Speaking on Radio 4 this morning, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Huhne said of Damian Green’s arrest:
I was frankly shocked and astonished by this. It will have a chilling effect on what MPs are able to do. Getting information into the public domain … clearly of the public interest is absolutely a key part. I find this a very worrying development. (Source: PoliticsHome)
In a longer statement, he elaborated:
Share:Receiving information from Government departments in the public interest and publicising it is a key part of any MP’s role. This is the most worrying development for many years, with the potential to shift power even more conclusively from Parliament to the Government. It is also extraordinary considering Gordon Brown himself as Shadow Chancellor received and publicised many leaked official documents. It seems that either the law needs to be changed, or the police have overstepped the mark.
7 Comments
Apologies in advance for being a pedant, but Mr Huhne is not the Shadow Home Secretary.
Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is (like it or not) led by the leader of the largest opposition party – that is the Conservatives and he is David Cameron.
The largest [opposition] party has a “shadow cabinet” and the members are referred to as “Shadow … [insert cabinet post]“.
Other opposition parties will generally have spokespeople – and in this case, Chris Huhne is the Liberal Democrats’ Home Affairs and Justice spokesman.
Anonymous: Parliament disagrees with you.
MEMBERS OF THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT SHADOW CABINET
…
SHADOW HOME SECRETARY Chris Huhne MP
If it’s good enough for Parliament, it’s good enough for me.
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/libdems.cfm
Probably the first and original “shadow cabinet” wasn’t an official institution either and took some time before it was generally accepted and officialised, so it probably takes some time before everybody (especially the supporters of the current official shadow cabinet) accept that there may exist several shadow cabinets at the same time.
Of course, those who haven’t yet accepted it, seem to be eager to push their opinion onto everyone else, like seen in Wikipedia.
The arrest of a democratically elected M.P. is yet a further infringement of our rights.
M.P.’s of all parties should be concerned at the actions of the police in this matter, and they should call for an emergency debate in the House.
This week I was notified of a forthcoming convention, at which by coincidence I see that Chris Huhne is one of the many speakers.
I was thinking of going to this before the Damien Green episode arose. I am now convinced of the need to attend a convention where there will be a debate by eminent lawyers and others on the erosion of our civil liberties. A concerted campaign across party lines is vital.
This is the site for the convention:-
http://www.modernliberty.net/
As civil liberties disappear one by one down the toilet, in the name of ‘security’, and we sleepwalk into a ’1984′ state, is it just me that finds it depressing that good-old Google adds ads to this thread, and others?
“Police Arrest Records ?Lookup Free Arrest Records On Anyone Right Now! Official Service®
“Arrest Report. Search anyones arrest record now Online public record resources.”
It would be really brilliant if Teresa May would also repeal the statutory instrument of 2006 and restore the rights to children of British mothers who seem to have their right of abode distorted by the SI regulation which has attempted to impose control over those persons not subject to control. Under the newest changes even immigrants can evidence their right to work using an expired passport but not those who have the right of abode who are either children of British citizens born before 1983 or British citizens themselves who have dual nationality. The last government put in policies that discriminated against this group simply because they were born of a British mother before 1983 and had a commonwealth father. They UKBA have also used the 2006 act unlawfully by suggesting that a right of abode is persons are subject to immigration control!
Section 15 of the 2006 explanatory notes state the following:-
“EMPLOYMENT
The provisions:
• create a power for the Secretary of State to apply a civil penalty, determined by a
Code of Practice, to an employer of an adult subject to immigration control who
has not been granted leave to enter or remain, whose leave is invalid, has ceased
to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation,
passage of time or otherwise) or whose conditions of entry or stay prevent them
from undertaking the employment.”
The 2006 Regulation Section 8 states
8. A certificate of entitlement shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the passport or travel document to which it is affixed.
The Certificate of Entitlement states the following on it
“Valid for presentation at a United Kingdom port within the validity of the passport”
A person who has the right of abode does not lose this right just because their passport expires. The certificate is not a work permit and has nothing that says to that effect and yet contrary to the 1971 primary legislation the UKBA have applied both direct and indirect control over a persons right to work.
“All those who are in this Act expressed to have the General
right of abode in the United Kingdom shall be free to live in, principles.
and to come and go into and from, the United Kingdom without
let or hindrance except such as may be required under and in
accordance with this Act to enable their right to be established
or as may be otherwise lawfully imposed on any person.”
The UKBA is blatently hindering the rights of such person by using the expiry of their travel document to control such persons right to work.