.... that the Committee was able to publish its report at all. I mean, it said something nasty about the government - surely that means it shouldnt be published at all? Like the case with the McBride scandals, I mean surely everyone knows if you have something bad to say about the government you keep your mouth shut? At least, thats what Labour wants us to believe.

But I suppose it doesnt matter, since we know that nothing will come of it. I dont expect any of those who exaggerated the security risks to face any music.

And that should of course be Damocles. Sorry about that.

Police chief Bob Quick briefs the Home Office in detail about pending anti-terror legislation raids. We know this because he was caught with the paper in his hands by photographers, and had to resign as a result.

Jacqui Smith denied that she was briefed about the pending raid on Damien Greens office using THIS SAME anti-terror legislation by THIS SAME OFFICER.

She said

"JACQUI SMITH: I was told about the search and about the arrest after it had happened. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/7757215.stm

"JACQUI SMITH: No, I think it is right that I knew that there was an investigation going on. I did not know before the arrest that that particular front bench spokesman or any front bench spokesman was about to be searched and arrested. "

I don't believe her, I think Bob Quick briefed her, and possible the dirty tricks man, McBride. I wonder if there were any special advisers present at those meetings. I think he told her about his planned arrest of a Tory MP. I think she approved of it and I think she believed it would make good political capital. After all she knew were the leaks went to before she made the complaint.

I also note she ducked the question about whether 'Damien Green's phone was bugged using the answer that Home Secretaries never confirm or deny.... rubbish, she could say no, she did not.

Or is she saying that she may occasionally bug politicians phones and Parliament and so she cannot deny it outright, for the times when she does....

It must have occurred to some that, with the papers full of troughing ministers, and the general impression compounded by the revelations of nu labour smear campaigns, the air is so thick with dirt and the fan-blown, that any further process against Green is not only going to be a big fail, but a further opportunity for Joe/e Public to perceive the abject piggery that has become of the bunch of political cuckoos aka nu labour.

Cue frantic pedalling backwards while proceeding forwards into the septic tank of Westminster.

And where is Smith? Is she lost - or just missing in inaction? Has anyone happened to have found a Smith they don't know what to do with, but are reluctant to report to the police?

The Register has misreported this. The committee isn't say politicians shouldn't be investigated, it's saying that when there is a police investigation it should be handled by the police themselves without informing or consulting with ministers about it in advance.

I'm not sure I agree with that recommendation though. The police are enough of a law unto themselves already (witness G20 etc.) that I don't think having them traipsing around parliament on a whim without some VERY senior approval (and even then only in the most serious cases) can be good for democracy.

Er... I think by 'politicians should not be involved in future' they mean they shouldn't be breifed about an impending arrest in future - which is right and correct, because that amounts to a tip off. You don't call a drug dealer's mum just before you raid the house, do you?

That said (god I feel dirty, defending MPs. Eugh) - I love the fact that when anti terror laws (or any laws) are applied to MPs, all of a sudden the political classes clamour that Its A Scandal and Something Must Be Done.

When its some poor 80 year old bloke shouting at a Labour conference though... that's just 'unfortunate'.

Pretty much the same as FOI. Its all good as long as its used to humiliate Local Authorities and rival Ministers' civil service departments, but as soon as it applies to MPs directly...? How many times over the last few years has there been an issue with someone's expenses? At first they actually tried to change the law because when they passed the FOI Act in the first place they had for some reason not thought it might apply to them and were very shocked indeed when it turned out it did!

Then we've had another year or so of 'You may not like it, but I haven't broken any rules' for someone to actually say 'er.... well maybe we should change the rules so they weren'aren't so blatantly open to abuse?'. Not that I think it'll happen, but there we go.

While I'm abusing hyprocritical politicians - wacqui jacqui really does get up my nose. When talking about Fred whatsisface's pension/payoff - 'he may not have broken the law but he's been convicted in the court of public opinion'. When questioned about 'her' second home 'I haven't broken any rules'

God I hate that woman.

"they'll sort it out without warrants or proof"

By law, they didn't need a warrant as they'd already arrested him. Not sure who introduced that one, but I suspect it was the Tories.

As for proof, warrants are issued to search for evidence/proof. If they already have the evidence/proof, they wouldn't need to execute warrants, would they?

Personally, I'm in favour of banging them all up. Wanting to be a politician is prima facie evidence of criminality.

We all knew the risks had been deliberately exaggerated from the start, we all knew what the real motivation behind the criminal investigation was, to prevent the humiliating truth about the way the Labour party are behaving from becomming known to the public.

We public have a right to know what useless and bad things the government is up to, this was nothng other than yet more spin, and manipulating the Police for their own political ends.

The Labour party are rotten to the core.

I'm pretty sure this would come under "wasting police time" and should result in the civil servant who reported the police being given a criminal record.

In addition Mr Green should be able to sue those who complained to the police for Liable and Defamation... they made him out to be a traitor or terrorist... he'll get MILLIONS.

That was an enthusiatic Harriet Harman encouraging mob rule of a Sunday morning, not the home office head nutter, but I understand your confusion!