<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Let&#8217;s keep the row about Damian Green&#8217;s arrest in proportion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/lets-keep-the-row-about-damian-greens-arrest-in-proportion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/lets-keep-the-row-about-damian-greens-arrest-in-proportion/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:27:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Tucker</title>
		<link>http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/lets-keep-the-row-about-damian-greens-arrest-in-proportion/comment-page-1/#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Tucker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/?p=128#comment-74</guid>
		<description>Now it appears that not only did the police lie about the CPS they misled the Serjeant at Arms about the warrant or lack of it.

The acting Commissioner has also been making misleading statements namely &quot;the MPS was called in by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of October to investigate suspected criminal offences in relation to a substantial series of leaks from the Home Office potentially involving national security&quot;. This is misleading on two counts.

Firstly the offence is almost certainly not criminal.  The collapse of the Murrer case on the basis that the &#039;offence&#039; breaches Article 10 of the Human Rights Act just this week illustrates this.  

Secondly the use of the words &quot;potentially involving national security&quot; is just a smear.  If the police really thought national security was involved the arrests would be made under the Official Secrets Act. They were not because nobody, the police included, thinks this has anything to do with national security.  

Why the police are pursuing this is a mystery. Perhaps certain officers calculated it would help get them the top job.  At the end of the day the sack is more likely.  For their sake it is just fortunate that they did not strip search Damien Green like they did to poor Ms Murrer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now it appears that not only did the police lie about the CPS they misled the Serjeant at Arms about the warrant or lack of it.</p>
<p>The acting Commissioner has also been making misleading statements namely &#8220;the MPS was called in by the Cabinet Office at the beginning of October to investigate suspected criminal offences in relation to a substantial series of leaks from the Home Office potentially involving national security&#8221;. This is misleading on two counts.</p>
<p>Firstly the offence is almost certainly not criminal.  The collapse of the Murrer case on the basis that the &#8216;offence&#8217; breaches Article 10 of the Human Rights Act just this week illustrates this.  </p>
<p>Secondly the use of the words &#8220;potentially involving national security&#8221; is just a smear.  If the police really thought national security was involved the arrests would be made under the Official Secrets Act. They were not because nobody, the police included, thinks this has anything to do with national security.  </p>
<p>Why the police are pursuing this is a mystery. Perhaps certain officers calculated it would help get them the top job.  At the end of the day the sack is more likely.  For their sake it is just fortunate that they did not strip search Damien Green like they did to poor Ms Murrer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Toby</title>
		<link>http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/lets-keep-the-row-about-damian-greens-arrest-in-proportion/comment-page-1/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Toby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/?p=128#comment-68</guid>
		<description>I stand by what I said in the original post: &quot;In such highly sensitive cases, it would be unthinkable for the police not to consult the Crown Prosecution Service about whether each significiant step was proportionate in the context of the alleged offence and the material already gathered.&quot;  

Either the CPS were not consulted, which would have been a serious error of judgement by the police, or the CPS are being deliberately disingenuous.  

Either way, the Statement just issued by Acting Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, is helpful and the review announced needs to look at (amongst many other things) precisely this point.  

Sir Paul&#039;s statement says:  
“I am properly concerned about the issues being raised within the continuing debate surrounding the ongoing investigation into the leaking of Government information.
“I have therefore appointed Ian Johnston, Chairman of ACPO Crime Committee and Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, to conduct an urgent review of our decisions, actions and handling of the investigation to date and to provide me with an interim report within 7 days and a final report within two weeks.
“In the meantime the investigation team will be meeting with the CPS to review progress and consider next steps.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I stand by what I said in the original post: &#8220;In such highly sensitive cases, it would be unthinkable for the police not to consult the Crown Prosecution Service about whether each significiant step was proportionate in the context of the alleged offence and the material already gathered.&#8221;  </p>
<p>Either the CPS were not consulted, which would have been a serious error of judgement by the police, or the CPS are being deliberately disingenuous.  </p>
<p>Either way, the Statement just issued by Acting Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson, is helpful and the review announced needs to look at (amongst many other things) precisely this point.  </p>
<p>Sir Paul&#8217;s statement says:<br />
“I am properly concerned about the issues being raised within the continuing debate surrounding the ongoing investigation into the leaking of Government information.<br />
“I have therefore appointed Ian Johnston, Chairman of ACPO Crime Committee and Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, to conduct an urgent review of our decisions, actions and handling of the investigation to date and to provide me with an interim report within 7 days and a final report within two weeks.<br />
“In the meantime the investigation team will be meeting with the CPS to review progress and consider next steps.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Tucker</title>
		<link>http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/lets-keep-the-row-about-damian-greens-arrest-in-proportion/comment-page-1/#comment-67</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Tucker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/?p=128#comment-67</guid>
		<description>Actually the CPS have confirmed that they were not consulted about the arrest of Damien Green.  However it appears that they may have lied and told the Serjeant of Arms that they were acting on CPS advice.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually the CPS have confirmed that they were not consulted about the arrest of Damien Green.  However it appears that they may have lied and told the Serjeant of Arms that they were acting on CPS advice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
