Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Be afraid...
Last November a member of the main opposition party was arrested and held for eleven hours on suspicion that he had illegally obtained information which was either secret or compromised national security. His files and computers were seized from his office in his constituency, as were those from his office in the parliament building where he sits. Access to that office was provided by the "impartial" Speaker of the House.
During questioning by police he was told that he could face Life in prison for these alleged offences. His fingerprints and DNA profile were taken and remain on file forever.
Where did all this take place? A rogue African state? A corrupt South American dictatorship? No, this took place in England and the member was the Conservative spokesman on immigration and MP for Ashford, Kent.
Yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions said that no charges would be brought. Furthermore he said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the allegations made. (So trivial was this announcement considered that it did not warrant a mention on the BBC national news at 6pm).
Meantime, for the past five months, police have been sifting through files and confidential correspondence between the MP and his constituents (some of which may relate to complaints about the police).
Is there anybody still out there who believes that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?
During questioning by police he was told that he could face Life in prison for these alleged offences. His fingerprints and DNA profile were taken and remain on file forever.
Where did all this take place? A rogue African state? A corrupt South American dictatorship? No, this took place in England and the member was the Conservative spokesman on immigration and MP for Ashford, Kent.
Yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions said that no charges would be brought. Furthermore he said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the allegations made. (So trivial was this announcement considered that it did not warrant a mention on the BBC national news at 6pm).
Meantime, for the past five months, police have been sifting through files and confidential correspondence between the MP and his constituents (some of which may relate to complaints about the police).
Is there anybody still out there who believes that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by New Judge. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This happens all the time to people who the police pick up for being suspected illegal immigrants or travellers or what-not.
Now it's happened to one of our sort of people and you're up in arms.
Are you the same NJ that want's to do away with human rtights legislation?
Or do you just want it ammended so that it only covers the middle classes?
You don't seem to think the law should be applied blindly and even-handedly to everybody
Or am I wrong?
Now it's happened to one of our sort of people and you're up in arms.
Are you the same NJ that want's to do away with human rtights legislation?
Or do you just want it ammended so that it only covers the middle classes?
You don't seem to think the law should be applied blindly and even-handedly to everybody
Or am I wrong?
Thousands of people have ultimately had no further action taken after having been arrested by the Police, but it does not mean to say that the Police should be prevented from arresting people and investigating alleged offences regardless of who the arrested person is or what the nature of the enquiry.
As for "confidential correspondence", Police regularly have to come into contact with such described materials, therefore that is definitely nothing new. So what?
I don't really see the point you are trying to make? Yes, I for one know that I'd have nothing to fear as an innocent party and my confidence in "the system", which I fully realise is far from perfect, is unchanged.
As for "confidential correspondence", Police regularly have to come into contact with such described materials, therefore that is definitely nothing new. So what?
I don't really see the point you are trying to make? Yes, I for one know that I'd have nothing to fear as an innocent party and my confidence in "the system", which I fully realise is far from perfect, is unchanged.
Christ what a bunch of t0ssers. You're accusing the questioner of only being bothered about it because it happened to a Tory, but basically you're only NOT bothered about it for the same reason.
If it had been the other way round you'd all be bleating like bu66ery about the police state and the nasty right wing establishment etc.
Another piece of dirty tricks from 'Nixon' Brown and his 'special advisors'. They knew there was no case to answer but they wanted to put the frighteners on him and his source because the information coming out was embarrassing. Simple as that.
If it had been the other way round you'd all be bleating like bu66ery about the police state and the nasty right wing establishment etc.
Another piece of dirty tricks from 'Nixon' Brown and his 'special advisors'. They knew there was no case to answer but they wanted to put the frighteners on him and his source because the information coming out was embarrassing. Simple as that.
As others have said, it's a high profile example of a kind of thing that happens regularly.
In Norwich, a couple months ago, a bunch of students got together for a 'silent rave'. You basically congregate, then put some earphones in to whatever music player you have, then everyone dances to whatever happens to be on their personal machine (with earphones in, hence the 'silent' part).
The Police broke it up on 'anti-terrorism' grounds, then the chief of Norfolk police issued a statement saying that they hadn't.
I'm not one an 'anti-police' person, but the fact that there are undeniably plenty of people in the service who are quite 'trigger-happy' with their new powers kind of suggests that they shouldn't have them.
In Norwich, a couple months ago, a bunch of students got together for a 'silent rave'. You basically congregate, then put some earphones in to whatever music player you have, then everyone dances to whatever happens to be on their personal machine (with earphones in, hence the 'silent' part).
The Police broke it up on 'anti-terrorism' grounds, then the chief of Norfolk police issued a statement saying that they hadn't.
I'm not one an 'anti-police' person, but the fact that there are undeniably plenty of people in the service who are quite 'trigger-happy' with their new powers kind of suggests that they shouldn't have them.
Personally I have NO political allegiance - one lot's as bad as the other, but let me make these observations on some of the comments made so far:
ludwig: "...put the frighteners on him and his source"
You've been watching too many gangster films. The post of Gestapo Ueberfuehrer is still vacant, I believe.
Kromovaracum: "..a bunch of students got together for a silent rave"
1. Was this an event for which permission had been sought and was given?
2. How many constituted "a bunch"? 12? 25? 70? 100? 500? More?
3. Where was it that they "got together"? A public park? A hired hall? Another paid-for venue? Private land? Private property? Miles from any residential propertie? A deserted island? Or somewhere they just happened to "pick"?
4. ".."trigger happy" with their new powers..." Could this be a euphemism for enforcing the Law? For doing their job? Or for being spoilsports?
ludwig: "...put the frighteners on him and his source"
You've been watching too many gangster films. The post of Gestapo Ueberfuehrer is still vacant, I believe.
Kromovaracum: "..a bunch of students got together for a silent rave"
1. Was this an event for which permission had been sought and was given?
2. How many constituted "a bunch"? 12? 25? 70? 100? 500? More?
3. Where was it that they "got together"? A public park? A hired hall? Another paid-for venue? Private land? Private property? Miles from any residential propertie? A deserted island? Or somewhere they just happened to "pick"?
4. ".."trigger happy" with their new powers..." Could this be a euphemism for enforcing the Law? For doing their job? Or for being spoilsports?
-- answer removed --
ludwig, you're right when you say that we are accusing the questioner of only being bothered because it happened to a Tory. That's based on evidence from his previous posts.
On the other hand, you're entirely wrong when you say that we are NOT bothered because it happened to a Tory. Britain is now under the most oppressive and repressive regime in its recent history - one that is in many ways worse than that of East Germany before the collapse of the Berlin wall, but this has been allowed to happen by British people, just so long as they could think "it can't happen to me, or people like me". Well, it can, and it did, and it will continue to.
On the other hand, you're entirely wrong when you say that we are NOT bothered because it happened to a Tory. Britain is now under the most oppressive and repressive regime in its recent history - one that is in many ways worse than that of East Germany before the collapse of the Berlin wall, but this has been allowed to happen by British people, just so long as they could think "it can't happen to me, or people like me". Well, it can, and it did, and it will continue to.
Thanks for all your views. I must clear up a few points raised:
Yes , I am �the same NJ that want's to do away with human rtights legislation?� (and spurious apostrophes!). This has nothing to do with that legislation.
It is no secret that my politics lie slightly to the right of centre. Whether I can be described as �Tory� is debateable. The current Tory party most certainly does not sit in the same place.
This is not a party issue. I would be equally outraged if Mr Green had been a Labour opposition MP
Yes, this sort of thing does happen frequently. But not to opposition MPs, it doesn�t. It is understandably believed in many quarters (and in all parties) that this action was taken for political reasons and the DPP�s statement certainly suggests that there never was any evidence of criminal activity.
Because of this there is a world of difference between this incident and the �everyday� arrests with which some of you see fit to equate it. Mr Green was causing a nuisance to the government by legitimately seeking to highlight its shortcomings. In short he was doing his job. Instead of holding an internal enquiry into firstly what information was being withheld from the public and why, and then by whom it was being leaked, the Home Secretary (and anyone who believes she knew nothing of a proposed raid on the Commons and the arrest of an MP is delusional) saw fit to involve the police. The words �national security� was all that was needed.
I�m disappointed but not surprised that some of you trivialise this matter and put it on par with more everyday arrests. It is not the same and it is a slippery slope we all tread when the Executive uses the police in an attempt to silence one of its opponents.
Yes , I am �the same NJ that want's to do away with human rtights legislation?� (and spurious apostrophes!). This has nothing to do with that legislation.
It is no secret that my politics lie slightly to the right of centre. Whether I can be described as �Tory� is debateable. The current Tory party most certainly does not sit in the same place.
This is not a party issue. I would be equally outraged if Mr Green had been a Labour opposition MP
Yes, this sort of thing does happen frequently. But not to opposition MPs, it doesn�t. It is understandably believed in many quarters (and in all parties) that this action was taken for political reasons and the DPP�s statement certainly suggests that there never was any evidence of criminal activity.
Because of this there is a world of difference between this incident and the �everyday� arrests with which some of you see fit to equate it. Mr Green was causing a nuisance to the government by legitimately seeking to highlight its shortcomings. In short he was doing his job. Instead of holding an internal enquiry into firstly what information was being withheld from the public and why, and then by whom it was being leaked, the Home Secretary (and anyone who believes she knew nothing of a proposed raid on the Commons and the arrest of an MP is delusional) saw fit to involve the police. The words �national security� was all that was needed.
I�m disappointed but not surprised that some of you trivialise this matter and put it on par with more everyday arrests. It is not the same and it is a slippery slope we all tread when the Executive uses the police in an attempt to silence one of its opponents.
N.J.:
NOBODY "uses" the Police, as you erroneously claim.
You are commenting solely in HINDSIGHT. Put yourself in the Police's shoes for a moment, uncomfortable though that may apparently feel to you: Hypothetical matter being "discussed" within Scotland Yard:
Plod 1: "Ah, er, 'scuse me, sir, but we've just received information that there are alleged leaks within the House of Commons which could allegedly affect national security. Not only that, but we've been given the name of a Tory M.P. allegedly involved. What should we do?"
Boss Plod: "Nuffink"
Plod1: "Nuffink????"
Boss Plod: "Yeh, 'at's right. We don't want to upset the Daily Mail or outrage the good citizens of Middle England wot are of the Fascist persuasion. Most of 'em support us, after all."
Plod1: "Wot abaht that old dear in Bethnall Green wot's still refusin' t'pay 'er Council Tax?"
Boss Plod: "Frow the book at 'er!! Gotta teach these b*stards a lesson!!!"
NOBODY "uses" the Police, as you erroneously claim.
You are commenting solely in HINDSIGHT. Put yourself in the Police's shoes for a moment, uncomfortable though that may apparently feel to you: Hypothetical matter being "discussed" within Scotland Yard:
Plod 1: "Ah, er, 'scuse me, sir, but we've just received information that there are alleged leaks within the House of Commons which could allegedly affect national security. Not only that, but we've been given the name of a Tory M.P. allegedly involved. What should we do?"
Boss Plod: "Nuffink"
Plod1: "Nuffink????"
Boss Plod: "Yeh, 'at's right. We don't want to upset the Daily Mail or outrage the good citizens of Middle England wot are of the Fascist persuasion. Most of 'em support us, after all."
Plod1: "Wot abaht that old dear in Bethnall Green wot's still refusin' t'pay 'er Council Tax?"
Boss Plod: "Frow the book at 'er!! Gotta teach these b*stards a lesson!!!"
I'm not sure what point you're making with your scenario, but whichever way I look at it it doesn't make sense. You probably neeed to clarify it.
If you really believe that's how the police think, then why do you suppose they would launch an investigation into the Tory MP without being told to?.
On the other hand, if you're saying 'this is how stupid the police would have to be in order to have taken no action', (which would be a more sensible point), then it's obvious they acted on information/instructions from the government and were therefore 'used'.
If you really believe that's how the police think, then why do you suppose they would launch an investigation into the Tory MP without being told to?.
On the other hand, if you're saying 'this is how stupid the police would have to be in order to have taken no action', (which would be a more sensible point), then it's obvious they acted on information/instructions from the government and were therefore 'used'.
As amusing and credible as your scenario is, paraffin, and although I have no evidence, I think we can both use our vivid imagination to realise that�s probably not quite how it happened.
To start with, the officer who gave the order to �go in� in such a heavy handed manner (to investigate what would in normal circumstances be an employment disciplinary matter) was no ordinary "Plod". He was none other than the recently �resigned� Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick. You must remember him � he was the officer who was seen, just prior to his resignation, entering 10 Downing Street displaying a wodge of papers with details, for all the world to see, of a matter that really did (so we are told) affect national security.
Now do you think ordinary Joe or Josephine Public (perhaps �that old dear in Bethnall Green wot's still refusin' t'pay 'er Council Tax?") has access to officers at such high level?
We must try to retain a sense of realism.
To start with, the officer who gave the order to �go in� in such a heavy handed manner (to investigate what would in normal circumstances be an employment disciplinary matter) was no ordinary "Plod". He was none other than the recently �resigned� Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick. You must remember him � he was the officer who was seen, just prior to his resignation, entering 10 Downing Street displaying a wodge of papers with details, for all the world to see, of a matter that really did (so we are told) affect national security.
Now do you think ordinary Joe or Josephine Public (perhaps �that old dear in Bethnall Green wot's still refusin' t'pay 'er Council Tax?") has access to officers at such high level?
We must try to retain a sense of realism.
Was this an event for which permission had been sought and was given?
People got together and danced to music nobody else could hear. Not a protest. Of course permission wasn't sought. They didn't think they needed it to.. . dance.
How many constituted "a bunch"? 12? 25? 70? 100? 500? More?
I believe around 40-50. It might have been less. I don't think it was much more.
Where was it that they "got together"?
Outside a shopping mall.
"trigger happy" with their new powers..." Could this be a euphemism for enforcing the Law? For doing their job? Or for being spoilsports?
If it was 'enforcing the law' then they needn't have cited anti-terrorism (which they did). And neither should their superiors have had to lie about it. When a person who was there asked the officers if dancing was against the law, they threatened to arrest him. If that's an officer's job, then I was definitely lied to in school...
People got together and danced to music nobody else could hear. Not a protest. Of course permission wasn't sought. They didn't think they needed it to.. . dance.
How many constituted "a bunch"? 12? 25? 70? 100? 500? More?
I believe around 40-50. It might have been less. I don't think it was much more.
Where was it that they "got together"?
Outside a shopping mall.
"trigger happy" with their new powers..." Could this be a euphemism for enforcing the Law? For doing their job? Or for being spoilsports?
If it was 'enforcing the law' then they needn't have cited anti-terrorism (which they did). And neither should their superiors have had to lie about it. When a person who was there asked the officers if dancing was against the law, they threatened to arrest him. If that's an officer's job, then I was definitely lied to in school...
Because of this there is a world of difference between this incident and the �everyday� arrests with which some of you see fit to equate it.
Both are blatant abuse of powers police services are trusted with. You're right to point out that one is nakedly politically motivated but the issue is that there are plenty of people who abuse the powers they've been trusted with, even if there are plenty of others that don't (I won't go into majority/minority assertions because I simply don't know which is which). That applies just as much regardless of case.
Both are blatant abuse of powers police services are trusted with. You're right to point out that one is nakedly politically motivated but the issue is that there are plenty of people who abuse the powers they've been trusted with, even if there are plenty of others that don't (I won't go into majority/minority assertions because I simply don't know which is which). That applies just as much regardless of case.
N.J.:
I shall grant you the dubious "honour" of being replied to first, given that it's your post. Yes, of course, I was being a wee bit flippant with my "Plod scenario". However, there really isn't a "pecking order" as you seem to believe, each allegation must be treated equally.
The significant difference here is of course the fact that it involved an M.P., but it would not have been dealt with in any of a more "heavy handed" manner than would the "Bethnall Green old dear" in my fictional "conversation".
I do not seek to "trivialise" this matter but it really is a fact that the Police are apolitical as indeed ex Dep Chief Quick's successor, Mr Yates, was seen to be during his recent investigation into Lord Levy et al.
ludwig:
"...without being told to." You would not make such a statement if you knew how the Police operate. They are independent, are not controlled by ANY political party, they act upon information receive and gather evidence which is ultimately judged not by them. Such is the reason why we have a criminal justice system in this democracy which we have the honour to be part of in the U.K.
I shall grant you the dubious "honour" of being replied to first, given that it's your post. Yes, of course, I was being a wee bit flippant with my "Plod scenario". However, there really isn't a "pecking order" as you seem to believe, each allegation must be treated equally.
The significant difference here is of course the fact that it involved an M.P., but it would not have been dealt with in any of a more "heavy handed" manner than would the "Bethnall Green old dear" in my fictional "conversation".
I do not seek to "trivialise" this matter but it really is a fact that the Police are apolitical as indeed ex Dep Chief Quick's successor, Mr Yates, was seen to be during his recent investigation into Lord Levy et al.
ludwig:
"...without being told to." You would not make such a statement if you knew how the Police operate. They are independent, are not controlled by ANY political party, they act upon information receive and gather evidence which is ultimately judged not by them. Such is the reason why we have a criminal justice system in this democracy which we have the honour to be part of in the U.K.
