Do you remember a thing called Parliamentary Democracy ?

Would you want counter-terror police in your office?

Foolish and wicked behaviour from Government and the Met.

You could add:

...(and Robin Cook and Gordon Brown were serial receivers of stolen goods - why weren't they banged up?)

Yes you're right Cactus, (or can I just call you flower). I think crooks like Derek 'dipper' Conway should be allowed to keep misappropriating public money, and the old Bill should mind their own business, because these are the privileged classes. Oh no, sorry, that was your position, wasn't it?

Fergus, Jack the Ripper was a murderer... does that precedence mean we should overlook murder in future. If local government officers in Birmingham chose to leak dotty Mike Whitby's private papers would you think it was OK? Think before you answer.

What's to think about, Bob? Were Robin Cook and Gordon Brown ever arrested for being in receipt of leaked documents? The answer (just in case you weren't certain) is "NO". The leaker of any document is fair game for any disciplinary or relevant legal proceedings (where appropriate - an important point), but it had never been the case that MP's have been banged up for these things. That (as you know, but refuse to acknowledge) was the point I was making. Why is Damien Green so different? Well, because he's a Tory, obviously, and that makes it all right (this is called sarcasm, Bob, in case you weren't sure).

Your line about Jack the Ripper is well up to your usual standard of inane irrelevancies, though - congratulations (sort of) for that.

Fergus, I have no problem with pointing out that Cook and Brown were never arrested. I'm sorry, I thought the question was rhetorical... but I see it was just one of your.... errrm, how shall I put it.... inane irrelevancies.

This is a more difficult question though.... why do you think the police would dislike the tories so much? Is it the same reason as the rest of us, or do they have a particular reason to loath them?

But you refuse to deal with the central question, which is why you seem to think that it's all right for a Conservative MP to be arrested when he was behaving no differently from Labour MP's in the past who weren't arrested. I assume you wouldn't have been happy to see, say, Robin Cook locked up in the same way as Damian Green has been? So, apart from tribal party politics, do you have a reason for locking up Damian Green for acting no differently from Robin Cook?

And Bob, I'd get new glasses if I were you - you couldn't spot sarcasm even when I flagged it up - your eyes clearly aren't what they were.

Well, Fergus, they say it is the lowest form of wit, so I suppose it's appropriate. Damien Green was never "locked up" by the way, unless that's just another lame piece of sarcasm.

But actually, if Robin Cook and Gordon Brown had been receiving stolen material from a politically motivated Labour Party careerist who had applied for a job with one of them, and the Head of the Civil service had called the police in to investigate the matter, and the police had discovered a direct link between the material and the politicians as opposition spokespersons then.... yes, I would expect the police to detain them for questioning, and if necessary search their offices and computers to investigate whether they had deliberately and unlawfully solicited the material.

Perhaps we have different attitudes to theft. You are a Conservative after all.

Clear enough for you?

Well, unless everyone but you's been lying, Bob, he was arrested and taken to a police station. Given that he therefore wasn't free to leave (or presumably wander around the station), I think "locked up" pretty much covers it.

Your attitude is very different from mine. Yours is entirely tribal on this matter - Gordon Brown (as you will have seen from the relevant YouTube clip) admitted to having a 'mole' in the Treasury, when in opposition. it has been alleged (but never proven) that this mole was an active Labour Party member. Said individual wasn't (I don't think) ever arrested, and nor was Gordon Brown. Reasonably similar circumstances. The difference, of course, is that the Conservative government would not 'go after' opposition MP's, but would only go after leakers (if they could be found).

I would not have advocated the arrest of Gordon Brown for being in receipt of leaked material (unless it really was a 'national security' issue), and I am surprised (or would be except for your inate tribalism) that you don't feel the same way about the current case.

Fergus, you are a little mixed up, or being disingenuous, but probably a bit of both.

Green was never "locked-up" for one minute. he was detained and questioned, and the two are very different indeed. Where was his lock? Why not say he was "tortured" on the grounds that detaining him was mental torture. Not that you're being "tribal" or anything... just plain silly.

My attitude is very different to yours. I believe people who steal things, and those that actively receive those stolen goods, should be dealt with by the law, whether they are members of parliament or not.

You are content to bend-the-knee and doff your cap to your betters in a subservient manner, but that really is your problem.

You really explain the difference yourself, so it isn't a big mental step for you to take. "It has been alleged (but never proven)..." should be the first big clue for you. "Said individual was never arrested..." is the second one, despite the fact that the Tories "would only go after leakers".

Now... taking those statements.... carefully now.... join them to the words "Reasonably similar circumstances".

There... do you see the flaw in your argument?

If not, I'm afraid I'm wasting my time and effort trying to educate you, because you are so blinkered on this subject, as you are on so many. How can I be "tribal" when I am quite adamant that if civil servants, Labour Party members (or MPs) get involved in leaks of stuff which does not have a legitimate public interest defence but simply designed for Party political advantage (or for personal gain) - such as the leak of the voting intentions of Labour MPs stolen from the home Office and passed to Green - should be dealt with by the law in the same way as any other citizen would?

You are floundering hopelessly on this Fergus - give it up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

So you'd be happy to see a large part of the government front bench arrested for the leaks of the Pre-Budget Report, then? That was clearly for party political advantage and there would be no public interest defence, as we would all have found out about it a few days later. Once upon a time, a member of the government would resign for letting slip market-sensitive information (such as this was). Not any more, apparently.

Let's make it simple -
Do you believe that Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting should have been prosecuted for leaking information?
Regardless of your answer to the above, should they have been subject to internal disciplinary proceedings (including, potentially, summary dismissal)?
Do you believe that the individuals who received that leaked information (I think Robin Cook was one of them) should have been arrested (and if nessary charged).

My answers are "yes", "yes", and "no".

On the basis of your comments thus far, your answers would have to be "yes", "yes", and "yes".

Whilst it would have been fun to have seen Gordon Brown arested over the Treasury leaks he received, I would have known it to be wrong. If you changed tenses, and substituted Damian Green and Home Office appropriately, can you say the same?

The Government 'leak' Government secrets? Do us a favour Fergus. how stupid can you get? You are descending to the playground level now.

I believe that Tisdall and Ponting had a public interest defence, a matter which was proved in Court in the case of Ponting.

The leak of the Whips Office list of possible Labour rebels on the 42 days vote was purely political information relating to the suspected voting intentions of members of the legislature and and nothing at all to do with the process of government. It was done by a man who had been interviewed for a job by Green, was a known conservative mole leaking private information for party political purposes, as was little different to Nixon's Watergate burglars. although you, of course, bowing-at-the-knee, would have let Nixon off too (as did the US instead of locking him up to rot).

Then of course, there is the leak of Ronnie Flanagan's report on the future of policing - which was a report for the Home Secretary - which mysteriously led to announcements by David Davis (for freedom and hanging) on Conservative party proposals in line with Flanagan's recommendations.

You either clearly think receiving stolen property is OK if you are an elected MP, or you are prepared to throw any shred of integrity you have out of the window to try to justify green's behaviour. I don't, and if Brown or Cook received the same sort of information, my view doesn't change. That's the difference between us.

Bob, you're not a clear thinker are you? Conservatives come out with proposals to reduce police bureaucracy shock! Even Unity (from which I assume you acquired this information) admits that most of the points raised by the Conservatives were entirely unsurprising for Conservatives to come up with. For the rest - well, you clearly believe that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your philosophy is incapable of original thought. How about "Shadow Home Secretary talks to police and picks up useful tips for future policies" shock! (A point Unity sort of makes without pointing out the obvious - that Labour politicians were incapable of doing this).

Are any of the policies identified by you as "leaked" fundamentally inconsistent with the Conservative approach to policing? And you're surprised at similarities?

Oh, and as to Ponting and Tisdall, I believe that they should have been prosecuted, so that the facts of their cases could be presented, and the law applied. That does not of itself mean that I believe that they should have been convicted.

But I also believe that, if Ministers are either misleading, or refusing to reveal politically embarrassing information (not of a national security type) there is no interest in prosecuting the recipients. As for the list of rebels, how on earth was a purely political document allowed by politicians to be in the hands of civil servants? That's blurring the boundaries between the political and the administrative, to say the least.

Your "theft" argument is interesting in relation to what the law actually says. Whilst doing jury service I heard of a case (not saying where or when!) where the case was thrown out because the wrong charge had been brought - it was the wrong type of "theft". Check it out - the law is not as straightforward as you make out.

As ever, Fergus, whenever you are losing an argument, you move the goalposts. Clever... but shallow.

Didn't know we were playing football, Bob.

You raise the Flanagan report and I comment on it.
We bat Ponting and Tisdall back and forward a bit.
I stand by my already expressed view on recipients of leaks.

No goalpost moving there. I add a minor (but important) comment on the law. Is THAT the goalpost moving?

Wouldn't worry, though, Bob - any claim to credibility you might have had went out the window as soon as you claimed that arresting someone means that they're then free to do what they like. I paraphrase of course, but one of the points of arresting someone is to restrict their movements - generally to within a police station, and mostly to within one room (or cell) unless moved around by police officers. After all, it's perfectly possible to interview someone under caution without arresting them first.

But then they are perfectly free to leave whenever they want to tamper with the evidence.

I assume your comment is in relation to being interviewed under caution. In which case, my answer is "Absolutely". If they're also under arrest, they CAN'T leave. Which proves the point I was making, and disproves the point you were trying to make. QED.

Bob.
Did you know that on LabHome it's reported that Tory MP's are wearing green ribbons?
Wouldn't you think that after all this holier than thou hooha over moles and pinching stuff, they'd have the decency to restrain themselves from thieving the bright ideas of other folk from other parties, at least until after Christmas?
What a shame you didn't put up a picture of a pair of green plastic hand cuffs!

Fergus, you persist in making an arse of yourself. You said he was "locked-up". He wasn't. The verb "to lock" = secured by a lock. Now give it up... these gymnastics are making you look not only a pedant, but a ridiculous pedant, and even I'm getting fed-up of poking you with a stick through the bars.

Bob, you couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo at 2 feet, so your trying to poke me with a stick isn't going to worry me much.

Though, of course, you clearly "know" that he wasn't locked up. You "know" he was never in a room with the door locked after he'd been arrested. And you "know" all these things because...er, yeah, how do you "know" all these things, Bob? Were you there? No, of course you weren't. The person who was there believes that he was locked up.

So, unless you're God (and in case you weren't certain - you're not), you know less than the person who was there.

Where does he say he was "locked-up", Fergus?

Only one way to sort this out, FIGHT!!!!