and moved to one based around politics. The people who were interviewed for the job attended such interviews in the certain knowledge that their job depended on the approval and continued support of the Mayor of London who had a couple of months earlier been seen to remove the posts previous incumbent for overtly political reasons.

Whether or not Stephenson was a ‘compromise candidate’ is moot point because even if he was then it fact still remains that the political aspirations of the Mayor of London has been an influence in the decision to hire the police Commissioner. We could argue that it is the Home Sectary of the Day’s remit to direct policing, but there is simply no justification for a Mayor to be intimately involved in the day to day hiring and firing of serving police officers at any level.

Yes, trespass is against the law, but the police where implicitly told to find that aggravated trespass, or a similar crime, had taken place. The video evidence shows that the police on the ground had been told to use ‘anything they deemed necessary’ to stop the protesters from achieving their objectives. Okay, there are people who think that anything that is done to stop lawful trading in a shop is or should be against the law, but just because we want the law to say that, doesn’t mean that it does.

I have no idea whether or not sitting in a shop constitutes ‘aggravated tresspass’ or not, I suspect your average copper does, though. But when the top man in police force has (in this case) a Mayor who is on the side of big business breathing down his neck and who has a track record of removing police from their desks for ‘unfavourable’ political outcomes, it is not that difficult to join the dots, is it?

You are not exactly Nostradamus if you predict the outcome here? Every time the police are called out to an incident, any incident, they need to establish the facts and determine is the likelihood that a crime had been committed. That was not the case then, nor was it the case during the original investigation into the hacking.

In both cases, there were potentially political ramifications in the evidence the police found. In the former, the police were not asking ‘Is a crime being committed here?’ but rather ‘Would Boris Johnston and Phillip Green think a crime is being committed here?’.

The latter case was not about a crime per se, but who was likely to suffer if evidence of crime was found.

In both cases, I believe that the police were compromised because the man at the top had a vested interest in the political outcome of the investigation.

He may deny it, and may be correct to deny it, but surely we should not have put the man in the position in the first place? Boris Johnston political invovlement in this must be a legitimate question.

The point is that when Boris became involved in the process, it ceased to be an appointment based on policing and moved to one based around politics.

So, when the Home Secretary appoints a Commissioner, it is unpolitical, but when the appointment of a Commissioner is agreed between the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London, it becomes political? Right…

Tim J @ 48

You miss the point, though, Tim. It is the ‘Home Secretary (HS) of the Day’s’ job to shape the police force. I agree that there is a danger that the person holding the post may allow political considerations to unduly influence his (or her) decision. I fully accept that there will be a temptation for a HS to remove a copper from the post if (s)he feels politically embarrassed by the actions of the commissioner, but for the Mayor of a City to be seen to interfere in the police?

When you consider that the Met are in the same City as most of the political/economic institutions of the Country, you can hardly be unaware of the political conflicts of interest that could arise.

You miss the point, though, Tim. It is the ‘Home Secretary (HS) of the Day’s’ job to shape the police force.

Why? Because the Home Secretary is ultimately accountable for the police in every region of the UK. Except one. London, where accountability is split between the Home Secretary and the Mayor. Metropolitan police funding comes from the Mayor’s budget.

You may have missed the bit where an executive Mayoralty was established for London. As an amusing aside, Boris Johnson has the largest *personal* mandate of any European politician other than Nicholas Sarkozy.

Jim,

The point is that when Boris became involved in the process, it ceased to be an appointment based on policing and moved to one based around politics.

IIRC, the Home Secretary is usually a politician…

We could argue that it is the Home Sectary of the Day’s remit to direct policing, but there is simply no justification for a Mayor to be intimately involved in the day to day hiring and firing of serving police officers at any level.

Why not? I don’t think it’s a ‘given’ that the Mayor of London should not be involved London’s police forces services.

Yes, trespass is against the law, but the police where implicitly told to find that aggravated trespass, or a similar crime, had taken place.

Aggravated trespass had prima facie taken place.

Okay, there are people who think that anything that is done to stop lawful trading in a shop is or should be against the law, but just because we want the law to say that, doesn’t mean that it does.

The law does say that, IIUC. The CPS guidance says it. Activist websites say it (but not UK Uncut, last I looked) .

I have no idea whether or not sitting in a shop constitutes ‘aggravated tresspass’ or not….

You “have no idea”, but nevertheless make comments to the contrary.

But when the top man in police force has (in this case) a Mayor who is on the side of big business breathing down his neck and who has a track record of removing police from their desks for ‘unfavourable’ political outcomes, it is not that difficult to join the dots, is it?

It’s not difficult if you’re a fabulist. OTOH, if people meet the criteria of committing aggravated trespass, then it’s not difficult to see why they might be arrested for doing so.

Boris Johnston political invovlement in this must be a legitimate question.

I agree that the nature / extent of the Mayor of London’s involvement in London’s police service(s) is a “legitimate question”.

You miss the point, though, Tim.

Maybe you’re being incoherent, Jim.

You complain about political involvement in the police service but gloss over the fact that ultimate responsibility lies with the Home Secretary, a politician.

If you don’t think the Mayor of London specifically should be involved in London’s police services, or want to discuss the extent of his involvement, maybe make that point instead of one about political involvement in general?

Aggravated trespass, s68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as amended by Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68

CPS guidance on aggravated trespass charges
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/#Aggravated_Trespass

Free BEAGLES Legal Advice for Activists on aggravated trespass
http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-21.html

UKL @ 51

You “have no idea”, but nevertheless make comments to the contrary.

No, I accept that breaking a law may or may not occured, but we will never know because the police were told to assume that anything they saw was a crime. The Commisioner had his Mayor breathing down his neck to ensure that the correct political outcome was reached and in this case, the correct outcome was that protesters be lifted.

if people meet the criteria of committing aggravated trespass, then it’s not difficult to see why they might be arrested for doing so.

The police had already been told that these people were going to be found to be causing aggravated trepass by thehead f the police, who had been told by the Mayor that anything that impeded business that day was automatically illegal. And it was implied that if these people were doing nothing illegal, he could clear his desk.

There will always be at least some political involvement with the police force, the fact that the strategy and money for police comes from politicians mean that at least at the very top police management have to be aware of the politics of policing, and the public opinion on policing.

Of course Boris (and the Home Sec) are going to choose a commissioner that deals with things in a way they’re happy with, that’s also why Boris and the government containing the Home Secretary have been elected, to ensure that the police force moves in the general direction that the public would like to see.

Does this mean actual operational procedures ever become political because of this? Not necessarily, at least not under the order of power as it currently exists. It certainly means it *can* become political, but there is nothing to suggest that the politicians do any more than state where there are improvements that should be made, money that should be saved (or spent differently), and how resources should be allocated.

I don’t know if I’m just missing it by the way, but where is it factually stated that Boris told the commissioner to arrest any protestors regardless of absence of breaking the law, who followed such orders without question?

Jim @54,

No Jim, you “have no idea”, and that is perhaps why your fantasy has come about. Good on you for admitting you “have no idea”, but bad on you for persisting with it.

I accept that breaking a law may or may not occured…

Hahaha.

… but we will never know because the police were told to assume that anything they saw was a crime.

“Anything they saw”? Oh, and please cite that “the police were told to assume that anything they saw was a crime”.

… the correct [political] outcome was that protesters be lifted.

Given,

(1) your insistence that the “point of the Met is [to] enforce the law of the land under any circumstances”, and

(2) the law of the land says that people shouldn’t be obstructing lawful activity, and

(3) people did obstruct lawful activity,

(4) why do you have a problem with the Met enforcing that law against those people?

As I said, you’re being incoherent.

@53 – Yes, breaking wind loudly is “Aggravated trespass”. It’s a catch all “arrest em all” statute and badly needs repealing.

Regardless, you’re ignoring the problem of the police lying.

I don’t know if I’m just missing it by the way, but where is it factually stated that Boris told the commissioner to arrest any protestors regardless of absence of breaking the law, who followed such orders without question?

In Jim’s head, and nowhere else.

Leon Wolfson,

@53 – Yes, breaking wind loudly is “Aggravated trespass”. It’s a catch all “arrest em all” statute and badly needs repealing.

I’m not saying there is a public interest in charging “occupiers” with aggravated trespass – it is Jim who insists the “point of the Met is [to] enforce the law of the land under any circumstances”.

Regardless, you’re ignoring the problem of the police lying.

Tell me what you’re referring to there, please.

@60 – The problem with the lying is… the police gave assurances that the protesters would not be arrested. Then they arrested them. This is defensible in cases of, oh, hostage takers. It’s simply not defensible here, because it means that the police are free to lie, regardless how minor the crime involved, or the situation.

You can’t trust the police, given that. This is only going to spiral, if it’s allowed to stand. The threats the CPS have made are also entirely unacceptable, and I’ve gone from full-blown support of the CPS to believing they need root and branch reform in one stroke.

Leon Wolfson

@60 – The problem with the lying is… the police gave assurances that the protesters would not be arrested. Then they arrested them. This is defensible in cases of, oh, hostage takers. It’s simply not defensible here, because it means that the police are free to lie, regardless how minor the crime involved, or the situation.

I wasn’t sure which particular lie you were referring to. This has been raised in older threads and I’ve said in reply that if there was in fact a lie (and not a mistake) it seems unacceptable. I’ve said a few times on LC that I hoped the charges would be dropped against the F&M protesters (or words to that effect). This is a matter of public record. Hopefully that will lay to rest your concern about my attitude to the F&M protesters.

This all goes back to April this year.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/05/despite-setbacks-ukuncut-are-back-on-the-streets/

Superintendent Jon Morgan came over to speak to the protesters.

He explained how he had been given carte blanche and unlimited resources to police our actions with as much force as he saw fit and how he wouldn’t hesitate to arrest all of us if we stepped out of line for a moment.

‘Carte blanche’ and ‘unlimited resources’. From whom? Unlimited resources? Really? Why?

To keep the peace? To ensure ‘fair play’? No, the police were given Carte Blanche and unlimited resources to protect Phillip Green’s profits.

Boris Johnston forced Sir Iain Blair to resign for political reasons, hired Stephenson and then when a large company’s profits were under threat, Stephenson gives the Superintendent on the scene order to protect that company, which ‘just happens’ to be exactly what Boris Johnston needed for political reasons.

Jim,

Again, Stephenson was appointed by a Labour Home Secretary. Maybe read some of the earlier comments in this thread? Perhaps look into the facts? That kind of thing?

Superintendent Jon Morgan came over to speak to the protesters.

He explained how he had been given carte blanche and unlimited resources to police our actions with as much force as he saw fit and how he wouldn’t hesitate to arrest all of us if we stepped out of line for a moment.

‘Carte blanche’ and ‘unlimited resources’. From whom? Unlimited resources? Really? Why?

To keep the peace? To ensure ‘fair play’? No, the police were given Carte Blanche and unlimited resources to protect Phillip Green’s profits.

Hearsay, and (your) supposition.

We have been through this before – several times. You ignore what the law says. You ignore what the protesters say on the web and social media about what they intend to do and their own reports and videos of what they have done, which are prima facie acts of aggravated trespass. You say @44 the police are supposed to uphold the law but when they do in this context you say is the fault of the Tories.

I’ve said to you before, fine to argue about the merits or otherwise of the protests and the policing and the charges etc, but your inventions and lies are not conducive to reasonable discussion.

UKL @ 64

Again, Stephenson was appointed by a Labour Home Secretary.

ONLY AFTER BORIS JOHNSTON HAD FORCED IAIN BLAIR TO RESIGN. JOHNSTON HAD POLITICAL DIFFERENCES WITH IAIN BLAIR.

The obvious message from Stephenson’s appointment was that Boris Johnston felt that he could agree common ground.

The minute Johnston had forced Blair to resign, he sent out a pretty clear message to any incomer; ‘do what I want or you are out the door’. After that, every applicant to the job from now on, (no matter who is the Mayor) you are not your own man; you need the approval of the mayor to keep your job.

Even if Ken Livingston (for the sake of argument, I am not suggesting it would happen) is the next Mayor, then he will either have to openly back or sack the Commissioner who ever that is. If he backs him, it will mean that the head of the police force will be tainted as a political appointee.

In my opinion, Johnston has bumbled into a huge precedent. He has successfully used his political office to oust a ‘political enemy’ out of a non-political job and turned the office of police commissioner into a political football.

Hearsay,

Does it matter though? If (and I admit that it a reasonably sized ‘if’) a significant number Londoners believe it, does it really matter?

and (your) supposition.

Now we are getting to the crux of the matter, though. If I am the only person making such a supposition then clearly we have nothing to worry about. However, if the police are perceived to be politically motivated and seen to be an arm of the Mayor (of the day), then policing in that City/county/whatever will suffer. If the police are thought to be fundamentally racist, irrespective of the evidence, then the police are de facto not fit for purpose, because much of their work in London they will deal with ethnically diverse groups. If the police are not believed to be impartial, they cannot do their job correctly.

How many people in London think the police are there to do uphold the political will of the Mayor as opposed to the law? It might be two hundred, but it might be two thousand, but what if twenty thousand believe it? Nothing to worry about so far, but what it is a quarter of a million? What if a quarter of a million Londoners feel they can never contact the police because they believe the police are not on their side? What if two million people believe it?

That is the problem, it is not that Johnston has done something ‘wrong’ that bothers me, it is the fact that he has done something irreversible that should worry us all.

Jim @65,

Part 1: I don’t disagree with that.

Part 2: if people believe the police are politically motivated when they arrest protesters prima facie committing aggravated trespass, perhaps it’s partly because of strident claims like yours, absent evidence, that the police are politically motivated when they arrest protesters prima facie committing aggravated trespass, despite the job of the police to uphold the law (a job you say is their’s @44)..

This “matters” because it doesn’t seem helpful to society to further distrust based on falsehoods, and furthering distrust of the police is not something I think they need help with in any case…

@62 – Nope.

It’s not enough that charges were dropped. The threats the CPS have made must be investigated, firings made and the way the CPS works reformed. That’s the *bare minimum* which would restore my faith in the CPS.

Then let’s start talking about faith in the police…

If the police were to talk to me for ANY reason now, I’d want a lawyer. Even if it was “did you see…”

66 @ ULK

if people believe the police are politically motivated when they arrest protesters prima facie committing aggravated trespass

But if people believe the police are predisposed to interpret anything looking a bit dodgy as lawbreaking because political pressure has been put on the police at the scene then that will engender a belief that the police cease to be impartial.

Like I said earlier, you are of the opinion that sitting down on a shop floor constitutes aggravated trespass. That is fair enough, I am not really interested in whether that is accurate or not. The point is that for enough people on that march or even witnessing that march, it will be seen as trumpted up charges to bring about the political ends of the Mayor. Given that the Mayor has already been seen to bring about the removal one Met Commissioner, is cannot be unreasonable to assume that the current one is under the same pressure to perform duties to bring about the political goals of the Mayor of the day.

The Right are crowing about this at the moment, because the decisions are going their way and the Mayor and Home Sectary are of the same mind as them. But it is not too difficult to imagine a scenario where the incoming Mayor may have made some announcement before hand that sees a competent Commissioner put in a position to resign and the new one will have been tainted.

Let us say that the candidate said ‘We need the police force to be less Islamaphobic, and the new regime will make that happen’. Let us then say that the Monday after he wins the commissioner resigns and the next guy (a Muslim) walks in. Now there will be a section of society that will feel that the appointment is tainted because he will be seen to be a placeman and not a copper.

Fifteen white guys arrested, without a single Muslim being lifted outside a kebab shop because of fight and you got serious credibility issues on your hands.

Jim,

But if people believe the police are predisposed to interpret anything looking a bit dodgy as lawbreaking because political pressure has been put on the police at the scene [do you mean Johnson attends these protests personally?!] then that will engender a belief that the police cease to be impartial.

Are you now saying the police shouldn’t arrest people for prima facie committing a crime if the arrests might look politically motivated to some people, despite earlier saying police should “enforce the law of the land under any circumstances”?

Like I said earlier, you are of the opinion that sitting down on a shop floor constitutes aggravated trespass.

Ah, here you go again making things up. Do stop lying. I do not believe that merely sitting down constitutes aggravated trespass. But,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOnLZeul4Fg#t=1m20s – just ‘sitting down’?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYlE0lLBbI – just standing or walking around the shop?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esob5I8KOsY#t=1m40s – just banking?(incidentally, no arrests IIUC)

I am not really interested in whether that is accurate or not.

That’s the problem, that you are not interested in accuracy.

UKL @ 69

Are you now saying the police shouldn’t arrest people for prima facie committing a crime if the arrests might look politically motivated to some people, despite earlier saying police should “enforce the law of the land under any circumstances”?

What I am saying is that you should not be seen to be driving one guy out of his job because you don’t feel you can work with him politically, replace him with someone who will be seen (rightly or wrongly) as ‘your man a the Met’ because sooner or later that man WILL have to make judgements that will be seen as partial.

When this hackgate thing kicked off, it was not investigated correctly. The PM had a vested interested in he ruth not comming out, but the head of the police was seen as ‘the Tories’s man at the Met’.

@ 70:

“The PM had a vested interested in he ruth not comming out, but the head of the police was seen as ‘the Tories’s man at the Met’.”

Got any actual evidence that a large number of people think this way? You’re literally the first person I’ve come across who says this.

Jim,

The PM had a vested interested in he ruth not comming out, but the head of the police was seen as ‘the Tories’s man at the Met’.

Why would a Labour Home Secretary appoint a Tory?

(I can see why the officer would need to be able to appease the Home Secretary and the Mayor.)