A case of Dale's bent question or handbags at dawn?
Iain Dale with the title of this post "Perhaps Brown should be arrested..." suggests rather than questions because he does not use a question mark. Mr Dale's post (which includes a YouTube video) is as follows:
"I challenge any supporter of the Police action against Damian Green to argue the case that what Gordon Brown admits to in this 1985 video is different to what Damian Green is accused of - procuring misconduct in public office.
Perhaps Sky & the BBC might like to show this video on their news bulletins".
I am a supporter of the police action against Damian Green. I do like to accept challenges. However, the terms of the challenge have to be agreed and not imposed. Also, the rules of the challenge need to be agreed beforehand. The case is against Christopher Galley and Damian Green, and not against Gordon Brown. Mr Dale is trying the Fat Cat driving his Audi and caught speeding saying the man in the BMW in front was also speeding. It's no defence in law. It is against the law to aid and abet the commission of a criminal offence. The police have a duty to investigate the conduct of both Galley and Green. Surely, if Mr Dale's house gets burgled again he would want the police to investigate?
If it was a question and not a suggestion, the question is crooked. Mr Dale has come to the gambling table with a pair of loaded dice. In the old Wild West, if caught out, he would have been shot and it was legal to do so.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
4 comments:
Actually his position is a little more nuanced. As a fallback position, and to pursue your analogy, he will accept that the chauffeur should be punished for following his instructions but that the man in back seat telling him to do it is in no way responsible.
This, is an engineered event in the true sense of the word.
Information leaked, leaked information sent to press, public embarrassment for the ruling party.
Ruling party let leaks continue, call in police. Police to arrest MP involved, spark public debate.
Much outrage, Parliament being violated, confidentiality of MP's breached, blah blah.
Leader of House, Harriet Harmen then states on Sky news.
There were "very big constitutional principles" that needed to be safeguarded, Ms Harman added, including the rights of MPs to get on with their job without interference from the law.
And she said Speaker Michael Martin should look at how police are able to enter the Palace of Westminster once the investigation into Home Office leaks is concluded.
Next week expect to hear in Queens speech new laws to protect the 'rights' of MP's and to exclude them from laws that have been written for the rest of us.
In effect, to place MP's above the law, by law.
IanPJ: I wouldn't be at all surprised.
IanPJ
It was 'engineered' and ordered by the 'ruling party'; the unprecedented raid was reportedly Home Office authorized. Big brother flexing his muscle since Sir Ian Blair's 'sacking'.
Post a Comment