howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 December 2008
22:5010163#41
i am lost with barry's comments.
if the information was given to him no problem.
if he paid for it then it is a criminal offence.
if it was proved that "grooming" took place, then it is a more serious matter.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 December 2008
07:5810174#42
Brian - Do you think Churchill and Brown should have been arrested for what they did.
Howard - the question of payment for the information has never arisen and no-one said it has.
This grooming insult is equally absurd, look at your history, MPs have developed relationships with Civil Servants who have passed on information, its quite normal. Churchill would have his sources to dinner!
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
3 December 2008
09:1710181#43
yes i do,but its a bit late for churchhill.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 December 2008
10:1410188#44
At least you are honest. Of course if Churchill was not able to do what he did then we would have been even worse prepared for the war, Churchill himself may not have become Prime Minister and the Germans would have won the war.
Much as I detest Gordon Brown I do not think he and other opposition members should have faced censur or arrest over receiving leaked documents.
Sid Pollitt
3 December 2008
12:2510195#45
The Police have said today that they took the decision to arrest the two potential wrongdoers.
I wonder if David Cameron will abandon his pledge and return to Punch and Judy politics this week.
Sid Pollitt
3 December 2008
13:4210202#46
I see that Boris Johnson has been exposed as another Tory politician with little understanding, or is that regard, of this country's legal process.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
3 December 2008
20:3110246#47
i watched the edited highlights of todays house of commons debate.
i was impressed by davey boy sticking up for his chum in such an eloquent manner, especially so as it transpired that their was no warrant.
however i would have been more impressed if he shown such passion in trying to deal with our economic crisis.
he used some wonderful language "bureaucratic bungling and technocratic tinkering".
i was waiting for some wag at the back to shout out "does that mean yes or no".
3 December 2008
22:1610260#48
Is bureacratic bungling the same as political prattling or ministerial maladministration?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
3 December 2008
22:3310263#49
yes bern i would say all 3 but mind you im bamboozeld myself also miffed as well.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
3 December 2008
23:0210267#50
i have added together all the phrases, bureaucratic bungling, technocratic tinkering, political prattling, ministerial maladministration, bamboozled.
does anyone remember the "good old days" with leonard sachs?
he used to start the show with all that sort of stuff.
pity that ross and brand weren;t around then.
4 December 2008
08:3510285#51
Love it - I had forgotten The Good Old Days!!! Howard - I dread to think of the phrases those two miscreants would come up with!!!!!! All Together Now: she sits among the cabbages and peas..............
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
4 December 2008
13:2710315#52
The chairman who was Leonard Sachs was best known for his polysyllabic, hyperbolic introductions and became the pivot around which the show revolved.
He used to reel off sesquipedalian provincialisms (long words).And now your own your very own.....
He would have made a great Speaker in the HofC.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 December 2008
18:3010337#53
Back to topic.
I see some very interesting developments since yesterday afternoon.
The Speaker ungallantly dumped on his appointed Serjeant at Arms and also blamed the police.
Today the police have issued a statement contradicting what the Speaker has said.
Word is spreading around Westminster that a Government Minister kew all about the arrest undermining Smith and Brown's claims.
Gaps are opening in the Government ranks over their claims.
Some people are lying to save their knecks, so who is it?
The Speaker or the Police? Perhaps the Serjeant at Arms lied to the Speaker. Also Government Ministers seem as if they might be caught out.
Then there is this review panel, it seems the Speaker was deceitful over that too. It will not be a quick and thorough review by a select panal but has been downgraded and will take a lot longer.
On politicshome.com the PH100 panel are overwhelmingly of the opinion that the position of the Speaker has worsened since his statement and he should resign and significantly that includes 2/3rds of the Parliamentarians.
There is a lot more mileage in this issue - it will run and run. As I said, heads are going to roll - but whose?
Sid Pollitt
4 December 2008
18:3810340#54
I agree, heads will roll. It'll probably be that Home Office chappie that Damien Green was, or wasnt, grooming.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
4 December 2008
19:1610349#55
Thats why BarryW that GB has quite rightly called for an inquiry.
The sooner we all know the truth the better but more fool Green for allowing the Rozzers to search his premises without asking to see a search warrant.Does'nt he watch any of the multitude of Cop programmes on the box?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
4 December 2008
19:4310351#56
Rozzers lol! I haven't heard that description for a while, 'is got you bang to rights Guv, me 'ooter why's it always me 'ooter
Agreed Marek, the first thing the Serjeant at Arms should ask for would be, 'Can I see your search warrant constable' Daft Apeth!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 December 2008
19:5110353#57
Marek - Damian was not in the Commons to ask for a search warrant, they did have one for his other premises. The whole point is the police have contradicted the Speaker over the search warrant issue for the Commons.... interesting.
Sid is making light of a serious issue and ignoring the facts of the case as so far established.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
4 December 2008
20:4310359#58
every time i see michael martin speak, i think to myself, how do you get a job like that?
do you have to be double thick?
that is how he comes across, been in trouble before with his missus running riot on spending sprees using chauffeur driven cars all on the taxpayer.
apparently well within the rules!!!
who on earth is the seargant at arms? has anyone any idea who this person is that can give authorisation to the old bill to ransack somebody's office?
ask the person in the street what the role of the speaker and the other bloke is, shoulders will be shrugged.
Sid Pollitt
21 December 2008
18:4611348#59
I've just seen the following on the Guardian website which gives cause for concern:
''Britain's most senior anti-terrorism officer today accused the Conservatives of trying to undermine the inquiry into a series of Whitehall leaks after a newspaper published an article that he claimed endangered his family.
The Metropolitan police assistant commissioner, Bob Quick, alleged that the Tories and their supporters were "mobilised...in a wholly corrupt way" against his investigation into the MP Damian Green's relationship with a Home Office civil servant.
The Tories reacted furiously to the allegations, saying they had "played no part whatsoever" in the article's publication and demanding that Quick retract the "baseless, political attacks".
Quick claimed he had been forced to move his children out of his home amid security fears after the Mail on Sunday published details about a business run by his wife, Judith, and staffed by former police officers.
He later issued a statement retracting his comment about corruption, saying it had been made while trying to move his family.
The article raised questions over the officer's judgment after it emerged that his wife's wedding car hire business, including his personal seven-litre 130mph Jensen sports car, was being run from his home.
Promotional photographs on the company website show classic cars parked on the front driveway.
There is no suggestion that the Quicks have done anything wrong.
Today, the Met officer responded to the newspaper article saying: "It is an attempt to undermine an investigation which is legitimate. The Tory machinery and their press friends are mobilised against this investigation in a wholly corrupt way, and I feel very disappointed in the country I am living in."
As the head of the Home Office leaks probe, Quick approved the controversial arrest of frontbencher Green and the raid on his parliamentary office on November 27.
The ensuing row saw opposition MPs make claims of political interference in policing and raise questions about whether officers had abused their powers.
Quick said there had been a series of "entirely untrue" allegations about his inquiry in the national media.
Condemning on today 's newspaper report, he said: "I think it is a very spiteful act, possibly to intimidate me away from investigating Mr Green, and I feel it has put my family at risk."
Quick said he would consult his solicitor about taking further action.''
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
21 December 2008
21:3611356#60
Quick sounds very dodgy to me. This is a pre-emptive strike before the enquiry into the mishandling by the police of the Green affair.
I see that the Speaker has blocked an enquiry into his role in this sorry affair, what has he got to hide I wonder?