The Home Secretary's role

greg

Ministers characterisation as a Police State being "one in which Ministers direct the Police" needs challenging. That may be appropriate to Ministers directing people to arrest, but i've never heard of any "Police State" characterised by Ministers telling Police not to arrest! That would be a pretty liberal sort of Police State.

Simon

Had she any political credibility left? Throughout her time in nominal charge of the Home Office, we have seen all sorts of humiliations and climb-downs...

She has been a lame duck for some time - no political capital, no skill and no hope of holding her seat.

Bye Bye Smith

Peter Wilson

According to Jack Straw this morning: "We don't have a police state here...A police state would be where ministers were directing an investigation.

Interesting because in 2006...

"The S F Office has dropped a corruption probe into a defense deal with Saudi Arabia.
Lord Goldsmith said the decision had been made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law.

So according to Straw’s definition, it's been a Police State for 2 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6180945.stm

The Bellman

There's a direct parallel with the civilian control of the military. The Armed Forces do not decide which countries to invade, nor have the final decision on how to set strategic aims and objectives.

But, on campaign, where a tactical or operational action has strategic implications, the intelligent commander will recognise that there is wisdom in seeking direction from higher authority - frequently that will mean not just the joint military headquarters (where anyway there are civilian political advisors) but the MoD itself.

Often this is derided as 'the long screwdriver', robbing commanders of their initiative; but it also prevents such devolved decisions from undermining strategic goals.

Searcher

Ashley may have made a good point on Jacqui Smith, but she then goes on to put the blame on Boris Johnson (or “Bozza”, as she so charmingly calls him) for politicising the police by his declaration of no confidence in Ian Blair, just about the most political policeman we have ever seen. She got that the wrong way round. Just because she makes one good point doesn’t mean that she’s not a fool.

Desperate Dan

I'm surprised that the Cabinet Office Leaks Unit didn't mention anything about Damian Green to Liam Byrne, Minister in charge of the Cabinet Office. Either they consider him to be an incompetent waste of space and didn't bother telling him what they were doing, or else he's just been very lucky to have kept his name out of the papers so far.
And who are the Cabinet Office Leaks Unit anyway? They keep very busy behind their mask of anonymity.

Nicholas

"The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive."

The problem with New Labour is that they have allowed their political ideology to be translated into law at the same time as they have accommodated the perceived needs of enforcement agencies by increasing powers and reducing rights/safeguards. This combination approaches the police state.

The change has been characterised by a presumption, or quite possibly a misrepresentation, that by doing so they are representing not just the public need but the public will. There may or may not be any tangible evidence for that but the claim is characteristic in much of New Labour's oratory and writing.

New Labour certainly seeks to exercise control over the social and economic life of the nation. It remains to be seen just how far they get with exercising political control, although their aspirations are apparent. Part of the problem lies in their characteristic hubris and lack of humility as a party, where their ideas become dogma rather than options which the British people might choose to follow. There are several examples of this, where New Labour have chosen a course of action, usually radical, based on the most tendencious evidence or "consultation". They then pretend that this is welcomed or approved by the majority, whereas empirical evidence suggests the opposite. Very often these activities are concerned with the ideals of pressure groups or values inherent within the more extreme elements of the socialist belief system. A combination of soundbites is assembled and repeatedly and consistently uttered, sometimes incorporating emotional or moral blackmail. By this means dissent is suppressed or cast as "unacceptable"; the standard applied being peculiar to Labour rather than of common currency.

In fact for a party supposedly espousing "diversity" and "fairness" they habitually show no consideration for either in the formulation of their policies.

Ian C

Ashley is right - Smith had to know and if she did not then, like Sir Ian Blair did not know that de Menezes was the wrong guy, she should have been in the loop. She is hiding behind "we did not know what had been leaked" and allowed this to go ahead as a deterrent because they are worried, very worried, about something far bigger getting out.

TrevorsDen

Amazing leak from the enquiry into leaks.

The BBC News are reporting leaks from Scotland Yard !! Lots of pro police excuses

A tame reporter has been briefed and is giving on air a mealy mouthed apologia for their actions.
The name of the Peston wannabe is Danny Shore.

I want to vomit.

luke

Completely wrong. There is no way smith should be pre-judging the outcome of a police investigation or acting to prevent an investigation that the police want to pursue.

She shouldnt do this in normal circumstances let alone when a political rival is involved.

She is in a difficult position but the people calling for her to act somehow differntly are completley wrong.

If the investigation leads to nothing then she may well need to get involved in a non-operational role to find out what happened.

Robert D

We seemed to have moved from the old standard operating procedure of where police, in receipt complaint or identity of a crime, invite a potential suspect / witness to decribe events and account for their involvement. If they are not satisfied with the explanation they described to a court why they had reasonable suspicion and sought a warrant that identifes what they want to search and for what kind of evidence.

The new operating model is police first arrest suspect, photograph, DNA and fingerprint them as if they had been convicted of a crime, hold them in communicado in a cell for hours while they search any property, computers, phones the police fancy without having to identify what they are looking for or why. On the basis of this or any other information they integrogate the "suspect" who has no idea what they might have uncovered. If they can invoke the terror laws then they keep a suspect in jail for up to 28 days without a lawyer. If they can't then they release on bail without making any charge, but retaining material for "further examination". There seems to be no constraint on using material obtained in this way to bring charges wholly unrelated to the matters on which they made the arrest. If they can use this process on an MP what is to stop them doing the same to local councillors, doctors, accountants, lawyers, journalists, or anyone else who might reasonably be holding highly sensitive information on indiviuals wholly unconnected to the matter that they started the investigation on.

There is nothing to stop them dropping their original investigation but using the material that they found to start other and unrelated investigations.

It is generally be good that the police are not subject to detailed management by politicians. They should however operate within general policy guidelines that politicans can justify to parliament and the public, and be subject to detailed case by case review by the judiciary.

The police have demonstrated that they are now operating substantially outside of either judicial or political control.

Be afraid.... be very afraid

Tim Carpenter LPUK

What Robert D says.

We created the concept of a Warrant for this very purpose - to restrain the State. Forget tax, the American revolution was given force by British Soldiers writing their own warrants.

The Government gets closer to its Ceauşescu Moment.

The Laughing Cavalier

It is extraordinary, is it not, that the principal defence by any Minister in this corrupt and dishonest government goes along the lines of "it wis nae me, I wis nae there". Starting with McCavity Brown it has now become the default position that a Minister is never responsible for mistakes or wrongful actions. What has happened to the concept of politicians taking responsibility for their Department's actions? I would ask the same question about integrity but I know already that the answer is that NuLabour has little or none and even less use for it.