Following the press release by David Normington who admits it was he who set off the Police investigation into leaks at the Home Office, we now have some more timings to provide a little more detail.
We already know that Boris Johnson was informed prior to the arrest of Green, as was David Cameron.
David Normington states that he was informed at 1.45, a full 15 minutes before the arrest took place.
So the question is, Jacqui Smith and Gordon Brown, even if they did not order the arrest, or give permission for it, did they know prior to the arrest taking place? If they knew, why did they not stop it?
As it was the Sergeant at Arms, who reports to the Speaker, gave his permission for Damian Green's House of Commons office to be searched, thereby allowing the invasion of Parliament by civilian police, was the Speaker, Michael Martin informed?
If, as we believe, some or all of the above 3 were most likely to have been informed prior to Damian Green's arrest, should any or all of them stepped in to refuse to allow the police to search a parliamentary office, or was it they who ordered it.
Robert Quick (allegedly Jacqui Smith's favourite copper), the head of the Met's anti-terrorist unit, sent nine of his officers to arrest the Tory MP. According to the Daily Mail, a senior Scotland Yard source said Mr Quick, also known as 'Crackers', was regarded as 'clever
but boring', an uncharismatic character whose personality did not lend
itself to hot-headed misjudgments.
The source added: 'He's a follower not a leader.'
I ask as now we have a situation whereby there is scant information with regard to any documents retrieved from that office, and it raises the question of constituent / MP confidentiality.
Were any documents removed or copied by police? YES, was any IT equipment removed or its contents copied? YES, were the Police supervised by the Parliament's Sergeant at Arms to ensure Police acted in a proper manner? UNKNOWN, was there a breach of confidentiality with the police being in an MP's office and examining confidential documentation, YES.
I believe that no-one including MP's should be above the law, but it must be applied to all, not just singular cases, but then I also believe that in this case, it not a question of law, but of intimidation by an authoritarian government, out to make political capital and mischief, with an ulterior motive.
The Libertarian Party tried to give all MP's a warning by organising the sending of a copy of 1984 for each and every one of them. We only hope that Damian Green's arrest, and the subsequent search of his home, constituency office and his parliamentary office serve as a further warning to all MP's that the laws created by Brown and his predecessor are now being visited upon them, that the Police state that they have helped to create is indeed very real. But of course, if they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear, eh.
If the law is to be applied equally to all, then the laws applied to Damian Green must be applied to all cases of a similar nature. Perhaps the police would like to begin with Danny Finkelstein's dossier. Will Brown agree or will he claim that these laws clearly do not apply to him, for the same offence that can be seen in this video clip.
But then perhaps that is what this arrest and very public media driven debate is all about, putting MP's above the law, or certainly Labour ones. When Harriet Harman spoke out today as reported by Sky News, there is a piece of what she said that has suddenly taken on the whole reason for this ploy in the first place.
There were “very big constitutional principles” that needed to be
safeguarded, Ms Harman added, including the rights of MPs to get on
with their job without interference from the law.
And she said Speaker Michael Martin should look at how police are
able to enter the Palace of Westminster once the investigation into
Home Office leaks is concluded.
Do not be surprised if we now see amendments to the way in which MP's are suddenly protected from the laws that they have written for the rest of us.
To put MP's legally above the law.
That is a move that the Libertarian Party will vigerously oppose.
