When a party takes a trajectory to the right, the slide is difficult to stop at any particular point.

Posted on p.ie:

Quote :

UK government in deep doo doo over raid on MP's office by terror police:

Speaker faces showdown over raid on Tory's office - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Video of police search:

Video: Police search Damian Green office | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Fuss about nothing says Marcel Berlins:

Marcel Berlins: The fuss over the Damian Green affair has been excessive. Parliamentary democracy is not at risk | Comment is free | The Guardian

Damian Green arrest: Top civil servant sends warning of duty to Government - Telegraph

The important question in all of this is simple, and the one that could potentially bring the Government down. Did the Home Secretary know in advance? If not, why not? And if so, good night folks...

toxic avenger wrote:

The important question in all of this is simple, and the one that could potentially bring the Government down. Did the Home Secretary know in advance? If not, why not? And if so, good night folks...

It ought to bring them down as you say but watch those buggers wriggle out of it. We live not just in interesting times but in utterly shameless times too.

Aragon wrote:

Posted on p.ie:

Quote :

UK government in deep doo doo over raid on MP's office by terror police:

Speaker faces showdown over raid on Tory's office - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Video of police search:

Video: Police search Damian Green office | Politics | guardian.co.uk

Fuss about nothing says Marcel Berlins:

Marcel Berlins: The fuss over the Damian Green affair has been excessive. Parliamentary democracy is not at risk | Comment is free | The Guardian

Damian Green arrest: Top civil servant sends warning of duty to Government - Telegraph

I normally have good time for Marcel Berlins, but he's off on this one. His gripe seems to be two-fold. First, that the comparisons with a police-state and Stalinism are utterly hysterical. That's fair enough. But second, that even the measured criticism is unnecessary because it's not going to happen again after this, is absurd and self-contradictory. It's precisely because of the hostility on all sides to what was done that he can even make the claim that it won't be repeated. He argues that the fuss is an example of Westminster-centrism, i.e. that it's only getting this level of coverage because it didn't happen on a council estate in Barnsley. But that's the point, it happened at the very centre of British democracy, and, if allowed to go unchallenged, would have sent an intimidatory message to elected representatives to keep schtum on awkward information they become aware of. He also argues that the fuss could be used to re-arrange the relationship between the police and Government and that would be a bad thing. I'd love to know how...

Parliamentary privilege should be treasured and protected. When a citizen in a council estate in Barnsley is in difficulties, he or she should be able to turn to her elected representative.

I was disturbed and outraged by the criticism of two T.D.s in the Morris Tribunal Report, essentially for reporting a serious allegation. It appeared to me they acted responsibly and the suggestion that they should have investigated it themselves is ludicrous. This criticism successfully muddied the water with regard to the shocking findings contained in the Report.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1009/1223445618184.html
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhidauqlgbey/

A massive Garda corruption inquiry was tonight wound up with a stinging attack on the two senior politicians key to its being set up.

Judge Frederick Morris, who headed the six-year investigation which has cost taxpayers more than €60m, said it was initially based on false allegations.

Yet, the 685 days of hearings uncovered a web of wrong-doing among the Garda in Co Donegal during the 1990s which rocked the force and ushered in its most radical and sweeping overhaul since being founded. The Morris Tribunal was set up in March 2002 after senior opposition politicians, Fine Gael’s Jim Higgins and Labour’s Brendan Howlin, passed allegations about two Garda Assistant Commissioners to the then Justice Minister.LABOUR LEADER Eamon Gilmore called on the Dáil's Committee on Procedure and Privileges to consider the criticism of two TDs by the Morris tribunal report.
He said that the report had "enormous implications'' for members of the House. "My party and I fully stand over and support the actions taken by our colleague, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and former deputy Jim Higgins and the way in which they handled the information provided for them," he said.

The tribunal's report, published on Tuesday, called for a review of the manner in which Oireachtas members deal with allegations brought to their attention by "whistleblowers". Mr Howlin, Labour TD for Wexford, and Mr Higgins, who is now Fine Gael MEP for the North West, rejected the criticism. Mr Gilmore told the Dáil that many Oireachtas members came into possession of information on matters such as child abuse and other problems. "The idea that an individual member of the House would have to conduct some kind of private investigation into material brought before him or her has serious implications for all of us.''

Taoiseach Brian Cowen said a Dáil debate on the report was a matter for the party whips to decide. "I do not want to comment on anything contained in the report," he said.

Labour justice spokesman Pat Rabbitte referred to criticism of Mr Howlin and Mr Higgins by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern. He accused Mr Ahern of managing "to abstract reference to the two members who caused the Morris tribunal to be established and whose offence is that they went in private to the then minister for justice, equality and law reform".
He added that Mr Ahern could not "pass a sleeping dog without kicking it".

For the same reason, threats of legal action against T.D.s for speaking their mind on matters of public interest are disturbing.

Morris was wrong. They acted responsibly, did not make it public, went privately to the appropriate Minister (then John O'Donoghue), and couldn't be expected to play private investigator, for which they would be neither qualified nor able. The emphasis on this in the final Report was disproportionate and unnecessary.

So do you think the judges are the pockets of the government ?
Even if this was not the case, would it be so hard for the government to sow up the judiiciary if they really wanted to?

Respvblica wrote:

So do you think the judges are the pockets of the government ?
Even if this was not the case, would it be so hard for the government to sow up the judiiciary if they really wanted to?

Do you mean in Ireland or in the UK?? Usually, in both jurisdictions, the judiciary are the one crowd our respective governments find very very hard to keep quiet. The judiciary in the House of Lords are probably the finest example of this point... they've opposed most of the repressive Horlicks New Labour have been trying to use to keep a lid on everyone. And in this country, the X case judgement sparked a raft of referenda and a vast Governmental headache

Judicial interpretation is a knotty issue - there are many philosophies on how it should be done. Here's the Wikipedia entry which slanted towards US styles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

More on the nature of judicial interpretation (scroll down to relevant bit)

Link

It wasn't the Speaker of the Commons who authorised it, it turns out, it was the inexperienced Serjeant-at-Arms, who, without reference to the Speaker, and without the police having told her of her right to refuse (they had no warrant), signed the waiver. The Speaker has more or less dumped responsibility on her, expressing his 'regret' at the actions of her and the police. Thus the police have invalidated any 'evidence' retrieved from the Commons by not following properinformative procedure. The Speaker is setting up an ad-hoc House committee to examine the affair.

toxic avenger wrote:

It wasn't the Speaker of the Commons who authorised it, it turns out, it was the inexperienced Serjeant-at-Arms, who, without reference to the Speaker, and without the police having told her of her right to refuse (they had no warrant), signed the waiver. The Speaker has more or less dumped responsibility on her, expressing his 'regret' at the actions of her and the police. Thus the police have invalidated any 'evidence' retrieved from the Commons by not following properinformative procedure. The Speaker is setting up an ad-hoc House committee to examine the affair.

Ah, a convenient scapegoat! Perfect! Toldya they'd wriggle out of it . Is the Serjeant-at-Arms to lose her job now? And so it goes on.

The prime responsibility rests with the Home Secretary, the Police are her responsibility. It is a resigning matter. The Serjeant at Arms, Jill Pay, is responsible for security in the Commons and should not have given permission, not under any circumstances, and certainly not without checking with both the Speaker and the Home Secretary. I have a feeling this will be an interesting tale of ineptitude and half truths once people start digging.

Do we know yet who will be on the ad-hoc committee? It would need some teeth. Hope a few elderly judges from the upper house are on it, but unlikely.

The Home Secretary, Serjeant at Arms and possibly the speaker all need to resign. They should accept responsibility. They then need a proper enquiry with a view to disciplinary measures.

expat girl wrote:

Respvblica wrote:

So do you think the judges are the pockets of the government ?
Even if this was not the case, would it be so hard for the government to sow up the judiiciary if they really wanted to?

Do you mean in Ireland or in the UK?? Usually, in both jurisdictions, the judiciary are the one crowd our respective governments find very very hard to keep quiet. The judiciary in the House of Lords are probably the finest example of this point... they've opposed most of the repressive Horlicks New Labour have been trying to use to keep a lid on everyone. And in this country, the X case judgement sparked a raft of referenda and a vast Governmental headache

I was basically commenting about Ireland, but it could be for the UK as well given that the situation is quite similar. In principal they should be independent and I wold say that they still largely are. How difficult would it be though for a government which basically has a monopoly on almost every single avenue of power in the state to apply pressure?
The system is not bad (you have mentioned some good examples) but it is certainly not fullproof. Unfortunately people are happy to live in happy-clappy fairyland that it is until the day they find themselves on the wrong side of the law for no other reason that they are in the way of naked self-interest of the ruling class.

I think the judiciary on the whole do quite a good job. The Supreme Court is strangled by the fact that it does not want to breach the Separation of Powers but that is the correct attitude for them to have. The last thing we want is to have an activist judiciary. Perhaps people should examine their conscience a bit more when they enter the polling booth rather than calling on the judiciary to do the job of those whom they elected.

Posted on Medialens message board yesterday:

Quote :

The Speaker of the commons has just revealed that the Police had no warrant to search the offices of the MP Damien Green nor did they reveal to the sergeant at arms that they needed one. The speaker also said that he had no knowledge of the actual raid until the day after.
I am not an expert on law but surely if the police carried out a search of the MP's offices without a warrant that is illegal? If it is deemed to be an illegal search any evidence aquired is non admissable in a court of law? Are the police now open to being sued? Any legal experts out there might enlighten us?

Meanwhile Jacqui Smith appears to be defiant -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3547757/Jacqui-Smith-defends-police-probe-over-whistleblower-affair.html