Senior Tory angered by his arrest

[Barman]

It seems that Nick Robinson has upset more than a few.

Personally I can't stand the odious little twerp.

Seconded... you have to wonder which of the elected few writes it for him... 

[Nick]

I was so cross I called Damien Green's office. She said they have had hundreds of calls of support

[Barman]

I was so cross I called Damien Green's office. She said they have had hundreds of calls of support

Did you offer to let him join your stupid barmaid game...? 

[Snoopy]

Robinson only got the job because his dancing was worse than John Sargeant's

[Nick]

Ahem.This is the Commons BM

[Barman]

Ahem.This is the Commons BM

[Snoopy]

PM had 'no knowledge' of arrest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7756013.stm

Whether Brown knew in advance or not doesn't matter. Nulabour have created the conditions that allowed this to happen. He is the man in charge ~ the buck cannot be passed any higher. If he didn't know, as he claims, then he bloody well should have done. That alone would, in better and more honourable days, have been enough to make him resign.

I'd put money on the fact that Mandy knew.
"Oh Gordon, this Damian character ~ I think I have an answer that may also solve a few other problems, it may get a bit messy tho'"

"Mandy ma wee sassenach friend, I dinnae want to know ~ fix it with Gorbals Mick, that way naebody will be able to tie me into it and you cannae be made to answer questions 'cos you have your cloak of ermine to wrap yourself in when the sh*t hits the fan"

"Consider it done then Gordon"


Shades of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest"

[Barman]

Leg-Iron has a good take on the statement...

So let's have a look at the phrasing he uses.

"I had no prior knowledge, the Home Secretary had no prior knowledge, I know of no other minister who had any prior knowledge," Brown told Sky News television.
"This is a matter for the police, they are carrying out an investigation. I hope that everybody can feel able to uphold both the independence of the police and the statement that no minister was involved."

Make no mistake. The Righteous choose their words very carefully.

'I had no prior knowledge'. Prior to what? He does not specifically say he knew nothing until after the event. Prior to the point where he knew about it, he did not know about it, but that point is not specified here. The same applies to his next line.

'...the Home Secretary had no prior knowledge...'   Police arrested an MP, using anti-terrorist laws, and raided an office in the Houses of Parliament without letting the Home Secretary know about it? Disciplinary proceedings must surely follow. Bet they don't.

He knows of no other minister who had prior knowledge... maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. There's no way to prove it, either way.

The last line is well phrased. Take another look.

"I hope that everybody can feel able to uphold both the independence of the police and the statement that no minister was involved."

Leaving aside that the police have now been interfered with to the point where they can hardly claim to be independent, look again at what we are asked to uphold. Not that 'no minister was involved'. We are asked to uphold the statement that no minister was involved. He has spoken, therefore that is truth. We must agree. Winston Smith's history books cannot be denied.

Saucy Boy

 

[Uncle Mort]

Shades of "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest"

My very thought.

The police lost their independence years ago. They now bend to will of the government and do what they're told. But like Henry's knights they don't need to be specifically ordered any more.

[Barman]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7r8QPTavweI

 

[Snoopy]

Many a true word spoken in jest. 

[Nick]

http://www.order-order.com/2008/11/brown-confesses-to-procuring-misconduct.html

And did anyone else see Jaqui Klebb prevaricating on Marr this morning.Astonishing

[Snoopy]

Someone has to tell these people the facts of life:
(i) The Government does not RULE, it governs and only then with the consent of the people.
(ii) The Monarch RULES through the government and can still dissolve Parliament if she so desires OR if enough of her people ask her to. The Prime Minister (First Lord of the Treasury to give him his proper title) is appointed by the Queen and can equally be got rid of by her. Conventionally this is not done but it could be.
(iii) The Police can only police with the consent of the people. Their oath is to the Monarch whose laws they swear to uphold ~ Their Warrant Cards are issued in the name of the Monarch NOT the Government
(iv) The Armed forces are also sworn to protect and obey the Monarch, her heirs and successors and to obey those granted authority over them by means of the Queen's Commission. The armed forces are not there to do the Government's bidding ~ they do it only with the consent of the Monarch.

 My suggestion to Mr Brown & Co is that they take heed of the above and don't push the people of this country too far because once our consent is withdrawn they are in very deep trouble.

[Barman]

I think this could be the start...

[Snoopy]

I bloody hope so. I see David Davies MP is saying that he hopes they do try to prosecute Damian Green as that, he reckons, will bring the Government down ~ once Green has subpoenaed the whole cabinet from PM downwards