New Labour and the Police - The End Of A Beautiful Friendship?
They Don't Like It Up 'Em pretty much sums up New Labour's control freak attitude to the arrest of one of Their Own at 6:30 am. The squeals of protest (emitted, as is usual, in leaks, smears and briefings to pliant pressmen by such untainted luminaries as Tessa 'Berlusconi' Jowell and David 'Visa' Blunkett) are probably audible in Moscow, where they probably think a herd of greedy pigs is being slaughtered. They truly believe, in their heart of hearts, that Britain is now a one-party state, in that what's bad for New Labour (being exposed as corrupt liars, for instance) is bad for Britain, and thus the police (and previously the Serious Fraud Office) should lay off them when they ask. Cobblers, we say, you're the servants of the nation and us and you'll bloody well live under the same laws as us and stop bleating like a stuck goat when you come to the attention of the rozzers. You've seen the boys in blue on enough innocents in your time to take it like a man when they come knocking.
Now the interesting thing about Ruth Turner's arrest at 6:30am is that it was for perverting the course of justice, which is shorthand for covering up. Any student of politics knows that in any scandal it's invariably the cover up that gets people into trouble - they're done in a rush, in the glare of publicity (because people already know that there's something fishy going on, and are alert) and because the very existence of a cover up confirms the original sin was one that they really didn't want getting out. Given that, it's quite in order for the police to turn up unannounced and separate Ms. Turner from her documents and computer and have a bloody good look at them.
Naturally the police have picked up a thing or two about unattributed briefings to the press - this is usually used when they've arrested/shot the wrong Muslim, so it's a nice change to see it being used against the great and the good:
source
There have been the defences of Ruth Turner's integrity - I particularly liked this one from the Big Issue's John Bird:
source
That explains why she got on so well with the religious inner circle at Number 10, then - as we know, it's full of religious hypocrites - sorry, I meant 'pretty straight kind of guys' who talk to God (or receive orders from people who talk to God, anyway). What it doesn't explain, however, is what the hell she was doing at the Heart of Darkness - she's also described as 'naive', which isn't usually an adjective that the likes of Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell can lay any claim to. What on earth was she doing there working all hours? What is a 'head of government relations', anyway?
It's noticeable that those Labour figures who've come out and magically all said the same thing more-or-less at the same time are the sort of Blairites you really don't want to be found dead in a ditch with - Labour outside the Magic Circle are bright enough to realise that attacking the police for doing their job makes it look like you have something to hide, which explains MPA chair Len Duvall's comments:
Which roughly translates as 'shut the fuck up'. The last word should go to yet another 'unnamed Cabinet colleague', who sums it up in a phrase:
Or in other words 'never'. Blair is the saviour of the Labour Party and a man with no obvious self-doubt or regrets about anything he's done. He also sees nothing wrong with rewarding those who support his policies, in fact he advocats it. He's never going to admit he's damaged the party and is never going to resign over it. The Labour Party will just have to get some balls and do it itself.
Blogwatch Update:
Naturally I've had to rely rather heavily on media reports, so here's the blog take on things:
Magistrate's Blog questions the need for four rozzers to roll up at 6:30am and gets the reply from the rank and file in the comments - two to secure and search the premises, two to take the suspect away before she can fiddle with anything or warn anyone. PCs go in pairs to back each other up if it comes to court. Sounds reasonable.
Iain Dale naturally concentrates a bit more on the Tory press, who are loving it. Saves me reading them and the links are there.
Not Saussure has a good article, concentrating particularly on whether this will act as a wakeup call to the Labour ministers and MPs who are trying to rebalance the criminal justice system at the expense of the innocent suspect (sorry, that should have read 'in favour of the victim').
BSSC has a short snippet too.
More submissions welcome in the comments.
More on cash for peerages
More on cash for peerages and the police: here.
The basis of these
The basis of these complaints about Ruth Turner's arrest seems to be that she is only a suspect, and therefore has a right to be handled with kid gloves.
Have the complainers stopped to consider that exactly the same is true of innumerable "suspects" whom they would like to see seized in the dead of night by police or military raids, imprisoned indefinitely without trial, and tortured until they incriminate others - who will then become "suspects" in their turn?
Still more poignant is the comparison with procedures in Iraq and Afghanistan, where "suspects" are just as likely to be summarily shot or blown to pieces by air strikes. Once they are dead, their very deadness proves their guilt. How about the Iranian diplomats who had the door of their office kicked in, before being hauled off unceremoniously by armed US soldiers and held in an unnamed location, in spite of being in Iraq at the express invitation of its "sovereign" government?
What these complaints amply confirm is what we suspected all along - many in New Labour's ranks consider themselves innately above the law. They are the elect, who are automatically above suspicion and must never be held to the same criteria as mere mortals like the rest of us. No doubt that is why they can blandly pass such moronic and illiberal laws; it never enters their heads that they, or anyone they know and care about, will have those laws applied to them.
In other words, New Labour's leaders do not understand the concept of "equal under the law" at all. No wonder - it is a principle that was hard won by the efforts and suffering of 17th century Englishmen, and it is an item of faith to Blair and his like that nothing worthwhile was ever achieved before they came to power.
Incidentally, they don't understand the meaning of the word "responsibility" either. They think it means "shut up and go away - this is my business, and I shall deal with it as and when I see fit". Whereas it really means "I am the big cheese who leads this department, and if anything at all goes wrong under my watch I shall have to resign".
I cut my Labour Party
I cut my Labour Party membership card neatly in two and posted it back to them in 1999. This was directly as a result of Blair's actions/words. If causing the loss of party members is not damaging the party, what is?
So by his own criterion, he should have resigned AT THE LATEST in 1999. Though it was a steady accumulation of events that led to my doing this. The final straw had been kicking the electoral reform process into the long grass - but that was only the last straw. No doubt others had left the party long before then. And as we know, party membership has dropped by a couple of hundred-thousand in the past few years. By definition, this MUST be damaging to the party.
That man will leave finger-nail scrapings on the doorstep of No 10 when someone finally drags him kicking and screaming out of there.
In my opinion the Labour Party is finished for at least a generation after the next election, if not forever. He and his kind have not just damaged the Labour Party I once knew: they have utterly destroyed it, and done irreperable harm to the nation while they were at it.
The moves NuLab have made to
The moves NuLab have made to undermine accountability of the government are seriously worrying. The latest ideas from the twin crooks Falconer and Goldsmith are as brazen an attempt to politicise the judiciary and sideline parliament as we have ever seen, they give a blank cheque to the PM of the day. The risk to an unwritten constitution is not at the time of passing laws sidestepping constitutional breaks on power, it is what happens very soon afterwards that matters. Bliar already has dictatorial powers if Goldsmith has his way. Reform of the HOL would remove the only effective break on government’s legislation.
It is now a crisis of such huge proportions that all in Westminster must act. The real worry is that the next PM simply picks up where Bliar has left off and assumes this behaviour is normal. Funding is at the heart of the problem and should provide its own break on megalomania.
Funding must be seen to be fair from now on. The union money is as tainted as any other and must stop. As a member you must either make the donation to the Union for political funding or you can opt out if you want but you must give the money to charity instead. Most people either don’t know where the money goes or cannot be bothered to fill in the forms required to change. It creates a steady flow of money from people who have no interest in politics at all funding the Labour Party. It is dishonest, undemocratic and is the equivalent of any large donor gaining influence over government. Parties should be able to raise money how they like, with a cap to avoid corporates or wealthy individuals gaining influence, as long as they declare it fully and openly and in good time. I know members who vote Tory but cannot deal with the hassle and form filling required opting out; they don’t save any money themselves after all. They are funding Labour, it cannot be right.
What the opposition parties are doing I have no idea but why are they not defending the police this weekend, denouncing Goldsmith, slating Blunkett and Jowell?
It must change
This 'naive' young woman
This 'naive' young woman should remember that 'If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas' At which David Plunkett's dog got up and slowly walked away.
I love the way Labourites
I love the way Labourites squirm and writhe every time the police do anything regarding this cash for honours investigation. Lord Puttnam in a BBC interview basically said that Ruth Turners arrest was "the stuff of movies" and that it didn't take 4 officers to make this arrest enquiry because she was well to do and would never do anything wrong. Something I'm sure no police officer has ever heard before.
In an interview with the Telegraph Puttnam asks “What about turning up at 9 o’clock, or what about phoning and saying: 'I wonder if you’d mind coming into the police station, we’d like to talk to you'. Why do you send four policemen at 6.30 in the morning to arrest a perfectly nice woman? It’s ludicrous. I think they’re into theatrics.
“I have known Ruth a long while. She’s one of those half-dozen,..people I would stake my life on. This is the stuff of movies. Why do police insist on playing out a movie. I think the police should put up or shut up.â€
Well unfortunately for Puttnam, we don't live in "cor blimey Laaandun taaaan" world where chimney sweeps sing songs and dance in the street, mary poppins does not exist in this world. policing does not involve "come on son, put down the shooter, don't make it worse for yourself". and it certainly does not involve police officers going against all the "integrity is non-negotiable" training they were spoon fed thanks to new Labour in order to appear more subservient. It appears Lord Puttnams view on modern British life is the stuff of movies. The rule of law, top idea. No one is above it, even you lot in government.
p.s
loved the first entry.
I no longer care about this
I no longer care about this government because i know they are out the door in a mtter of years. I am however, terrified at what they have been allowed to get away way and the unthinkable powers this will give future governments down the line. The sheer arrogance of comments made by ministers that they shouldn't be suspected of anything and the way that noone is held accountable means things like the above will soon become the norm. We will fast ofrget what it is like to have a government that can be held accountable for it's actions and from there it is a short hop to a dictatorship.
I think you guys are way too
I think you guys are way too hard on them all. If she says ‘I absolutely refute any allegations of wrongdoing of any nature whatsoever’ and a number of respected New Labour types back that up, then who are we - the miserable voting public, to quibble with our illustrious rulers. In an attempt to counterbalance the highly negative balance of the blogosphere about this issue, I'm launching a campaign to get Ruth Turner considered for sainthood. Please sign my petition here.
Further info can be found on www.InMyHumbleEtc.co.uk
Hence this attempt at news
Hence this attempt at news management.
"No question now, what had
"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
George Orwell
Why has Tony always been
Why has Tony always been itching to "reform" the House of Lords? Because, ironically, it is the only opposition/safeguard of any feeble excuse for a constitution that we have left! And what about that useless woman sitting half a mile away from him in Buck House? I see no use for a head of state - isn't she supposed to have weekly meetings with "it" (sorry, I refuse to even write the correct personal pronoun when discussing that illegal squatter in No 10)? Does she not read a single newspaper or website? Nice end to her reign - a thousand years of rights go up in smoke.
If she were at all interested in liberty and her "subjects", she would send two guardsmen down to Downing Street ON THE DOUBLE. And would say: "Do not even hang this thing. Take him out onto Parliament Square and BEAT HIM LIKE A DOG until we are rid of him forever." And don't just stand there looking at me, get down there pronto - or I'll have your head on the block as well.
As for that "deputy" and the rest of his useless "cabinet", why did we ever abolish these travelling circuses when they had freaks in cages that you used to be allowed to throw rotten fruit and buckets of water at??
kenny, You are so right.
kenny, You are so right.
I find the suggestion that
I find the suggestion that it would be just fine for our pal Ruth to come down to the station and answer a few more questions particularly entertaining:
"Hello... it's the Met. Could you spare an hour or two to go over some more questions?"
"Sure! Just a minute and I'll go get my hard drive destroying magnet... I mean my keys. My car keys."
So David "Memphis Belle"
So David "Memphis Belle" Putnam sees Knacker's actions as "movie like" and "theatrical." Well, luckily for us the Old Bill aren't playing to one of David's risible scripts. They've managed to take us all by surprise. Not an emotion anyone watching one of Putnam's dreary cinematic non-events is ever likely to experience.
Off-topic joke re. : "PCs go
Off-topic joke re. : "PCs go in pairs to back each other up if it comes to court."
Reminds me of an old Czech joke: Q: Why do secret policemen go around in threes? A: One can read, one can write, and the other keeps an eye on those two intellectuals.
Incidentally, do you think the police could invoke any of the numerous computer crime laws in this case?
Surely this is not the same
Surely this is not the same Ruth Turner that was a pioneering marine biologist who became the world's expert on teredos, wood-boring bivalve molluscs that wreak havoc on docks and boats, is it?
How on earth did she get involved in all this?
Its a sad day for wood-boring bivalve molluscs, that's all I can say...
No, lifesastumblingblock, it
No, lifesastumblingblock, it wasn't. I think you are pulling our legs, huh?
Not an emotion anyone watching one of Putnam's dreary cinematic non-events is ever likely to experience.
I thought Memphis Belle was excellent, mind you I only watched it being filmed, which was over my house in Suffolk. A fun few weeks, that.
'...boring bivalve molluscs
'...boring bivalve molluscs that wreak havoc...'
Methinks she is still working with the above in her present capacity...
interesting post from kenny.
interesting post from kenny. i am no monarchist by any means but i can't help but think that the role of the queen is to protect the british constitution and state from it's enemies. what happens when one of the enemies is the barely democratically elected (and even then only by some loose definitions) leader of the country? to me it seems like even the monarch, which monarchists use as an excuse to exist because its supposedly a check and balance, is failing in her duty to sort out blair. she should dissolve the govt and force a general election which is totally within her power citing her concerns at the way a thousand years of rights are being overrun.
'The Queen can only disolve
'The Queen can only disolve parliament after consulting the PM of the day' - what that means in practice I've no idea. I do however know that if she announced hes gone, that bloater Cherie would be on a refuse barge down the Thames in about 5 minutes flat
David Blunkett shoots off
David Blunkett shoots off his mouth again - link
Sorry to have appeared as
Sorry to have appeared as 'anonymous' in the above post (Blunkett shoots of his mouth) - I must have missed filling in the relevant field.
What with all the recent coverage of sock puppets and anonymous posters, I thought I should clarify this.
Yep, its strange that when
Yep, its strange that when Ruth Turner is arrested the usual frontbench suspects come out screaming how disgracefully the police have acted and claim she cannot possibly be guilty. Yet I remember when Charles De Menezes had his head blown to pieces in full view of the public despite his innocence those same characters were telling us that the police have a hard job to do in tough times and they should wait until an investigation before saying anything... Didn't stop them all screaming Turner's innocence on every news show..
Does anyone really think, no matter how innocent Turner may appear, that anyone that close to Tony Blair has nothing to hide? Its a shame though that it is Turner and not Campbell who is being woken up by the Rozzers at dawn...
Chris It's early days yet
Chris
It's early days yet ... give it time... give it time.
What is Blair's stance on
What is Blair's stance on the Iranian nuclear threat, I don't mean the threat to American interests, rather the threats from American interests.
And how much influence does the Labour Friends of Israel that is a UK Parliament based campaign group promoting support within the British Labour Party for a strong bilateral relationship between Britain and Israel have on uk ministers policy?
Especially in the regard of armed conflict!
Ok, I know, they're all rhetorical questions.....
The sad news is that poor
The sad news is that poor old Union Jack has been dragged into this sordid affair: http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1139829.0.0.php
Oh dear me. The only difference between Jack and his boss Bambi here is that UJ doesn't have any friends left to come out and explain to the rozzer how 'He's really a great guy" and "Why are they interviewing him at 4.30 in the afternoon? That's a disgrace!" Et cetera Et cetera Et cetera