tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post2424227687503599089..comments2023-10-08T10:24:24.396+01:00Comments on Stephen's Liberal Journal: Oh Dear! Inverse Snob ConnartyStephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-33819685683107272842008-12-09T20:13:00.000+00:002008-12-09T20:13:00.000+00:00While I had some sympathy for Damian Green initial...While I had some sympathy for Damian Green initially, this has evaporated somewhat due to the OTT and party politicaland indeed class-based nature of much of the debate since then, thus to that extent I agree with you.<br><br>On the other hand, and with reference to your point about 'ungrounded' comments, you mention the use of Labour's anti-terror laws, but I don't think these were used at all - the search was perhaps conducted by anti-terror officers - but not under anti-terro laws per se - and I think this was because there was considered to be a risk to national security.<br><br>(BTW, presumably your quote is attributable to Michael C rather than M?)Stuart Wintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-24116893663213574852008-12-10T07:43:00.000+00:002008-12-10T07:43:00.000+00:00Yeah definitely a redundant and as pointed out rid...Yeah definitely a redundant and as pointed out ridiculous argument regarding class. I think there has been far too much reverse snobbery over this, just as I hate the fact that the Nats claim to the be only patriotic Scots here north of the border.<br><br>However, Green was arrested under the anti-terror laws. The law to search a premises without warrant, I believe, also came through under the anti-terror laws. It is doubtful that any court would have given a warrant to search Green's offices based on the evidence appears to have been present. Therefore the only option open to get said papers (which as I pointed out earlier were less inflamatory that Brown leaks)appears to have been to arrest the guy.Stephen Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027718551675624433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3732919976442735382.post-4212115582144774462008-12-10T09:21:00.000+00:002008-12-10T09:21:00.000+00:00Well clearly there's lots of conflicting stuff...Well clearly there's lots of conflicting stuff available on the matter, and I suspect that neither of us have read more than a tiny fraction of the various sources, but as far as I can make out, in particular using this <a href="http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto120420081527036150&page=2" rel="nofollow">piece</a> from the FT:<br><br>- the arrest was made for a common law offence;<br><br>- the arrest and search was made under long-standing procedures using the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;<br><br>- no warrant was required because consent for the search was obtained from Commons officers (although what would have happened if this had been refused is a moot point, as the FT article makes clear);<br><br>- the officers from the Met's counterterrorism command deal with sensitive investigations other than just terrorism.Stuart Wintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02772436419630464325noreply@blogger.com