³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

It is astonishing that an official of the House of Commons, reportedly AFTER taking legal advice, gives the police carte blanche to search an MP's office without a warrant. Does this mean, for example, that people who live in rented flats have no right to refuse entry to the police if their (absentee) landlord has given their permission? What on earth has happened to the rights of the individual - and the obligations of the police to ensure that they are properly authorised to search premises? Why didn't they get a warrant from a magistrate? Why did they seek a backdoor route into Green's office by apparently not volunteering the information that the sergeant-at-arms was under no obligation to give permission? Why did they apparently not advise the Home Secretary of their intent but apparently did inform the Major?

Is it any surprise, given the Government's track record in twisting the facts and misleading the populace about a whole range of issues, that people simply do not believe that there was no political interference or encouragement to search the office and thus suppress a conduit by which the public might learn of some matters that the Government would prefer to sweep quietly under the carpet?

I suspect that we are firmly on the way to a police state, run by a Big Brother government that routinely lies to its people.

Please please find out and let us know who called the police in in the firstplace? I just don't get it! What was it that made them decide 'independantly' to turn up to do the search - and with out a search warrant (very strange that)....

How did they know about the civil service guy leaking docs? and why was this leaking so significant to them rather than other leaks ----- What was in it for them (the police)?
'Someone' must have tipped them off and/or encouraged them in their action.... This is the odd thing about this story that no one has mentioned....
Normally, trying to get action out of the police is very difficult in my experience.

Even with a warrant, the police still need permission to enter the House of Commons (including offices). But to admit them without even asking for the warrant? What on Earth are these people who are supposed to protect our liberties thinking of? What exactly are they paid for?

It is often reported that the Speaker "got rid" of the last Serjeant at Arms because they didn't get on. That's a shame, but maybe it would have helped if the new one (Jill Pay) had the foggiest idea of some of the basic constitutional points underpinning the workings of the House.

I often hear Labour MPs say that people "have it in" for Michael Martin because he's a working class Scot. What a load of nonsense. I couldn't care less what he sounds like, and I'm sure he's a very nice man. But one thing I've always associated the Scots with is common sense and a backbone. The Speaker should go and be replaced by someone who is either more willing or more able (or both) to stand up to the Executive, in all its forms. That's one of the main reasons the post exists at all!

GRADED GRAINS MAKE FINER FLOUR.

Harriet Harman was sounding every inch the bowler hatted lawyer today, when quizzed on the latest fiasco. I think she and Hoon (what is it about Parliament that it collects ex-lawyers?) might even be wearing the same one - so similar is there obfuscation. Will Newsnight manage to discomfort her? I doubt it.

the beast of ballsover is so funny isnt he
his contribution to this country as a publick servant is 0.

mick the mouths con is the same as above.

gordons facinating plan is a stroke of pure gen I.O.U.S, bribing the dozy public with their own money, A REALLY BIG SLAP
on the back 4 that one


the sgt at arms with no mil sense, brought in by none other than mick the mooth, how well the public are served, 3 fine examples above. Do me a favour keep them to hell away from me, their kind of service I can without thankyou

post 4. lawyers? liars? much the same looking, acting and sounding dont you think.
Never trust a man with a Flute regardless of how many rats there are about they could be poisonous 2 U and yours, not 2 mention the other other Cost

Further to my earlier post, I see it be Ms Harperson's job to do the rounds of all the channels today. I've just watched on on another news channel.

She has actually been amongst the most reasonable of the Government ministers on this issue, accepting the seriousness of the arrest of an MP for reasons such those in this case. But I see she has now started spinning like a washing machine. Although she still accepts how serious it is, she has now started spouting the "operational independence" rubbish, as per Number 10's orders.

No sensible person, including any MP as far as I know, has suggested that ministers should direct police about whom to arrest etc. But "operational independence" doesn't mean the police, any more than anyone else, can go around doing what they want without limit or accountability. Please, Jeremy, don't let her get away with that load of old nonsense tonight!

Post 6 above delete the O in poisonoUS and insert a DO in post 5

Barrie 4

Did you hear Hoon on Wato today? He truly is ghastly. After reading Norman Baker's fantastic book on the death of David Kelly, I now struggle to listen to/watch his stupid drivel.

Seems to me that Speaker Martin is hoist by his own petard. At the time of the expenses
scandal, his argument was one of Privilege.

As pointed out in the Manuel of Procedure
(page 18 para 22): 'The Speaker is (1) the spokesman and representative, and (2) the chairman, of the House. A footnote based on pp 211-2 of Erskine May then observes:

'In the first capacity, the Speaker demands the privileges of the House at the beginning of a new Parliament, communicates its resolutions, thanks, censures, and admonitions; and issues, by its order, warrants for the commitment of offenders against its privileges, for the issue of writs to fill vacancies among its Members, for the attendance of witnesses, or for bringing prisoners to the bar .....'

The policemen who raided Westminster without a warrant would in other days
have been 'committed' and brought as
prisoners to the bar of the House ......?

But having gone to the barricades to deploy parliamentary privilege against an external
review of parliamentary expenses he can't
now say that in the matter of arresting and searching an MP's office such niceties do not matter can he? Not with any credibility.

The other worry should of course be that if this is all just brushed off, other Parliaments
based on the Westminster model may also
be weakened ..... eg. in Zimbabwe - where
there are perhaps fewer checks & balances.

In Zimbabwe arrests and abductions of non MPs continue ........ today the Director of the Zimbabwe Peace Project Jestina Mukoko was abducted in her nightdress ........

Post 9 I struggle with the whole bloody lot of them all the bloody time, Some people who party/take on this site would at times regard me as person who insults our M.Pees, the possibility exists, but nowhere near 2 the extent to which our wonderfull mp's insult/assult me/us, auntie beeb/nnight
could bring in a new feature weekdays only, The Daily Insult SLOT.

given the house of commons is full of lawyers and is the place where law is made then why did they not know the law on warrants? its on tv cops shows all the time?

the MP's vestal virgin outrage is overdone.

have we been here before?

HOON IS A SYMPTOM - ONE OF 600-odd (#9)

Westminster is a self-perpetuating disgrace.
My MP has said so; in so many words. I asked him to lay down HIS ambition for OUR democracy - he declined. Another symptom.

The parties LIKE Westminster just as it is. When you function in a swamp, no one can smell your individual stench.
The MPs are chosen by the parties for their subservience to dishonour, and their denial of OUR right to be represented. They ALL know Westminster is a Great British Disgrace, but NOT ONE will stand up and denounce it. (And 'OUR ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳' - where did that slogan go? - declines to be our champion.)

If we can't find a hero, it will have to be, sulphur, carbon and saltpetre.

And Now the Good News

Well only for us that live north of the border.

Maximus has been saved and is OK!



For those south of the border, don't worry. This has been our concern this week while you've been fretting about Green, Mumbai, economy, mortgages and whatever.

It's only a small start. All we have to do now is look after all the other members of the 60-100 million species we share the planet with with, and as if by magic our problems will get solved. Strange things Complex Systems.

Celtic Lion

barrie (#4) "what is it about Parliament that it collects ex-lawyers?"

Sorry to state the obvious, but the main function of parliament is to legislate, so a training in law is an asset for candidates/MPs. What's remarkable is how many are Human Rights lawyers. Ironically, the legal profession is not renowned in academia for it's proficiency in 'the pursuit of truth', so muh so that the most influential philosopher of science/logician (not Poppper) of the second half of the C20th advised the next generation to stear clear of the profession! Law is practiced in natural language which is not truth funtional, so much of what is done in law in ends up being 'clever' verbal agument rather than 'pursuit of truth' per se. But as most of those who go into such professions tend to avoid science, I suspect they don't appreciate the full scope of the problem?

THE COST OF BEING SPATIALLY CHALLENGED HIGH VERBALS

In february 2007, ETS, (the largest Eduation Testing research organisation in the world), presented their report 'America's Perfect Storm'. When they did so, they had a video of the presentation at their site. It has since been removed. The warning was dire. It spelled out that unless something was done, the American dream would turn into an American tragedy.

Other peole had been warning of this bsed on demographic trends. ETS also said in their video that it was clear that whilst several major academic foundations appreciated the problem, the general public did not.

They also said that the problem was not unpreventable, and they said they would produce a further report outlining their solution.

No report has appeared, and their original Press Club video has been removed. .

This was no rogue 'think-tank' scaremongering..........

Politicians, (even some in ETS I suspect) along with most of the public naively/arrogantly think that this can be fixed by teaching skills....and that's largely because they don't have any grasp at all of the SCIENCE of behaviour.

Not long ago some journalists were asking why journalists hadn't predicted the credit crunch. One only has to look into what skills journalists require to be able to answer that (they avoid science, that's largely a 'male' pursuit whilst journalism and the media is predominantly a female pursuit). It shows up in all the data and it is going to turn out to have been our nemesis.

Ref: an MP's arrest and search of his office in Palace of Westminster. It seems to me that it is the police who are acting above the law. I wonder how they tested the accusation that the leaks were a matter of national security.
skippaonce, Somerset

When Paxman is haranguing the guests quoting the 9,000 people figure from Harriet Harman - he's getting the wrong end of the stick!

That's 9,000 whom the government are expecting to have to pay out the insurance on - not 9,000 people putting off payments. Come on Paxman, get a grip.

neilrobertson (#10) "The policemen who raided Westminster without a warrant would in other days have been 'committed' and brought as prisoners to the bar of the House ......?"

No they wouldn't, as they didn't 'raid'. They asked for permission and they got it. They'd only have needed a warrant if they believed that they would not get permission. Why should they have believed they would not?

There's far too much rhetoric and emoting in place of rational behaviour as it is.

The police were allegedly investigating systematic leaks from the Home Office which may have had security implications. How do any of us (inside or outside Parliament) know otherwise? How was the Civil Service to know that these specific leaks were not part of wider sedition (in the absence of police investigation)? So far, the Home Secretary, PM and Leader of the House have all said words to this effect, having been advised by experts, so why are less informed people arguing?

#15/16 JJ

Thanks for these. They are answers to questions in my head that I hadn't put into words, yet.

This thing about truth. I thought in law truth was truth. A witness has to say the truth the whole truth...

But courts seemed to be happy with what was acceptable as truth. Not the actual truth. Somethings that sounds like the truth will do.

I watched Harman/Paxman after reading post 15. Why when he asks a question, did she say anything but answer it. Continually.

If someone behaved like this in engineering or construction they would be considered nuts.

Is anyone running the country and do they know what they are doing?

This is a problem, which will only get worse. Is this why when David Cameron with his qualifications in the history of art, tells us all to buy G Whizz electric cars.

1) He cannot grasp that electricity comes from power stations, which still produce emissions.

2) If we did what he said and plugged them in, on top of other requirements. The grid would crash.

Celtic Lion

LAXITY ALL ROUND (#18)

A poorly focused Paxo, commenting on poorly focused Martin's laps, leapt in with: "I thought ignorance of the law was no excuse" failing to realise the incongruity of the remark.

Anyone notice the 'STUDIED DETACHMENT' of Mr Darling while J Gordon Brown was announcing another triumph of FAIRNESS?
I am not sure what Scottish fairies are called - but Darling was definitely away with them.

POSITIVELY ELECTRIC (#20)

Is the old need for 'base load' no longer valid in electricity generation? Even with nukes? Surely cars would mostly charge at night - white meter time? (ie they WANT us to consume?) Also: it does not matter if the fossil fuel chicken precedes the electric egg; in time the chicken will 'go renewable' surely?

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"If someone behaved like this in engineering or construction they would be considered nuts." Nice one!

It would be SOOOOO nice if Paxo stopped being smart, with his repeated questions, and simply asked La Hardman if she realised how INSULTING her (and every other politician's) overt non-answering was to the public. But ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ and Westminster 'live within the lie' - its a game - it will not change.

We need a hero.

#19 jaded_Jean

Well I suppose the charges might have been a clue as there was no charge under the Official Secrets Act?

But I suppose only racially superior people would be able to judge huh.

I say that purely on the basis of your previous "race "realist" comments.

The raid on Parliament brought back some memories of the Special Branch raid on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Scotland aka 'The Zircon Affair'. What was interesting in looking back at that saga is
to note the comment by a young Scottish
MP called Alasdair Darling .......

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Jeremy was on top form with Harriet Harperson! Jeremy even got Harperson to admit she didn't have any confidence in the sargent at arms and the speaker of the house. Ha ha ha!!! She avoided giving an answer like the infamous Michael Howard interview.

Also loved the debate with Chris Huhne and co, as Vince Cable's economic ideas had all been stolen by everyone else. Good point raised by Jeremy where a higher power than a Magistrate should be used for MPs etc.

Funniest line of the night was when Jeremy suggested that Gordon B et al's mortgage ideas had been cooked up on the back of a fag packet, but quickly changed it to a back of an organic prune packet (apparently none of the the trio were smokers).

Excellent :o)

"Hey, let's investigate Damien Green."
"What for?"
"Just for a laugh. I mean, we've brought in all these boring measures to save the banking system, help home-owners with their mortgages and led the international rescue mission to save the world economy. We need something fresh and sexy to attract headlines from the Tory press."
"Right. So we investigate Damien Green about the leaks from the Home Office."
"Not just investigate. Let's tell the cops to arrest him and then search his offices in the House."
"Hey, cool. That'll set the cat among the pigeons. I'll start e-mailing.""
"Oh, and don't forget to tell the police that on no account must they produce a warrant or tell people their rights."
"Even cooler. Just the kind of thing New Labour needs to prove our financial and fiscal measures were not carried out just to win the next election."
"Yes. A nice juicy scandal involving the Tories' favourite, Michael Martin, and we drop another twelve percentage points in the polls. That'll show we have no electoral ambitions."
"I'll get straight on to Nick Robinson. He'll spend three days telling the punters that Martin is in grave danger of being given the boot....."
"Before admitting there's no chance of it happening. And the right-wing rags will be full of it."
"The coolest, Man."

This less-informed person believes that the only reason for 9 anti-terrorist police to enter Parliamnet would be if there was a bomb/hostage scare on the premises.

For other police to enter Parliament I would like to believe would require that a murder was about to take place or had taken place on the premises.

Why? becuase there are so many routes that can be taken before arrest is necessary. I wonder how Jacqui Smith would like spending 9 hours in a police interview room - not pleasant.

Reading between the lines it seems that:

a) someone in government decided to teach the Tories a lesson

b) someone in the Civil Service is unhappy about Labour/immigration policies

c) someone in the Tory party decided to listen attentively to the civil servant

d) someone in the House was caught off guard when events started happening

e) someone in the House didn't know Parliamentary rights to privacy

f) someone in the police felt confident enough to arrive at Parliament without a warrent

and finally that the fact remains:

g) someone in government is doing something with statistics to upset civil servants and Tories

All in all the lesson to be learned is that Britain is breaking at the top as well as at the bottom. A good way to help fix the problem would be if school curricula were to include a full explanation of how the British government works, starting with why the word 'thing' is so prevalent in our language and culminating with a synopsis of the wonderfully intricate constitution we have. That way we would all know which song book we are supposed to be singing from.

Watching the live debate yesterday I felt blessed that I live in a country where when police enter Parliament, it not only causes such a stir but also, the debate that Parliament enters into, to decide how to fix loop holes in what aims to be a cautious and subtle approach to government, can be witnessed first hand by the population.

Attitude of Gratitude - this country still has an appetite to struggle for transparency and clemency

It seems Round 1 has gone in favour of The Merger Action Group which has won review
of Mandelson's decision in the HBOS/Lloyds
TSB merger before the Competition Appeals
Tribunal (equivalent to a judicial review). It
will also hear the case under Scots Law -
The Bank of Scotland is a pre-Union bank.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

According to The Scotsman the case begins in London on Monday, should be concluded by lunchtime on Tuesday, with a decision on Wednesday. HBOS shareholders vote on the proposed merger on Friday next week.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

KingCelticLion (#20) "This thing about truth. I thought in law truth was truth. A witness has to say the truth the whole truth..."

It strives for this but suffers from using an unreliable medium (natural language which is ). Science strives to do much the same but the more hard-nosed the science, the more reliant it is on extensional language. This is a point of logic - the functional relations (laws) of science are independent of what people say or think. This is why vox pop in science would be laughable, as unless a specialist most scientists tend to say that they don't know the evidence - this rarely stops people in the street or blogs . Trial by jury is really a sophisticated vox pop which makes lots of assumptions which are clearly false. A witnesses doesn't necessarily 'know' the truth, although they may 'believe' they do.

thegangofone (#23) "I say that purely on the basis of your previous "race "realist" comments."

See above. No you don't. You have imputed something additional to what I have said, which is the problem here. What matters in discussions of this issue is evidence and careful use of words. I have referenced lots of key research. There is diversity within species, and this is a consequence of gene flow and barriers to gene flow. Being realistic about physical/behavioural differences between breeds of dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, horses etc does not make one a dogist, catist, cowist, sheepist or horseist, just a scientist/zoologist.

You should give some thought to this as at present you are not being discriminatory enough, and good discriminative ability and practice is esssential to all intelligent behaviour.

CREDIT (AND CRITICISM) WHERE DUE

Mistress76uk (#25) Would it be fair to say that you watch Newsnight primarily for its entertainment value? I saw Harman doing the right thing, i.e provide impersonal information about Parliamentary procedure in her capacity as Leader of The House. Paxman kept trying to get her to express her peronal views, which were, in this context, irrelevant as she kept saying. That is all she was saying. If Paxman continues to behave this way, he may well give members of the government (and others), a legitimate excuse not to come onto the programme.

Excellent interview with Ms Harman, Mr Paxman..

Maybe a warrant was NOT required, as Jill Pay had heard the mantra 'If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear...' so often that she just assumed that the police have a right to pop into our homes and offices whenever they choose, and that we should welcome them with open arms, and the offer of tea and a choice of biscuits...

WELL - YES, BUT THEN - NO (#30)

I see Mistress76uk as hopelessly bedazzled by tall, rugged, authoritative, abrasive Herr Paxman. If he put his lip out and sulked for 40 minutes, she would still be in ecstasy. (Come to think of it - I'm sure he did that on the odd occasion, didn't he?)

As for Hard Man Harriet (a harder man by far than Paxo) she joined him in living within the media lie, when she could have killed the 'game' stone dead by explaining the rules to the viewers. The lawyer mind perhaps?

#22 Barrie

Polarised Debate

"Is the old need for 'base load' no longer valid in electricity generation? Even with nukes? Surely cars would mostly charge at night - white meter time? (ie they WANT us to consume?)"

Scientifically speaking and in respect of an answer this is all valid. And are the questions or answers to, that should be known.

It would take a while (research)for me to answer it in a way that I would be happy to present as an acceptable 'view' 'truth' or 'fact' etc.

When a vehicle is charged I consider also depends on range, distance travelled ie a commuter might charge overnight. Go into work but if the return journey exceeds range, the car will have to be charged during the day.

Like other posters, I look at the millions of cars, here America and everywhere else, in my mind. Then imagine the amount of resources required to produce that amount of batteries.

Just how much of the planet are we going to dig up and destroy. It is not a sustainable solution. They were worried about milligrams of lead pollution.

If someone has a 6ft high midden of cow and pig do do piled up in their living room. A plug in air freshener even though it changes fragrance every 20 minutes automatically is not the real solution.

JJ I do agree with you that in this case Harman didn't have to provide a view on another person to the public.

It's just the pantomime of I'll ask the question, and I won't answer it, that the interchange is representative of.

The more language 'skills' the less they actually convey. Must be something in Macluhan or Shannon and Weaver. Signal to noise ratios etc.

# 23 Go1. There were no charges. He was arrested,and interviewed, but not charged with any offence. What someone is arrested on does not necessarily relate to what they could be eventually charged with.

Barrie thanks for highlighting my critique and in depth assessment of the political system.

I'll get me orange boiler suit.

Celtic Lion

EFFECIVITY

KingCelticLion (#33) "The more language 'skills' the less they actually convey. Must be something in Macluhan or Shannon and Weaver. Signal to noise ratios etc."

Information Theory has little to do with this other than that natural languages are highly redundant. The problem is that natural languages are full of vestigial mentalistic (intensional) terms and as these resist logical quantification and substitutivity of identicals salva veritate they are not truth functional, making rational, deductive inference treacherous/unreliable. This is largely why we depend so much today on computers and the more artificial (extensional) sub-languages of the sciences (where one has to learn how to use terms within a specialist language-game) for what really matters, namely, 'effective' prediction and control/management, be this in medicine, engineering, or whatever. One can not translate these more extensional languages back into natural language without loss of information, for what should be obvious reasons. But you can't tell non-scientifically trained people this as they have no idea what one is talking about.

MANY A TRUE WORD SPOKEN IN BLOG (allegedly)

Good grief JJ - you are doin' my 'ed in! Was your piece @34 a demonstration of specialist language that the seriously blognerant (such as moi) cannot begin to extract information from?

I'll sign up for me course.


PS Grizzly Huhne just declared LEAKS an honourable part of Westminster governance. That says it all, doesn't it! We look at our MPs, badly installed, and say: "ffffffffff (sucked teeth). Oo put this lot in then?"

Send in the Corgis!

Maybe a couple of episodes of that police TV drama 'The Bill' will get speaker Martin up to speed with the rights of the individual. This all reminds me when i first discovered - at the age of 24 - that the breakfast cereal 'rice crispies was er...made of rice.

Loved the way Speaker Martin buck passed to his newly appointed sargent. To be fair, the police really don't look good in how they conducted this (as well as the home secretary) but they have lost some good coppers recently, Blair and pillock to name a couple.

My Personal Views -

A Constitutional Smokescreen to the Governments Economic Failings

This all started in a Government Office, what really happened ?

Did any Minister or Political Appointee coerce or suggest via rule changes that the Top Civil Servant make such a complaint to the Police in the first place ?

This is a simple question that should be asked time after time after time until a answer is given.

Damian Green

People get confused about this situation, for instance "Are MP's above the Law ?" , wrong question !
Are MP's Democratic Duties above the Law ?
This is a difficult question as in principle they are, because MP's carrying out their Democratic Duties with the authority of their Democratic Mandate from his or her electorate is a fundamental part of any functioning Democracy.
Sure there are exceptional cases, like Treason, aiding a enemy etc , all of which a MP could also be doing while carrying out his or her Democratic Duties, but in this case the allegations do not suggest this.
In fact from what I have read these leaks were embarrassing to the Government because it showed it's failings in the management of public security (hopefully corrected now), some papers contradicting the Governments Spin they were giving to the public at the time and a Labour Whips list of Labour MP's who might have voted against the Governments 42 day pre charge detention bill.

To me this all stinks, but as I typed at the beginning maybe it was suppose to.

barrie (#35) It's basic Anglo-American C20th logic/philosophy.

As to the 'Drama in The House', well, as I keep saying, the bigger picture is surely the long term systematic erosion ('sedition') of the powers of the UK state (bound to get worse given Lisbon ratification). What we've seen recently is an attempt by some Civil Servants (who are tasked with running the country) doing their jobs as best they can.

I suspect their morale must be quite low as almost every day one hears of more of the UK state losing powers as a result of rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (cf. DNA database today).

It's interesting to note that first Bindman's defends after a 'theatrical' arrest, and then .

How does afford the support of

#35 Barrie

JJ- Barrie doin' yor 'ed in

Try bein' in mine after 34.

I 've got enough notes from that if I wrote them out I'd have to open me own library.

The secret is copy and paste in to Google. Trouble is JJ had me reading aspects of Russian mathematical logic yesterday, goin' to myself "what the ____".

Then admitted to THE spelling mistake. You know which one JJ.

I have only myself to blame for my come uppence and the blog blowin' up in me face.

Oh a bit of Darren Brown fishin' I smiled to myself. I wrote two words an' sealed 'em in an envelope.

Let's chuck the bait in. Shannon and Weaver. Ho Ho I thought to myself. JJ comes round 'ere opens me envelope, reads me 2 words. Goes back and posts:

Information Theory. What a smack in the face I got.

JJ you have paralysed my day and my mind with intellectual grid lock.

Huxley has been round and ripped me doors off the hinges. Plato, who I was havin' a cuppa tea with, has just admitted even he didn't know there was another cave.

JJ a masterblaster of a post, in my opinion the best thing you have ever written that I have read. Every line, every word, a pummelling on the ropes of the boxing ring of understanding.

The www and bloggers of the universe should acknowledge a new term.

"It's a post 34"

Please allow me sometime to adjust. Information Overload.


Celtic Lion

KCL # 20/33

Electric cars are already stuffed at their inception due to the fact that there is traffic calming everywhere in towns and trunk routes are clogged with fuel wasting small diameter roundabouts.

I can remember when traffic calming was first introduced, Milkmen had to dump their reliable electric floats and change to the likes of Toyota 4 by 4 pick-ups. The extra stops and slows / closed off streets meant that their battery capacity could no longer reliably get them around their rounds.

Steve-London (#37) "This is a simple question that should be asked time after time after time until a answer is given."

One could ask, and in Select Committees MPs frequently do ask Senior Civil servants, but Civil Servants are loyal to their Minister, it's part of the Civil Service Code. They don't answer questions which may embarass their Minister. Their neutrality, as I understand it, just means that they do this whichever party is in office. If one watches closely, one will see/hear Committee members give up, as they know the rules of this 'game'. Any Senior Civil servant not able to do this would not be doing their job and might in fact be disciplined. It's like chain of command in the Military.... as long as no law is being broken.... Sometimes this can create very serious/painful conflicts of interest/moral/professional dilemmas.

I am happy to be corrected if any of the above is factually wrong.

THE ARMSTRONG MEMORANDUM

#41 For .

For more see .

we are in a police state......official

See 11-13 especially which clearly establishes procedures for complaint WITHIN the Civil Service. This is effectively a Civil Service employment contract to he best of my knowledge.

Note how it ends:

"Where a matter cannot be resolved by the procedures set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 above, on a basis which the civil servant concerned is able to accept, he or she should either carry out his or her instructions, or resign from the Civil Service. Civil servants should continue to observe their duties of confidentiality after they have left Crown employment."

Note, the dates of 'The Public Interest Disclosure Act' (1998) which is an amendment to the 'Employment Rights Act' (1996).

Re: #37

quote = "Labour Whips list of Labour MP's who might have voted against the Governments 42 day pre charge detention bill".

Why did a civil servant have this?
Surely this is a party political matter not something to do with governing the country, so why were the Civil Service involved with this in any way at all?

A government department might need to know the political odds against legislation being passed in the HoC and what the pivotal issue are, but they definitely should not have information on or be dealing with internal party politics.

This quote from JadedJean's link to the Civil Service Code:
"the duty not to use public resources for party political purposes, to uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not to ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code;"

DerekPhibes (#45) Civil Servants are agents of the Crown/State i.e Ministers. Their loyalty is to the government OF THE DAY, therein lies their political impartiality. If the governmnet was to change, so would their loyalty. It does not mean that they are politically neutral as they must do the (legal) bidding of their Departmental Minister(s). If some MPs of the ruling Party do not abide by their Minister's wishes, they (Civil Servants) are likely/bound to be interested (MI5 are Civil Servants remember). After all, Civil Servants play a role in drafting the legislation which MPs vote on. I have no idea where the above quote came from, but in another context it could be simply a way of finding out what the objections of the MPs were or just a further implementation of the whip surely?

DerekPhibes (#45) Just to be clear, I reckon the Civil Service Code per se was a good thing, just as being a Civil Servant used to be an honourable profession. This began to change insidiously in the early 80s under Thatcher as she began to undermne teh Civil Service. This was done in all sorts of ways, one of the most egregious being flooding it with 'Press Officers' and other outside 'consultants'. This was done to undermine the state in favour of deregulated free-market liberal-democracy. Blair's government took this to the extreme, attacking elitism etc. We are now seeing the dire consequences. Trotskyites could have done no 'better', hence my tendency to equate the two.

It's interesting that Harriet Harman kept saying that MPs should be allowed to do their job "without unwarranted interference". That's exactly right, because "unwarranted" means "without a warrant". If the police want to conduct a search without a search warrant then they should be told to go away.

This reflects very badly on the police, the Speaker, the Serjeant at Arms, and all those government ministers that aren't outraged by the police action.

occultations (#38) Why?

All any that recent events show is that some people in Parliament naively think that they should be above the laws which they themselves pass.

Why?

Why should they be especially privileged?