Jacqui Smith at bay

Her Indian counterpart resigned because his ministry was responsible for the forces responding to the Mumbai terrorist incident and there were criticisms about the speed of that response. No-one suggests that he was personally responsible for the errors. No-one suggests that he was consulted in advance about operational matters. However, he honourably accepted that he was politically responsible. Jacqui Smith's approach to her job is somewhat different.

Smith has political responsibility for a police force, which on the face of it has behaved disgracefully toward Damien Green MP and his family. In a wooden, coached performance during which her blink-rate was sufficient to fan Andrew Marr's wispy hair, she refused to apologise for Green's treatment. Holding herself rigidly (I suspect to suppress body language tell-tales of lying), she blanked Marr in classic New Labour style by repeating prepared phrases.

Worse, she slurred Damien Greeen by suggesting there were other leaks that were not "in the public domain" (thus confirming, in effect, that the leaks we know about could not justify the action taken). Pressed by Marr, she refused to say anything about other leaks - leaving Green's name blackened with no opportunity to defend himself. Asked if she had authorised wiretaps on her political opponent, she refused - understandably - to confirm or deny, but her eyes told the truth.

I do not believe for a second that the police acted independently in this case. Nor do I believe for a second that senior civil servants initiated the investigations without political direction. Why would a senior civil servant at the peak of his career take risks for political masters who would cast him aside without a thought if it suited them? Labour's paw-prints are all over this story.

Smith's performane was stilted and ultimately unconvincing. So many New Labour mediocrities seem not to understand the concept of civil liberties. It seems to me that she understands, but does not care. She is of the political "righteous" for whom the end always justifies the means. How long, I wonder, before the political master to whom she is such a fawning cur casts her to the wolves?

Comments

[Tom]

You must be off the party leash tonight, Bob. This, from the Guardian, (full text to be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/02/ian.blair.resigns).

"Smith will appoint the new commissioner after consultations with Johnson and the Metropolitan Police Authority."

This from the job advert issued by the Home Office:

"The appointment will be made by Her Majesty The Queen following a recommendation by the Home Secretary under the Police Act 1996."

Do keep up.

[Bob]

You've got it in one. Boris Johnson!

[Tom]

Boris Johnson persuaded him to quit (rather expensively by all accounts) but his replacement was appointed by whom Bob? On whom did that person's career advancement depend?

[Bob]

" A police officer is employed by a monopoly employer; the State." Which explains how Boris Johnson effectively dismissed the Head of the Met? So, for senior Metropolitan Police officers, the "chain of command" ends with a Tory Mayor, so your answer is the usual smokescreen drivel.

Oh, marmalade... your quaint sense of privilege is touching, but I really can't be bothered to stoop down to your bowed-at-the-knee level to engage. Be careful not to wear the knees out of your trousers.

[Tom]

marmalade, I didn't say anything about them abusing parliamentary privilege. I merely pointed out that they are hypocrites to be so outraged by one of their own suffering at the hands of the police when they have all voted more and more police powers in the past 11 years, ostensibly to combat Goldstein One and Goldstein Two (pat. pending). The police are out of order on Greengate certainly, but they are out of order generally - and MPs don't seem to care much about that. I have no doubt that you or I could have our houses ransacked, emails diverted and love letters stolen on a flimsy pretext (and/or on political orders) and no MP would bat an eyelid.

[Tom]

To help Bob over the shock of my agreeing with him, I have been reading back to discover which of his points I have failed to address (as he keeps accusing me). There is only one;

"Why would a senior police officer in the Met. who has see his boss forced out of a job by a Conservative politician who has just taken over the responsibility for the Met., risk his entire career by acting on the instruction of a Labor politician against some muppet of an opposition politician who barely anyone had ever heard of before last Friday?"

It hardly seemed worth answering because the answer is so bleeding obvious to anyone not blinded by political partisanship. A police officer is employed by a monopoly employer; the State. His career prospects ultimately depend on the chain of command. That chain of command ends - in the broadest sense - in the Home Office. Therefore an ambitious police officer given a chance to do something that will please (or avoid annoying) the Home Secretary (or, even better, the senior Home Office civil servants who will still be there when she is gone) would be a mug NOT to do it.

When you observe how police/public relations have deteriorated in Britain under Labour, the truth of this becomes rather clear. Our police forces, immigration officers and (for all I know) coast guards have fallen in line with leftist orthodoxy. For example they now give every impression of regarding "incorrect" thought and speech as worse than crimes against property or the person. They have also dramatically changed their tone in dealing with the public, becoming much more arrogant and rude when dealing with us. It's a small example compared to the dramatic evidence available on YouTube, but try reading the signs as you pass through immigration these days. They are all in the imperative voice, with nary a please or thank you. They are commands, not requests.

I have made citizen's arrests in my time, but I would now deny all knowledge of a crime I had witnessed, rather than become entangled with a politicised force I regard (for all there are many fine members of it, as witness the police bloggers) with suspicion.

[marmalade]

Tom Paine, the fact that MPs may have abused parliamentary privilege in the past is neither here nor there in the present debate. The question is whether or not the police had a legal right to do what they did in this particular case. On balance, I do not believe that they did. Whilst I may share your opinion that politicans generally are a sickening bunch of hypocrites who have connived at the passing of a raft of represssive, authoritarian measures, it is principle that concerns me.

[marmalade]

Your man of the people act may work on those poor saps who have to service those Sandwell local government committees which you bless with your wit and insight, but you seem incapable of spotting an issue, and arguing the pros and cons intelligently and coherently. Quite extraordinary. Ranting like a drunk in a shopping mall is not political debate. You make the bizarre assumption that because I disagree with you and think your argument ill-thought out, that therefore I must be an evil tory who supports Derek Conway and who would have liked to have seen Harold Shipman acquitted. Whereas in truth I just think you are a bit slow on the uptake. I believe the searching of Damian Green's office and the taking of his papers, including confidential information, is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. Tell me why it's not?

[Tom]

Actually, though I would not be so insulting (and though he may be wrong to think marmalade a libertarian) I agree with the essence of Bob's last point. It is quite sickening to witness the pompous indignation of parliamentarians who didn't give a damn (and indeed probably didn't even read the drafts) as they enacted one piece of oppressive legislation after another. That legislation potentially subjected their constituents to the treatment they now so resent towards one of their own. The police are now totally out of their box, as this story has dramatised, but who unlocked that box?

[Bob]

It is that subservient, bowing-the-knee to your betters that makes such a snivelling bunch of cowards of you right-wing libertarians. Who gives a two-penny toss whether it is an 'elected official'? Derek the dipper Conway is an elected official. It is the likes of you grovelling toe rags that allows him to steal public money, yes STEAL PUBLIC MONEY, and hide behind the rules of parliamentary privilege rather than spend his time sewing mailbags with the rest of the criminal classes. Constitution law my arse.

Get off your bloody knees and act like a grown up instead of some 6th form public schoolboy for christ's sake.

[marmalade]

The thing is 'Bob', is that if this had been a Labour MP in opposition, I would have felt equally outraged, because my concern is with the principle of parliamentary privilege. (Funny as it may seem to you, I like living in a parliamentary democracy where the police know their place in the scheme of things). However, I suspect that your outrage in such circumstances would come about for purely partisan reasons ('wicked Tory government' etc). You're full of bluff and bluster for sure, but I don't get the impression of much substance under the surface. So go onto Amazon and buy a book on constitutional law and then read it. You may learn something. It will be a new experience for you. Oh, and by the way, your analogy with Shipman is flawed - he wasn't an elected official.

[Bob]

Yes, marmalade, (where do these muppets get their pet names from) nice to see you understand the principles yourself. Oh no, I forgot, you didn't explain the "principles" did you? Perhaps that was too complicated for you, because you relied on Tom's get out when stuck for an argument, and had to rely on that intellectual exercise of sticking your tongue out and running away.

Anyway, perhaps my Conservative opponent, explaining that in the extremely unlikely event he were to be elected, would also care to send out a circular pointing out that if he or she is elected and decide to use their position for criminal ends he will be able to hide behind the fact that he is an elected official and therefore above the law, so he cannot be fully investigated. Good job for your granny her Doctor wasn't Harold Shipman because you would have allowed him to avoid prosecution on the same grounds.

Tom, at least I know you write your own stuff. I know most of the time you Tory bloggers are just playing "Sooty" to Iain Dale's Harry Corbett, but your arguments on this one have been so lame and lacking content you obviously haven't had sufficient time to consult his master's voice. Try Iain first next time, I'm sure he'll oblige you.

[marmalade]

Oh, and by the way 'Bob', you may wish to send a circular letter to all your constituents advising them that any correspondence they have already sent you or which they may send you in the future is subject to the scrutiny of, and retention by, anti-terrorist police, that you are quite happy for this to be the case as it is in the interests of protecting the state, and that if any one of them has the temerity to object to this, then they are merely typical bloody right wing nitwits.

In fact, why not just open all your files and indeed your office once a month to the police so that they can rootle through at their leisure and take whatever interests them? Given that you clearly hold the office of MP in such low regard, this seems entirely fitting.

I would have thought that even you would have realsied that any event that has Harriet Harman suddenly rediscovering her civil libertarian conscience is of major political significance.

[marmalade]

I think you are being too harsh on Jacqui Smith - it is really not her fault that she is an insolent, historically illiterate dullard, who has been appointed home secretary after only ten years as an MP. Such a woman cannot be expected to understand our traditional civil liberties and it is cruel to expect her to do so. It was obviously only by some terrible clerical error that she was appointed. Clearly they really intended to appoint that bloke Bob. Now there's a man who understands the principles at stake.

[Tom]

Come on, Bob. Be generous and give a name check to the Party drone who's composing this stuff for you. There's nothing in the history of your blog to suggest you are capable of it. OK, I will bite. The answers are (b) and "ignore her." The only problem is that isn't what happened, is it? Only in your new-found role as "Boxer" to Gordon Brown's "Napoleon," could you possibly believe it is. Pull the other, belled leg Bob and let the Christmas cheer peal out.

[Bob]

Again, a singular failure to address the points... why am I not surprised? I'll ask you the same 'o' level government question I asked a Tory blogger elsewhere, but he doesn't have the intellect to answer it either, so I suspect I'll get a really clever response about football or tennis from you.

What is a 'political' police force? Is it:

a) One where the police, despite the evidence they may or may not have obtained, ask a Government politician before taking any action.

Or

b) One where the politicians set the legislative framework and policies, and account to Parliament, and the police do the operational bit (i.e. policing).

If your answer is a) please move to section 2.

Section 2.

What should the police do if the Home Secretary tells them to ignore the evidence and take no action? Should the Home Secretary have the same veto over a Government politician - say, for instance one accused of 'cash for honours' or should it only be over opposition politicians?

[Tom]

...and sometimes question marks are to provide cover for slurs. Which is what this whole story has been - an orchestrated slur. It's coming unstuck though, isn't it Bob? You may be providing covering popgun fire for the retreat (with someone, somewhere providing you with uncharacteristically polysyllabic ammunition) but I don't see Harriet Harman or your usual Old Labour chums doing so. Labour has accidentally unmasked itself. It will soon be time to concentrate on blogging about the Villa. One mediocre loser blogging about a team of them. How apt.

[Bob]

Still, it enabled you to avoid answering any of the points raised. a typical right-wing blogging diversionary tactic.

[Bob]

Except I didn't. Before anyone knew why Green had been arrested I asked a question if it was another case of the Derek Conways. That's what question marks are for... to differentiate between statements and questions.

[Tom]

... "jumping to banal conclusions without any evidence to back them up?" ....

I particularly enjoyed that criticism from the man who applied the word "sleaze" to this story when it first broke.

[Bob]

No she doesn't - you bloody nitwit! That is an operational matter and the head of the Met. will have to justify it to Boris Johnson. The Home Office determines POLICY.

Let's just wait and see.... what, you mean before jumping to banal conclusions without any evidence to back them up?

God's teeth!

[Tom]

... you mean people like me and Tony Benn, Bob? Let's wait and see, shall we? Smith still has to account for why victims of violent crime or serious crimes against property are lucky to see one police officer, when there are 20 free at a time publicly to humiliate opposition MPs.

[Bob]

"I do not believe for a second that the police acted independently in this case. Nor do I believe for a second that senior civil servants initiated the investigations without political direction. Why would a senior civil servant at the peak of his career take risks for political masters who would cast him aside without a thought if it suited them?"

But it doesn't really matter what YOU believe. What you are saying in a rather childish way is that it doesn't matter what the evidence is - the politician saying she knew nothing about the operation, the police saying they were not politically directed, the civil servants saying they initiated the enquiry in the first place - you are only going to believe what you WANT to believe.

Answer this one then. Why would a senior police officer in the Met. who has see his boss forced out of a job by a Conservative politician who has just taken over the responsibility for the Met., risk his entire career by acting on the instruction of a Labor politician against some muppet of an opposition politician who barely anyone had ever heard of before last Friday?

And when you've finished with that one, wrap your grey matter around this: Should elected politicians direct the operations of a police force, particularly when the operations concern opposition politicians? If your answer is yes, then you truly do want a political police state. If your answer is no, then you agree with me and Jacqui Smith.

The story now emerging is that the police found out that a Conservative civil servant, who had applied for a job with errrrm, Damien Green, and who had stood for office as a conservative candidate, was leaking information which civil servants privately held. That information may have been 'political' information, not policy information which would embarrass the Home Office, and be in the public interest, but party political information. That is pretty close to Watergate scale corruption, and it is why the Special Branch - not the anti-terrorist squad - were involved.

If this information is tied in to Green (and we understand another VERY senior Conservative), you Stalinist State people are going to look a wee bit stupid.

[Guthrum]

She cannot have it both ways- picking and choosing when she is actually in charge of the Home Office.