but what does the arrest of an MP for leaking secret documents have to do with the transport police?

Anyone would think they aren't being serious about investigating why an MP shoul be held to the same laws as the rest of us peasants.

If he comes to the wrong conclusions then he will be arrested.

I still haven't seen a single explanation as to why anti-terrorism police were involved, hopefully this investigation will address this too and publish its full report.

Tim#3

>I still haven't seen a single explanation as to why anti-terrorism police were involved,

You need an explanation ?

Could it be that what they've done would be considered illegal, and the only way they can do it legally is to invoke the new anti-terrorism laws?

You'll notice Brown did this recently to Iceland, it seems there was no legal way to freeze their assets in the way that he wanted to (legally) so he just invoked the new anti-terrorism laws which pretty much mean he can get away with blue murder without so much as blinking.

.. did you see the Icelandic journo asking him a question on the subject, the response was along the lines of "we did what was necessary at the time and it was all proper under uk law - next question, I didn't like that one .."

.. course it's nice if your laws have elastic ends which pretty much cover anything when you want them to ..

How's about we round up anyone who had anything remotely to do with the arrest and fire them. Then roll back the anti-terror laws and see if anyone did anything illegal, and when we find they did, chuck 'em in goal. ??

Ministers knew nothing my rear end .. they seem a little confused with regards to the meaning of the word "plausible" in the expression "plausible deniability" .. how long before Brown decides the economy is too unstable to sustain an election and puts of the next election for another couple of years??

Stuff "1984", read Animal Farm if you want to know what comes next .. Oink!

"The British Transport Police are controlled by the Department of Transport rather than the Home Office."

One might argue this is like HSBC investigating Northern Rock's financial practises. A salient question is - could Ian Johnston (ex-Met) be aiming for a vacancy at the Met? As I hear it several chief constables appear to be falling over themselves to lick Jacqui's behind in the hope of landing safely in Blair's vacant seat - Jacqui of course deciding who gets to it full time. This is not a pretty from any PoV.

Indeed. Which rather gives the lie to Jacqui klebb's claim that the police is independent of the Home Office.

...how many pages it takes to say all my ACPO/Mason/etc mates handled it right and just 'forgot' to tell Smith* and Brown* what was going on.

*The lack of firstnames is intentional.If it's good enought for the beeb can call a serving mp by his surname only, a treat they usually reserve for convicted criminals, it's good enough for me.

It wasn't a silly question. What was silly was calling the documents secret.

They weren't. Not valid secrets.

The documents were information that should not have been marked secret and should have been available to the public. There was nothing state secret about the information contained therein.

@Tim - AC is quite correct - Special Branch = Anti-Terror Police where the press are concerned, and as there was a claimed breach of the OSA it's in there jurisdiction.

Same as the MoD Police = MOD's Secret Private Police Force according to Keith Vaz

Or Thames Valley = Cowboys who only get away with things because their techniques work according to any other police force ;)

The fact is not a terrorist is not in dispute, he is not facing terrorism charges.

The fact terrorism laws were used against him, was disclosed by Jacqui Smith on Sunday.

There is no thing in dispute here, simply a lack of action by the Home Office to prevent future misuse of these terrorism law. So this can only ever serve to give the police a thumbs up. I would prefer to see a penalty for misused of terrorism laws and officers that decide to play that card when they know it is inappropriate face proper criminal sanctions like anyone else would.

Jacqui Smith is not fit to hold a position of power.

On Gordon Browns use of terror laws to seize the Iceland assets, two points:

1. He later had to lend them the money back after they threatened to take him to court. Misusing terror laws might work when it's one person against UK government, but not when it's a country against the UK government, since they could get UK assets seized anywhere in the world. I personally think he caved in and they let him call it a loan to save face.

2. Take a look at the following graph and guess where Gordo came to power. He may claim to be a financial wizz kid, but the people with money know differently and the Iceland thing only encouraged more 'terrorist' money to fly out of the UK to protect it from Gordo.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GBPEUR=X&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

"2. Take a look at the following graph and guess where Gordo came to power."

...or look at the following graph and guess where Tony thought "Oh crap, it's all going to the dogs. We're f*cked. If I bail now, Gordy will take the blame"