‘Apparently’ is the new ‘definitely’

DO-NOTHNG continues to spread smear and innuendo, this time through a slot in the News of the World.

Writing about Damien Green’s arrest, he says:

Why is it so important that the Prime Minister tells us what he thinks?

Because people want to know what their political leaders think about the right to vigorous opposition in politics, the right to publish information which is in the public interest, the rights of MPs holding the government to account, and the rights of Parliament itself.

In other words, it is out of the question that Green could have been arrested for anything other than opposing the government. By implication, therefore, we live in the Brave New World of 1984, police state, blah, blah…

It is an outrageous assertion. It is also unworthy for the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition. But it is entirely to be expected of David Cameron.

And why has there not been a chorus of outrage about Do-Nothing’s assertion that opposition MPs should have unique immunity from the process of law (but only when the opposition is the Conservative Party, presumably)?

His central argument seems to be found in this sentence:

The question is, does he think it is right for an MP who has apparently done nothing to breach our national security to have his home and office searched by a dozen counter-terrorist police officers, his phone, BlackBerry and computers confiscated, and to be arrested and held for nine hours?

That’s a curious turn of phrase, is it not? “… an MP who has apparently done nothing to breach our national security…”?

Why “apparently”? Why didn’t Dave write that Green had “undoubtedly” done nothing to breach national security? By inserting “apparently”, Do-Nothing is deliberately allowing himself a get-out, just in case the police investigation comes up with something.

Which is the point I’ve been making for days now: only following a police investigation can anyone know whether Damien has a case to answer or not.


PS: Interestingly, in his News of the World article, Cameron describes Green not as the Tory Party’s spokesman on immigration, but as “my spokesman on immigration”. So the shadow team are no longer speaking for their party but for their leader. The ego has landed!



Filed under Conservative Party, David Cameron, Media

48 responses to “‘Apparently’ is the new ‘definitely’

  1. I’ve started selling pitchforks on my blog. Get yours NOW!

  2. robtro

    You’re nit picking Tom, this row is doing a massive amount of damage to Labour at the moment, and from the sound of Harriet Harmans Sky interview she also sounds concerned that something has gone terribly wrong, maybe the party doesn’t have anything to do with it, but the police answer to the Home Office and Smith answers to the people. Somewhere, somehow the system has broken in such a way that our democracy is being damaged.

    What I want to know is what’s happened to all Greens data that’s been seized! All his communications between constituents are now in the hands of the police, its a disgrace. Why should I trust sending any documents in confidence to my MP? I can’t! and neither can anyone else.

  3. Ypu have a point, Robtro. Maybe we should have a system where the police have to ask ministers’ permission before they make an arrest.

  4. Andy

    I do think you’ve badly mis-judged this one. It is right that we are all subject to the law and it is possible that Green may have transgressed it.

    However a perfectly fair and sensible position would be to state that you condemn utterly any attempt by anyone to prevent any MP from holding the Executive to account. Such a statement would in no way counter the “let’s see what he’s accused of” stance and is I ssume that that is what you must believe as an MP?

  5. Andy – if you check out this post, you’ll see what my view is on holding the executive to account. To save you the time, I said this: “Certainly, Damien has simply been doing his job, rather effectively, in using information given to him to raise valid concerns about immigration policy. I cannot, in all honesty, say that in opposition, I would not have done eactly the same as Damien did.”

    But in his position, I would also have to accept that if I overstepped the mark and broke the law (which he may or may not have done), I would have to face the consequences and accept due process.

    But no-one is saying that MPs should not hold the executive to account. It is part of Cameron’s smear tactics to imply that if an opposition spokesman is arrested, it must be for political reasons. After all, Damien Green is a Tory, so how could he possibly have broken the law in any way?

  6. It hardly matters that Green has had all his emails siezed, his mobile phone siezed and his landline cut off.

    ZanuLabour are going to record all our phone calls and Emails anyway along with our browsing habits.

    Aren’t they Tom?

  7. madasafish

    SO Tom
    If you think Damian Green is in the wrong, when are you inviting police to arrest Gordon Brown as he has confessed in public to receiving leaked information.

    AND may I remind you , some time you will be in Opposition.
    I have every confidence if this abuse of power continues, the Conservatives in Government will do exactly to Labour what Labour are doing to them.

    Because it is the nature of those in power to abuse it. And Parliament is our (i.e. the voters) only stop against abuse of mpower.

    You by your petty articles are effectively saying the Executive can do what it liked.

    The Conservatives did that 1992-97 and look where it got them. Lies, scnadals and out of power for a decafe plus.

    Now this is even more blatant.

    All you need is to get a paranoid powerhungry leader and we become a police state. That is the way we are heading.

  8. John

    “Which is the point I’ve been making for days now: only following a police investigation can anyone know whether Damien has a case to answer or not.”

    So you believe that the police should have the power to investigate MP’s activities? Should they also have the power to confiscate constituent files, and barge into westminister with a search warrant?

    I’m not being hostile btw, it’s just that my point is whether he did anything wrong or not is actually irrelevant to the main issue that’s got people’s hair up. That is, that the police are investigating a serving MP for activities that concern his behaviour AS an MP. That should be well beyond their remit in any democratic country, and is in all but states like Zimbabwe.

    No-one’s saying that MP’s should be outside the law, just outside police involvement as far as their activities as an MP is concerned. If they commit assault etc.. then arrest them. If there is alleged wrongdoing as far as their public office is concerned, that should be parliaments to investigate and punish.

  9. Johnny Norfolk


    Please just think about it.
    You are in opposition and someone leaks to you some information, you know to be true that the Tory government is trying to hide. The 9 police arrive at your house with your wife and children at home, search it, she finds out you have been arrested and are kept locked up being questioned for 9 yes 9 hours. They go through your office and take away all your Apple equipment to search etc etc.

    Just how would you and your family feel. I am dissapointed in you Tom that you have not been outraged about it. You have let us down. You also must be in fear of your party.

    This is a black time for Britain with Browns police state. You should be fighting for freedom.

  10. iain ker

    ‘THE-NEXT-PRIME-MINISTER continues to spread smear and innuendo.’

    Sweet Jesus, I can’t believe you typed that with a straight face.

    Nulabour wrote the book on sleaze and innuendo, my friend.

  11. Andy

    Tom thanks for the reply. I would say that politicians smearing each other is hardly new – sadly it is what we’ve come to expect. Remember GB in the last couple of years of the Major gov?

    It was ever thus, and its a shame

  12. iain ker

    Tom, there’s a decent youtube of Moses on Iain Dale’s blog. Why not do your readers a favour and stick it on your site as well. I’m sure Iain would be quite happy with the credit.

  13. Jane

    I feel very uncomfortable with the whole episode. I thought Jacqui Smith was also uncomfortable on the Andrew Marr show this morning. I fully accept that her department holds highly sensitive information and that I may not be aware of the totality of the leaks. I am aware of the leaks that made it into the press and as far as I am concerned these were not related to national security. I was not persuaded by her argument about national security somehow being at risk and embarrassed that she stated this.

    I also believe that she knew that an opposition MP would be arrested. I do accept she did not know when the arrest would take place and this was probably to protect her from the likely furore that would follow. I have listened carefully to how words were used during the interview and have come to this conclusion.

    I think it is wrong (based on the information to hand and as disclosed by the MP involved) that the police were permitted entry to the Palace of Westminster if national security was not in question. To gain entry and the timing involves permission and negotiation at the highest level. I find it strange that a newly appointed person made this decision without the approval of the Speaker and he no doubt consulted those above him. It seems logical to me that the Home Office, Cabinet Office and No 10 were involved.

    I reacted with horror when Ruth Turner was arrested at dawn during the Honours Investigation. I thought the investigation at the time would come to nothing and the police had little substance to pursue such an enquiry. I am alarmed at Special Branch officers (20 apparently)involved in this enquiry under common law. Do we have too many Police Officers? I am of the opinion that nothing will come out of this enquiry and would also state that if the MP is question is ever prosecuted the whole of Parliament and government would be brought into disrepute. Dominic Grieve has raised numerous pertinent questions which need to be addressed otherwise the Government will come out of this badly.

    We have just had a trial thrown out regarding leaks during which time those charged suffered greatly. The tribulations of a provisional journalist are horrific to read. It seems that Damien Green too suffered as did his family. It is right that the leader of his party raises concerns and expects a response from the PM. I too want a response from the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the Speaker. Police entering Westminster in pursuit of an offence under this archaic legislation had approval. I would be astonished if the Home Secretary was not in the loop.

    In all this is a sad day for me. We have introduced legislation to combat international terrorism which is being used for all purposes which was not the intention. We have archaic laws on the book which do not fit current circumstances. Recently introduced legislation has given too much power to the police. I sincerely hope that reports in todays press that the police stated the DPP had given approval (apparently he did not) are not accurate?

    Finally, I do not accept the police carried out this action without approval at the highest level of both the police and government.

    I am disappointed Tom that your assertions are partisan as the issues involved are serious and should not be discussed from a party political standpoint. If Damien Green had been arrested for a Serious Criminal Offence or an offence which threatened National Security then David Cameron would not have called on the PM to reply. Nor indeed would the press have been so condemnatory of the police and the government’s actions.

    A sad day for democracy and for the government. This arrest has been the subject of many dinner table discussions. It is widely held amongst my group that this arrest was political, instigated by a bullying government who have held office for too long and to set an example as to the consequences of further transgressions to both civil servants and opposition MPs. I am unable to persuade people of alternate explanations when I am hit with facts such as most leaks are dealt with by internal disciplinary procedures and this has been abandoned etc etc. There is no doubt in my mind that this incident has damaged the government Tom and it is wrong to try and deflect this criticism on to the opposition leader.

  14. Tacitus

    “It is part of Cameron’s smear tactics”

    Oh. Hadn’t realised Alastair Campbell had “crossed the floor”.

    Gotta love the Speaker tho’. He’s sure got a hole lotta gall…

  15. Tom, got a bit of a bombshell for you here

    Apart from her obvious evasion over the issue of who knew what, something has been bothering about the Home Secretary’s assertion in her interview with Andrew Marr this morning.

    For days know, Ms Smith & Gordon Brown have spitting out the line that Police independence is paramount, as if the police were not under the control of the Home Office. Only if this is true (or if the Police are truly out of control) can Labour escape the charge that they have facilitated the arrest of a member of the opposition in a direct assault upon centuries of constitutional privilege.

    Ms Smith was asked on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme if she would say sorry – but said it would be wrong for her to intervene in a police investigation. Had she intervened it would have been “Stalinist” as she believed in the principle of police being independent even when things get “tricky”.

    All very plausible. “Police independence” sounds like a good idea.

    Until you consider that it was the same Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary – who prevented the SFO (who last time I checked were a part of the Police) from investigating corruption allegations in relation to Saudia Arabian arms contracts.

    The head of an influential parliamentary arms committee today said he was “very concerned” at the government’s refusal to cooperate with the US criminal investigation into allegations of corruption against BAE Systems.
    More than two months after the US justice department formally requested assistance in its investigation of Britain’s biggest arms company, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, has failed to pass on the request to the Serious Fraud Office.

    Ms Smith’s go-ahead is required before the SFO can cooperate.

    So there you have it – Police independence is paramount. Except when it isn’t.

    Hat tip to Cassius

  16. Not as much “a bombshell” as “interesting but not very relevant.”

  17. Chris' Wills

    OH wrote “ZanuLabour are going to record all our phone calls and Emails anyway along with our browsing habits.”

    But Jaquie Smith has heard the voices saying that this is the will of the people. Along with everyone desperate to have the goverment hold all their personnel details in a big database which wil be totally secure with her in charge. Nothing will ever get lost, all safe in Jaquie’s LaLa land.

    Oh Tom,

    What are these ultra serious other leaks. The nosey want to know. Or is it so secret (where Jaquie gets her hair done for example) that the trial will be held in camera?

  18. Jay

    I don’t think that this affair can be quietly buried, and nor should it be. I would like to see the Prime Minister grilled by an unbiased journalist with terrier-like qualities. Unless the Government at the highest level offers a plausible explanation I think that it might well be the last nail in its coffin. Actually, I doubt that there is a plausible explanation (but then I wouldn’t trust this Government to inform me that night follows day).

  19. Precisely the point, Jay – the evidence (or lack of it) pointing to direct government involvement in this affair is neither here nor there. If you already hate this government and the Labour Party, you don’t need evidence to convince you.

  20. AngryVoter

    There’s also the lack of evidence pointing to Green doing anything wrong other than his job as an opposition MP.

    Micheal Howard and Cameron make the right phrase when they say Brown would be in jail being endlessly questioned when he did exactly the same thing. Even then the government should be outraged by the fact this happened.

    Of course Micheal Martin screwed over Parlimentary soverignty a long time ago when he basically got rid of the Serjant-at-arms and replaced it with a former member of the executive.

  21. Chris' Wills

    Tom, “If you already hate this government and the Labour Party, you don’t need evidence to convince you.”

    You can hate people Tom, hating an organisation or collective such as a goverment or a political party is a bit weird.

    In truth the earlier incarnation of the Labour Party, before it became Nu actually achieved some things I considered good. Sadly the Nu version has worked to destroy many of the liberties the original Labour party fought for.

    The main point is, we need evidence to trust you now. You have to show that you are worthy of trust; trust and respect are earned not given.

    Given the actions of those in NuLabor goverments and their obvious contempt for the electorate you’ve a long road to travel.

  22. Donkey Kong

    Has Alistair Campbell been writing blog entries for you this last week?

  23. “There’s also the lack of evidence pointing to Green doing anything wrong other than his job as an opposition MP.”

    How do you know that, Angry? Have you a source in the police? Has it not occurred to you that the police might have some information that’s not yet in the public domain?

  24. Jay

    “If you already hate this government and the Labour Party, you don’t need evidence to convince you.”

    Well, actually, Tom, you do if you’re a rational person, it just means that sceptics like myself will require more than a cursory explanation and doubt that it will be forthcoming.

    I think that this is such a serious matter that there are questions that the electorate is entitled to have answered not least of which is the basic question why, with or without Government involvement, the UK is now a country where a squad of counter-terrorism officers can cart off a middle-aged senior MP for nine hours.

    I would be pleasantly surprised were the Government to show respect for the concerns provoked by this episode and address them fully and without prevarication.

  25. “Ypu [sic] have a point, Robtro. Maybe we should have a system where the police have to ask ministers’ permission before they make an arrest.”

    We do, but it’s not the decision of the minister, rather the speaker. We had a rather bloody war over it.

    “PS: Interestingly, in his News of the World article, Cameron describes Green not as the Tory Party’s spokesman on immigration, but as “my spokesman on immigration”. So the shadow team are no longer speaking for their party but for their leader. The ego has landed!”

    And The Prime Minister referred to the government as “my government” in a press release once, offending both democrats and monarchists in the process. HM government no longer speaking for either HM or her subjects. That release didn’t even have the excuse of being in a 600-word Tabloid comment piece. I am outraged and will be complaining about this at length at my blog. Truly sickening, serious constitutional issue, clear that PM is egomaniac etc. etc.

  26. Rory

    This ‘do-nothing’ tag isn’t very convincing Tom. I realise it’s the line you’ve been forced to take but it doesn’t hold water. It would be much more convincing if you critisised the Conservative measures (money to employers to take long-term unemployed etc.).

    In addition, I assume your opinion would be the same re. Damian Green if Gordon Brown had been arrested by anti-terrorist police in the 1990s. I find it doubtful. This goes beyond party politics hence the cross-party anger directed towards the parties involved. As a back-bencher, government collective responsibilty no longer applies.

    On a seperate point, and much more important, what about Max Beesley for the next Doctor? He’s pretty good in ‘Survivors’. Your thoughts?

  27. madasafish

    Leader of the Commons Harriet Harman has said she is “very concerned” by the arrest of Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green.

    Ms Harman also said she understood MPs’ anger at the way police officers had raided Mr Green’s Parliamentary and constituency bases.

    And she said protection of MPs’ offices from police raids must be reviewed

  28. ani

    @Chris’ Wills
    Old Holborn posts this assertion to Tom.
    “It hardly matters that Green has had all his emails siezed, his mobile phone siezed and his landline cut off.
    ZanuLabour are going to record all our phone calls and Emails anyway along with our browsing habits.”

    Old Holborn posts this assertion to Dale
    “Aren’t all our Emails, mobile telephone calls, texts and web browsing going to be logged by ZNL anyway?

    This is the response on Dale
    Inspector Morse said…
    “Relax! Only the bits that log the to, from, when data are to be held. Not the contents. NuLabGov.uk told us so, so it must be true. (actually, it may well be true – just imagine the size of hard disk needed to store complete emails and fax/phone call contents for several years for the entire UK population)”

    Typical that before he posted his non – ‘bombshell’ here he didn’t have the grace to admit that his frequently posted assertion had been corrected, and not by any old ZNL whose credibility he could rubbish, but an ‘associate’ on Dale.

    And no, I didn’t check Guido, though I’d bet his assertion’s there, but the thought of ploughing through all that foul mouthed exaggerated comment needs a stronger stomach than mine.

    So. For plastering porkies around the blogs, an hour on the naughty seat wearing a ridiculous mask and flowing cape would seem to be in order here.
    Jump to it!

  29. You’ve gone native since you were slung back on the reject pile of non-entity Labour backbenchers, haven’t you? Still trying to curry favour in the hope that you might still be fed a crumb or two by the Great leader?

    Don’t bother. Over half of those never-quite-made-it comrades that sit braying like donkeys at PMQs with you will be out on their ears when the Bottler finally consigns you to the dustbin of history. Think positive: just sit on your large majority and while away your time to a comfortable retirement secure in the knowledge you were always right.

    As for the ‘do nothing’ tag you and the Mandelson/Campbell spin factory are trying to peddle, don’t insult people’s intelligence with this nonsense. The Conservatives have put forward just as many (if not more) ideas about what they would do about the absolute mess that Labour has made of the country’s finances. The fact is they are HM’s Opposition – not the government. Their job is to oppose (ie point out the flaws they think there are in the policies being followed and, maybe, agree with the bits they think might work).

    If David Cameron was really worthy of the ‘do nothing’ tag he would do nothing. Instead, he’s vigorously opposing what he considers to be the mistakes that the Government is making and saying what his party would do if they were able to get their hands on the levers of power.

    Oh, and by the way, watch out for the next run on the pound, the next re-financing package for the banks and the failure of the Treasury to sell sufficient bonds to finance the record debts that they require to fill the black hole that has been dug by Brown and Darling. Instead of worrying about who is going to be the next Dr Who why not read a few economics text books?

  30. JohnH

    I am appalled by the indignant outrage of MPs. This is not a case of a one off Pontingesque, principalled leak. The suggestion appears to be that Green was trying to run a spy in whitehall. The leaks were not principal driven but politically driven.

    That is unacceptable, you change governments by winning arguments in elections, not by infiltrating and undermining the civil service. This is as outrageous and undemocratic as hounding Wendy Mcdonald from office.

    If Green has groomed and procured misconduct then he must be held to account. This behaviour can not be legitimoised.

  31. madasafish


    So you are in favour of Gordon Brown being tried for grooming leakers?

    How interesting.

    Good luck in getting him arrested.

  32. Johnny Norfolk

    I have just read Jack Straws remarks about this. Does he not know that it is your government that has passed laws that has allowed this to happen.

    You can not get away from this fact.

    Labour just looks on hands in pockets and does NOTHING about it.

    Looks like the Home office is run by civil servants not the Home Secratery as she says she knew nothing about it. If that is true she is not fit for any kind of office. She than fails to say sorry or do anything about it.

    Tom you must wake up to all that is going on. Your leaders are out of control.

  33. Jay


    “running a spy”?? Damian Green is a respectable member of HM’s Opposition, not a member of the secret service. How could he control a civil servant? What are you suggesting that he offered as inducement? In what regard has he behaved differently from other Ministers who, in the past, have received leaked information?

    And how provocative for the police to describe his alleged behaviour as ‘grooming’.

  34. Hey, I just thought I’d share this Labour joke with you all:

    “The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to obtain information held by public authorities unless there are good reasons to keep it confidential.”

    Yeah, right.

  35. ani

    Ah. There you are Caped Crusader.
    So you weren’t suggesting that the content of your email, browsing habits etc. would be open to inspection then?
    Inspector Morse thought that’s what you were implying, when he responded to you.
    And that’s the impression you’re trying to establish isn’t it – that the police and Goverment, in this ZNL state we
    apparently live in, are interested in the content.
    As if.

  36. Black Rod

    In the present case, had the police waited for 24 hours, they would have learnt of the acquittal of a journalist on the very charge they were investigating. Sally Murrer and her police source, Detective Sergeant Mark Kearney, were both acquitted under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right of every citizen to receive and impart information without interference by public authority

  37. madasafish


    Yiou arer being disingenuous..

    If they are not interested in the contents , why chaneg laws so they can access the contents when they want without warrant?

    If you are saying they are not, then we have now established another excellent way for the Government to save some badly needed money.

  38. Tacitus

    John H,

    Watch this and then you will, I assume, call for Brown’s prosecution

  39. C Jones

    Ani, you are a naive little thing, aren’t you?
    I am deeply concerned about the ways things are going in this country. It beggars belief that the Home Secretary didn’t know about the imminent arrest of Damien Green. This is a government that does not feel robust enough to brook criticism. If we continue on this road, there will come a day when people will be invited in for a nice little chat to explain their emails, blog postings etc. The next step will be a suspension of elections as Brown tries to cling on to power. After that, who knows. Civil War? Unlikely? Read some history.

  40. Chris' Wills

    To ani,

    I realise that you are responding to OH but I think you might care to rethink your consider response.

    Jaquie’s big database and what already exists at GCHQ will have search programs looking for key words/phrases.

    People won’t read what is sent, unless they find a key phrase (unless they get bored and you won’t know) but then they will.

    So they’ll be searching without a warrant.

    The to and from may be permanently logged, logging already happens on your phone so the operating company can bill you but then the record is meant to be deleted after you’ve paid and only the bill retained. Jaquie’s idea is to know who you contacted and who contacted you, again without resort to such legal niceties as a search warrant.

    It is (or maybe that should be was) illegal to open paper mail without a warrant, why should e-mail be any different. The fact that the initial search is done by a machine isn’t of consequences, I could just as easily do the same automatting the scanning of letters then searching the text using a similar type of search program.

    You may think it inconsequential, however some people engage in activities that whilst not illegal they consider private and no business but theirs.

    The goverment and the police DO NOT have a right to know. Strangely it should be the reverse in a democracy, we should know what the police and goverment are upto.

  41. If the Conservatives are a “do-nothing” party, how come you nick all their policies?

  42. Chris' Wills

    Not totally relevant but the new guidelines on the anti-terrorism bill make worrying reading.


    I don’t recoall these being voted on by parliament.

    Section 41 part 8 is wonderful, even if your detention isn’t approved you can still be detained.

    “The refusal of an application in respect of a person’s detention under paragraph 29 or 36 of Schedule 8 shall not prevent his continued detention in accordance with this section.”

    41 part 5 is also a goody, seems the officer only needs to intend to ask for an extention to keep you imprisoned. Didn’t notice any time limit on how long they have to actually act on their intention.

    Worth a read, seems to give the police extended powers with only the approval, at a later time, of Jaquie.

    You can’t even sue them for unlawful arrest unless Jaquie approves.

    Makes me feel all safe and secure.

  43. ani

    Harry T. says.
    “If the Conservatives are a “do-nothing” party, how come you nick all their policies?”

    I think you’ve got it back to front Harry.
    What happens is that the Tories send in one of their naughty moles to pinch an as yet unannounced policy, dress it up a bit, then produce it as their own idea, pre-empting the Government’s announcement.
    Result – egg on Govt. face.

    Suspension of elections next? Well, it’s an interesting thought. Keep a copy of your comment. We may want to revisit it in about twelve month’s time.

    Thanks for your response. I’ve read it carefully, and I accept your obvious concern, but no, sorry, I still think its paranoid nonsense, and to be brutal, if I repeated your explanation to anyone I know, it’d be received either with a belly laugh, or incredulous disbelief.
    Let’s ask Tom for the facts and then have another think. OK?

  44. Ani – I would refer Chris and the rest to this letter I received from Tony McNulty earlier this year and which I blogged on last month. The key sentence is “It does not include the content of a communication”, but let’s face it, people believe what they want to believe, regardless of inconvenient facts.

  45. ani

    Thank you ‘clawsfour’ blog. for this reminder.

    “The outrage that the police have arrested a Tory in the conduct of their investigations does not sit well with their attitude to arrest of Labour politicians and members of staff during the cash for honours investigation. This was summed up quite neatly at the time by Conservative MP Nigel Evans who said the arrests were a “seismic” development, adding:

    “It is important, we have to realise that the allegations are very serious indeed. Nobody is above the law, not the prime minister and not Lord Levy either, and this is something I think that we all have to learn.”

    When it was proved that there was no case to answer, wasn’t it labeled a ‘whitewash’, which is allegedly what all enquiries have been, according to Tories.
    And that whitewash jibe should be borne in mind if Green is found not to have committed wrongdoing.
    It would appear that once the police have been called in you are pretty much done for, and the no smoke without fire, and claims of corruption can be overwhelming.

    Signs are already pointing to Tory Green being treated more sympathetically by the media than ever a Labour politician has been, and over at CiF an article from Iain Dale expressing his outrage (not again!) isn’t gaining total support. Surprisingly.

  46. Chris' Wills

    Ani “Thanks for your response. I’ve read it carefully, and I accept your obvious concern, but no, sorry, I still think its paranoid nonsense, and to be brutal, if I repeated your explanation to anyone I know, it’d be received either with a belly laugh, or incredulous disbelief.”

    I can only say that those you know must be very trusting of goverment and the state apparatus or possibly not well read in message interception.

    Not sure why you think the comment is brutal, I don’t think worrying about freedom and liberty being lost is wrong even if you and your associates find the idea risable.

    You might look up the troubles caused by the use of the Patriot Act in the USA.
    I would mention in passing that some years ago the Irish Republic objected strongly to message interception by the UK goverment (at that time it was conservatives in charge) of messages relayed via the UK.

    Paranoid I may be, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong, I find it sad that people are happy to forgo hard won freedoms for spurious security.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s