true... but can he still be held to account for comments made 23 years ago in very different circumstances?... maybe..

 

Of course he can... Broon can bleat all he wants about "national security" or terrorism, but in '85, we had the IRA bombing left, right and centre, so that is just an utter bullsh!t excuse because national security concerns about this sort of thing would've been exactly the same.... :rolleyes:

 

No, this is Police-State-by-stealth, neo-con, control freakery, and nothing else mate....

 

The "great" has disappeared from Britain, and now we actually know the real reasons why, instead of the ones which "they" would like us to believe..... <_<

In fairness, we don't know that Brown personally approves of this whole affair... it's possible he wasn't told about it, and he can't really criticise the police while the investigation is going on. Jacqui Smith, on the other hand... I can't believe that she didn't personally authorise this investigation, and if she's willing to abuse her powers in this way, she really needs to get fired.

In fairness, we don't know that Brown personally approves of this whole affair... it's possible he wasn't told about it, and he can't really criticise the police while the investigation is going on. Jacqui Smith, on the other hand... I can't believe that she didn't personally authorise this investigation, and if she's willing to abuse her powers in this way, she really needs to get fired.

 

Problem is, whether his direct fault or not, Broon has NOT condemned the affair... He damn well SHOULD have something to say about Mr Speaker letting a bunch of bloody coppers waltz in WITHOUT A WARRANT and do whatever takes their fancy in the offices of a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED OFFICIAL, this is nothing to do with interfering with the actual investigation, but it is certainly within his remit to criticise the actions of the Speaker for allowing it to happen in this manner, and he damn well should be grilling his Home Secretary on her involvement...... At the end of the day, his silence is absolutely deafening, and given his own track record of continually utilising civil service leaks to embarrass the previous Tory administration, it is a position on the utmost hypocrisy in my book....

And now Boris Johnson has been accused of interfering in this affair. Whether he's done anything illegal or not it's still pretty stupid. As the self-appointed Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority he should not be giving his opinion on an ongoing investigation. And the same applies to the Prime Minister and Home Scretary.

And now Boris Johnson has been accused of interfering in this affair. Whether he's done anything illegal or not it's still pretty stupid. As the self-appointed Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority he should not be giving his opinion on an ongoing investigation. And the same applies to the Prime Minister and Home Scretary.

 

Excuse me, but it seems pretty damn clear to me that this "investigation" was politically motivated to begin with, because the "investigation" itself seems to be going nowhere, no charges made against Green, etc, you question someone for nine hours and ransack their home and office, you should really have a fukkin' GOOD reason to do so.... So, I do tend to feel that in this particular instance, the Police certainly should have to answer some pretty serious questions to justify their actions....

 

Still, I suppose it's a bit reassuring to see that the Metropolitan Police are equal opportunities Fascists and aren't JUST targeting working class Muslims, Blacks or Brazilians..... :rolleyes:

 

The PM should certainly be asking questions of the Speaker and his Home Sec if not the Police themselves....

 

Excuse me, but it seems pretty damn clear to me that this "investigation" was politically motivated to begin with, because the "investigation" itself seems to be going nowhere, no charges made against Green, etc, you question someone for nine hours and ransack their home and office, you should really have a fukkin' GOOD reason to do so.... So, I do tend to feel that in this particular instance, the Police certainly should have to answer some pretty serious questions to justify their actions....

 

Still, I suppose it's a bit reassuring to see that the Metropolitan Police are equal opportunities Fascists and aren't JUST targeting working class Muslims, Blacks or Brazilians..... :rolleyes:

 

The PM should certainly be asking questions of the Speaker and his Home Sec if not the Police themselves....

It's hardly unusual for someone noyt to be charged immediately after arrest. That's what Police bail is for. At any one time there are thousands of people in that position. Look at how long it took for the "loans for honours" investigation to come to an end.

It's hardly unusual for someone noyt to be charged immediately after arrest. That's what Police bail is for.

 

If there were indeed matters of "National Security" involved (which was the claim made by the Police..), one would think that Mr Green would still be languishing in someplace like Bellmarsh along with all the other suspects arrested under this caveat... Is Green actually under Police Bail...?

 

And, have you heard about the "inquiry" into this whole affair...? Laughable really.... And it looks as though "mr speaker" is going to lay all the blame for this on his sergeant-at-arms.... Even though she was following his orders.....

 

Democracy may have died but today was the funeral <_< <_<

 

Something to hide eh Labour ?????? :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

 

The Government will exercise veto powers to block publication of key Cabinet minutes under freedom of information laws, it has been announced.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw said he could not permit the release of records from 2003 discussions over the invasion of Iraq because it would cause too much "damage" to democracy.

 

He told MPs he had signed a certificate vetoing rulings by the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal that key records should be disclosed.

Mr Straw said he had signed a certificate under section 53 of the FOI Act, "the effect of which is that these Cabinet minutes will not now be disclosed".

Allowing publication to go ahead would cause "serious damage to Cabinet government, an essential principle of British democracy".

Mr Straw told the Commons he had consulted with the rest of the Cabinet before taking issuing the veto, and the decision had not been taken "lightly".

For Tories, Dominic Grieve backed the decision to block publication but said it left an "overwhelming case" for a full review into the Iraq invasion.

 

Just what have they got to hide that we have not though all along?

 

 

 

http://news.aol.co.uk/straw-will-veto-iraq...090824149306691

Edited February 24, 200916 yr by B.A Baracus

Democracy may have died but today was the funeral <_< <_<

 

Something to hide eh Labour ?????? :rolleyes:

The Government will exercise veto powers to block publication of key Cabinet minutes under freedom of information laws, it has been announced.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw said he could not permit the release of records from 2003 discussions over the invasion of Iraq because it would cause too much "damage" to democracy.

 

He told MPs he had signed a certificate vetoing rulings by the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal that key records should be disclosed.

Mr Straw said he had signed a certificate under section 53 of the FOI Act, "the effect of which is that these Cabinet minutes will not now be disclosed".

Allowing publication to go ahead would cause "serious damage to Cabinet government, an essential principle of British democracy".

Mr Straw told the Commons he had consulted with the rest of the Cabinet before taking issuing the veto, and the decision had not been taken "lightly".

For Tories, Dominic Grieve backed the decision to block publication but said it left an "overwhelming case" for a full review into the Iraq invasion.

 

Just what have they got to hide that we have not though all along?

http://news.aol.co.uk/straw-will-veto-iraq...090824149306691

 

Absolutely disgusting.... "freedom of information" eh...? What load of bollocks..... You should read the stuff in Private Eye about this supposed "freedom of information" bill mate... Ever since its inception, the Eye has been testing, amongst other areas, the supposed "freedom" to get information on the expenses of Cabinet ministers and MPs, getting continually stonewalled all the time.... <_<

 

This bill is a joke, it's pretty apparent from my reading of the 'Eye'....

 

Democracy may have died but today was the funeral <_>

 

Something to hide eh Labour ?????? :rolleyes:

The Government will exercise veto powers to block publication of key Cabinet minutes under freedom of information laws, it has been announced.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw said he could not permit the release of records from 2003 discussions over the invasion of Iraq because it would cause too much "damage" to democracy.

 

He told MPs he had signed a certificate vetoing rulings by the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal that key records should be disclosed.

Mr Straw said he had signed a certificate under section 53 of the FOI Act, "the effect of which is that these Cabinet minutes will not now be disclosed".

Allowing publication to go ahead would cause "serious damage to Cabinet government, an essential principle of British democracy".

Mr Straw told the Commons he had consulted with the rest of the Cabinet before taking issuing the veto, and the decision had not been taken "lightly".

For Tories, Dominic Grieve backed the decision to block publication but said it left an "overwhelming case" for a full review into the Iraq invasion.

 

Just what have they got to hide that we have not though all along?

http://news.aol.co.uk/straw-will-veto-iraq...090824149306691

Just a few ponts.

 

First, I disagree with Jack Straw. No change there then.

 

However, bear in mind that the Tories agree with him. They had a bit of a go at Straw and then announced that they supported him in suppressing the minutes. Perhaps they were afraid the next request qould be for the minutes of the meetings between Blair and Iain Duncan Smith (remember him?) discussing Iraq. You know, the ones where he urged the government to stop dithering and get on with the invasion.

 

I agree with Scott that the FOI Act is inadequate but at least it's better than what we had before - even if not by very much. Before the FOI Act no Cabinet minutes were released until they were published under the 30 year rule. After all, we still haven't seen the Cabinet minutes covering the Falklands (1982) or the first Gulf War (1990).