What do the Guardian readers think about this?

[Tactical Genius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7760223.stm

Tory MP house raided and arrested for receiving leaks from a government mole?

Not seen a thread on this.

[Wyatt Earp]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Oh not this again.

[Wyatt Earp]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

(I think it's a fucking disgrace, incidentally.)

[ursus arctos]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

GO started this thread, but it got surpisingly little "traction", perhaps because of the attention given the Mumbai attacks.

Perhaps TG's incendiary title will lead to more discussion.

I'm with Wyatt at to the merits.

[Tactical Genius]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Don't be an arse Wyatt.
It is a news story that has been in the headlines for nearly a week and is that type of story that usually triggers a big debate on OTF.

If i said, what do the mail readers think about this, you would not be acting like i questioned your parentage.

Back to the subject, what is a disgrace, that he was arrested by anti-terrorist police and banged up for 8 hours whilst articles were removed from his house and place of work or that fact that the labour home secretatry is claiming no prior knowledge despite the fact that Cameron and Boris Johnson were informed before hand.

An unusually short comment from you.

[Felicity, I guess so]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Speaking personally, as an occasional Guardian reader, rather than for all such:

at least they didn't break his door down and shoot him in the chest, which is how other 'suspects' (with the emphasis on the 'other', perhaps) have had it in these times, and I don't generally waste much time being sympathetic to Tories, but generally I'm agin it, yeah

[Banana Banana]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Only three issues

1. If MP was paying for the leaks then clearly criminal

2. Government can't order the police not to investigate a crime or not make an arrest or order the DPP not to charge someone.

3. MPs are not above the law. Outside of parliamentary privilege which is there to protect this sort of thing in the appropriate place. So if they break the law, they have to expect the same treatment.

[Wyatt Earp]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Tactical Genius wrote:

An unusually short comment from you.

Ah.

[Wyatt Earp]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Chippy: am I not right in saying that anti-terrorist laws were used here? If so, would you not agree that that's pretty sick shit?

[Kusal Flyer]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

I've cut down to thrice weekly.

Why didn't Dibble just ask the Tory bastard to pop down the Yard at lunchtime? Arresting him seems ott.

I wonder if the mole will get the Sarah Tisdall or Clive Ponting treatment. They were previously celebrated whistleblowers: she was a junior clerk and was largely unemployable for some time afterward, he made a career as author and pundit on defence issues. Even if I've made him sound like Alan Hansen.

[Felicity, I guess so]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

pundit on defence issues. Even if I've made him sound like Alan Hansen

Ha! "Afghanistan? You'll win nuthin' wi' kids"

[Ginger Yellow]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

As far as I can tell, everything is done under cover of anti-terrorism law these days. I think parliament must have passed a bill inserting "This is an anti-terrorism law" into every single act ever.

[Tactical Genius]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

I have no pity for MP's crying foul, they are not above the law and they are the ones who passed them in acts of parliament giving the polic to do almost what they please under the guise of "Anti-terrorism".

If the police wanted to have a word with us, they would turn up mob handed, ransack your house and remove all your IT equipment.
This is the type of politician who would say, "these laws are necessarry to protect us in a dangerous and uncertain world post-911" whenever a muslim gets this treatment.
Shame he wasn't tasered too.

[Wyatt Earp]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Well, yeah, it's a double standard all right. But using anti-terror laws to investigate civil service leaks that don't even seem to breach the OSA is wrong whoever's the victim. No?

[Tactical Genius]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Correct, however, to ascertain that nothing that was leaked broke the OSA you have to identify the leak-er and leak-ee (for want of a better word) and what information changed hands before you can come to that conclusion. After all, if he is passing info to the Tories heshe could be passing info to other parties too.

I have no problem with the police investigating this matter within the law (which they appear to have done). If the MP's don't like it, then they should not pass such laws in the first place.

Or they can pass an act of parliament making them immune from proscecution and see how that goes down with the electorate, cos deep down, that is what they really want.

[Kusal Flyer]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

Genius: I hope they (MPs) don't do that. Imagine how long we would have to blcokade Heathrow and Gatwick.

[Wyatt Earp]

What do the Guardian readers think about this?

No, I'm just going on the fact that none of the charges cites the OSA.