Anything you do say may be used as evidence in a court of law.wv: cations ... obviously google doesn't know their anions.
I thought that the point, formerly, of having a robust retired senior officer of the armed forces in this job was to do exactly as you say. A firm stance (and an inability to be browbeaten by the Speaker or anyone else)would be essential to defend the rights of the house. We know who changed the system and chose a sock puppet instead.The job should revert to as it was; a Crown Appointment. This matter is key and shows the Speaker's judgement is flawed and ultimately as he made the appointment, he should go.
'Can I see your warrant card' would be a good place to start too.The time between Galley's arrest and Green's strikes me as suspicious. According to reports Galley rolled over quickly enough. If it were a genuine national security matter surely the Police would have moved on Green faster. Instead they waited until a time when Parliament was lightly staffed. I'm mindful not to read too much into that. Eg: Were they given advice that Parliament not sitting would cloud the issue of MPs being allowed to go about their democratic business unmolested by the state? I hope it was nothing more than taking advantage of a quiet period.
I have. The question you ask when ever any official attempts to compel you to do anything is the same:"By what authority?"Often they don't know, and don't really have the power. They have to be pretty stupid to proceed once you've drawn their attention to the fact they don't know.From an officer of Parliament, it is a question you wouldn't ignore.
The lack of warrant actually puts the police in the clear on the Parliamentary Privilege point.If they had had a warrant they would be demanding entry, which would have raised the constitutional issue.But they did not demand to be admitted, they ASKED the relevant officer of the House and were given permission.So the only issue is just how much of a muppet the Serjeant-at-Arms is.There is still a PP issue re the arrest, but not the Commons search.
"I have nothing more to add."Brilliant. Does that mean you're shutting down your crappy tedious blog?
If you don't like it then don't read it. That goes for other 25,000 a month.
I was only being cheeky! I will continue to read, of course. And hats off to you for the impressive hit count.
As I understand it she spoke to the speaker about the Police's intention to search before hand. If he couldn't be arsed to mention anything about warrants she may have taken that to mean she should allow them in without a warrant. I reaslly dont think Martin should be hiding behind the woman.
willie said - a retired senior officer would also have stood by his (or her) junior staff and taken full responsibility for their actions.
if memory serves me right,did the speaker not have a row with his diary secretary as well,andhave her removed,because she wasconsidered, snooty and would not call him " MR. SPEAKER" ?we are all human beings,dont know the facts,the only true fact is would you buy a car from this man?probably at cut down priceas the knife,went in your backand he blamed the car firm,for not putting enough padding in the seat,and hoped you did not notice theknife in your back
Post a Comment