civil servant named in leak enquiry

The Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday have now both named the civil servant allegedly linked to the arrest of Damian Green as Christopher Galley.

The Mail leads with the claim that Galley was used in a failed attempt to entrap Green:

Senior Westminster sources believe that police tried to persuade the alleged whistleblower, Home Office aide Christopher Galley, to call Mr Green.

The civil servant made contact with the MP on more than one occasion, but Mr Green declined to be drawn into conversation.

The sources say they suspect Mr Galley's calls - made soon after his own arrest 11 days ago - were being secretly monitored by the police in an attempt to gather evidence against Mr Green.

For "senior Westminster sources," read "senior Tories" who have done well to manage the fact that Galley is also apparently some kind of Tory - having stood as a Tory candidate in the 2004 elections for Sunderland Council, well before seeking a job in Green's office.

The Sunday Times picks up the same story with slightly less blaring fanfare and gives us the clearest explanation of a case against Green:

Galley, who was in hiding with a relative in the Midlands last night, is alleged to have told police that Green “induced” him to leak the documents.

It is understood that he agreed to co-operate with police, and Green’s name quickly emerged as the recipient of the leaks. According to reports Galley may even have telephoned Green in the days following his arrest. Scotland Yard insisted last night that its officers would not have been party to any attempt at entrapment.

Given the contrast in tone, I'd suspect the Times' version is led by police sources attempting to justify their actions - and a fairly clear indication that the raids on Green's home and offices were an attempt to find proof of that inducement.

We now have the basic outline of the police case: according to Galley, his leaks to Green were (at least in part) induced by Green - leading to the charge of conspiracy.

UPDATE: The Times leads with the conspiracy charge on the front page:

In a welter of briefings from police, ministers, civil servants and Commons officials, the most incendiary came from a senior Conservative who said that Mr Green was accused of “grooming his contact” during his nine-hour detention on Thursday. [...]

Sources close to the investigation [i.e. off the record briefings from the police] confirmed that they were examining information suggesting that Mr Green encouraged the official, Christopher Galley, 26, to leak documents and may have set him specific tasks.

It's that last detail which crosses the line from inducement to conspiracy.

no jobs for leaks? (updated)

There's still remarkably little information in circulation about the civil servant who seemingly passed information to Damian Green. The Times gives us this scrap:

The 26-year-old civil servant was detained at his home in Middlesex at 6am on November 19. The assistant private secretary, who has been suspended from his job, is being looked after by the Home Office at a secret location because it owes him a “duty of care”, officials said. [...]

Conservative sources last night admitted that the official had asked Mr Green, the Shadow Immigration Minister, for a job but said that he had been turned down and that no inducements had been offered in exchange for any information.

The Guardian adds:

Some of the [leaked documents] came from the private office of the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, where the civil servant briefly worked in a junior capacity.

While we might construct a defence of the leaks on the principled grounds of public interest, the original motive may have been far more pragmatic - the desire to appear connected, useful and employable.

UPDATE: Within a matter of hours, a number of papers have named the civil servant.

instant outrage

What, exactly, does the officious application of licensing laws have to do with the phantom of political correctness? Or is it just that John Midgely of the Campaign against Political Correctness can be relied on to summon up instant outrage at the ring of a phone?

irony proof

Yesterday's ZOMG XMAS UNDA ATTACK story in the Telegraph appears - in full cut-and-paste glory - in the Daily Mail where we can skip past the bit of the story where we discover nothing has actually been banned to comments like this:

There is a definite erosion of all kinds of traditions in Britain these days, and then people complain that the country is going to the dogs. It is, but only because the Brits are allowing it to happen.

that's "Britain these days" according to Stuart, from the perspective of... Palma Mallorca. Then there's this one:

So are they going to restrict the number of people entering the centre then, to me it's just another nail in the coffin of destroying Britishness in Britain.

A expert analysis of contemporary Britishness from Alison of... Torrevieja, Spain.

There's nothing quite as entertaining as the opinions of expats who are so wedded to Britain and Britishness that they need to move somewhere else in Europe to live.

it's a story

Good discussion in the comments of Unity's post at Liberal Conspriacy, incidentally, including this from Tim J:

Either the police did inform the Government and the Government are lying about it. Or the police didn’t inform the Government (but did inform Boris, and Cameron, and the Speaker and the Serjeant at Arms) in the which case the Met have gone nuts.

In either case, it’s a story.

I'm also thinking that the notion of total ignorance on the part of the government is untenable. Here's Tim J on his own blog:

In fact, there is a barely-discernible amount of wiggle room being inserted. Phil Woolas on the Today programme this morning said only that, to his knowledge, no Minister had been informed. Jacqui Smith, in her statement, said that the arrest had happened without ministerial involvement or authorisation.

There’s a distinction between being informed and being involved – though I doubt whether semantics will help the Government if it turns out that they were informed.

I tend to think that no-one would be so stupid as to create this opportunity for scandal: it's the cover-up which gets the press going every time.

That said, I suspect Smith's version is more accurate - and that Woolas' ignorance was either happy convenience (if he'd been in the loop, he might have to answer questions about it) or accidental (he's out of the loop because while all ministers are equal, some are more equal than others).

So what's most likely? Some ministers did know about the impending arrest, had no direct involvement, but wanted to keep as much political distance between the arrest and the government as possible, precisely because they knew the story would inevitably raise questions about abuse of power over political opponents. Phil Woolas looking stupid on morning radio is a serendipitous and small price to pay for shoring up a political firewall.

some questions

The Crown Prosecution Service offers some guidance on the offence of misconduct in public office: in essence, wiful, unjustified neglect or misconduct which amounts to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder.

The guidance continues:

Like perverting the course of justice, misconduct in public office covers a wide range of conduct. It should always be remembered that it is a very serious, indictable only offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

A charge of misconduct in public office should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or deliberate failure to perform a duty which is likely to injure the public interest.

Again, in plainer English - it's potentially a very serious charge (equivalent to perverting the course of justice) but also so wide-ranging as to potentially be a tremendously vague charge.

In fact, the guidance suggests that it's good practice to consider prosecution under a different, more specific offence if at all possible:

Before deciding to proceed with a charge of misconduct in public office you should consider whether the acts complained of can properly be dealt with by any available statutory offence.

So we have a couple of questions.

1. If - as various news reports contend - this situation involves the leaking of embarassing but protected information to the press, why not charge under the Official Secrets Act?

Here's the Times' list:

The stories are understood to have included the disclosure that 5,000 illegal immigrants were working as security guards and bouncers; news that an illegal immigrant was employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons; a whip’s list of potential Labour rebels against 42-day detention for terror suspects; and a letter from Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, to Mr Brown warning that the recession would spark a rise in crime.

It's an incredibly specific list - presumably Green's camp going off record to tell the press what the police questioned him about.

2. If these events are indeed key to the enquiry, how do we get from these stories to the claim of a betrayal of public trust? Or, indeed, the injury of public interest?

Would the defence not be to argue the opposite, that to reveal such stories is precisely in the public's interest?

3. Noting that Green has been questioned under suspicion and has not been charged with any offence, is this particular choice of charge a strategic move on the part of the police to allowing a fishing-expedition, the search of his constituency office and his homes in London and Kent?

Conspiracy, aiding and abetting, procuring - all these words presume at least one other involved party.

UPDATE: Unity addresses the question of the Offical Secrets Act and the issue of public interest over at Liberal Conspiracy. Arguing that two of the leaks might be difficult to defend from a public interest position - and echoing my thoughts about the involvment of other as yet unnamed parties - Unity points out:

..as the wording of one of the two charges implies, he may not only have a been passive recipient of leaked information but actually have taken an active part in soliciting and procuring information of that kind...

Bets on a civil servant or party worker being named before the end of the weekend?

UPDATED AGAIN:

A fresh story on the Times site gives us a potential co-conspirator leaking from within:

The Times understands a Home Office employee was arrested at dawn on November 19. Sources suggest the individual was an Assistant Private Secretary who, under a security lapse, had access to more than one private office.

Fresh question: was Green implicated by this person, or was Green part of the original complaint?

friday foil hat (or, no more police procedural dramas for you)

There's something odd about this morning's Today programme interview between John Humphries and Phil Woolas, about the arrest of shadow Home Office minister Damian Green.

Woolas repeatedly returns to the phrasing of the charges - "suspicion of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office" and "aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office." He seems to make careful effort to distinguish between simple leaks (which grease the process of daily politics) and the charge of conspiracy.

Humphries eventually asks him why he keeps repeating that language and goes on to ask what he's implying. Woolas says he's not implying anything, while arguing that the case isn't as straightforward as it would seem.

You can listen to the interview here for the next 24 hrs or so - it's the 8.30am segment.

Adjusting my deluxe foil hat - and allowing that Woolas may just be inarticulate - does the language of conspiracy and "aiding and abetting" not suggest more than one person? Are we waiting for the other shoe to drop?

Other weirdness: David Cameron and Boris Johnson are informed of the police action, but no government minister?

controversy at 11

Another "ban," courtesy of the reliably dim Daily Express:

NURSES are to be banned from calling elderly patients “love” or “dearie” for fear of offending them.

Controversial new rules will insist that elderly people are treated “respectfully” and addressed as they would wish.

For there is nothing more controversial than showing respect to the elderly - it's political correctness gone mad.

Skip past how those first two paragraphs and you'll reach the part of the story where you discover that this is a draft guideline document from the Nursing and Midwifery Council.. which has no power to ban anything.

So this story is otherwise completely accurate, except for the part where there are words on the page.

festive balls

The Telegraph finds the space to print another annal from the war on christmas. It is, somewhat predictably, a helping of festive bollocks:

Carol-singing brownies banned over health and safety fears

Carol-singing Brownies and Guides have been banned from a shopping centre because they are considered a health and safety risk.

The girls, who range from children aged five to teenagers, have sung for pensioners and disabled people at a late night Christmas shopping event at the Marlowes centre in Hemel Hempstead, Herts for more than 20 years.

It's almost Dickensian, isn't it? Evil health and safety officials set against pensioners, girl guides and the disabled. I'm surprised that there aren't orphans involved.

Except, of course, that carols haven't been "banned" at all. Instead, the owners of the shopping centre have decided that there isn't room for 100 girl guides because they've bought a new, larger christmas tree and introduced some mobile trade stalls. There's now only room for a choir of 20.

However, this doesn't stop the Telegraph from attempting to create a new xmas martyr:

West Herts Guides Division Commissioner Gill Oxtoby said: "It is a big event for us. Last year we had more than 100 girls and they and the shoppers really enjoyed the singing.

"It's such a shame because it's been a long tradition going on for more than 20 years and has allowed the girls to give some service to the community.

"We weren't even told that we couldn't attend. I went to ask what date it was and that's when I found out."

The centre has offered to allow 20 girls to sing next Tuesday, but Mrs Oxtoby said: "We can't do that, it wouldn't be fair to the others."

uh.. so it's the kind of ban where you've actually been given permission to do the thing you want but you decide not to because you don't want to hurt someone's feelings. But what about the elderly, the disabled? etc. etc.

Why does the Telegraph keep printing this nonsense?

melanie phillips: reality-proof

Melanie Phillips is famous for making arguments which are - to put it kindly - reality-proof.

Unlike lesser practitioners of the art, Phillips doesn't ignore contradictory or inconvenient evidence. Rather, she incorporates such material as the central proof of whatever she's arguing. Thus, a report declaring "no direct ties to Al Queda" is actually proof of direct ties to Al Queda, the rejection of anti-semitism is its stealthy endorsement and the phrase "let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill" actually meant "submit or die."

Today's edition follows the same rhetorical form:

For sure, [Obama] has made some solid and reassuring appointments, such as his Treasury team. But did anyone really believe that a radical president would appoint obvious radicals to key roles in his administration? Maybe he really was a centrist all along. But if not, the one thing Obama is not going to do is torpedo his presidency at the very start by displaying a radical bent.

For you see, Obama's failure to behave like a crazy radical is in fact proof that he is a crazy radical. It is a double-super-secret-reverse-blind to trick us all.

The real genius of this kind of writing is the way in which Phillips positions herself as the voice of centrist moderation - while approvingly quoting the NRO. Arguments are moderate, in other words, to the degree to which they reflect entirely conservative thinking.

figleaf

Peter Stringfellow made the.. uh.. enterprising argument that while his venues might be run for "sexual stimulation," this is no different from a poster ad of David Beckham in his underwear.

Except, of course, that the poster doesn't get down off the wall and gyrate next to your crotch while you drink overpriced champagne.

Stringfellow's argument depends on the pretence that all sexual interaction is entirely the same:

Asked about his own establishments, he said: "Of course it's sexually stimulating, but so is a disco, so is a pretty girl.

"So is David Beckham with his gear on. So are the Chippendales. I went to see them and I was the only man among 3,000 females."

It's a particularly unconvincing argument to hear from a man who has made a huge amount of money by knowing exactly what he can charge money for - and what isn't being given away free on a poster hoarding.

The BBC's report actually cleans up Stringfellow's testimony - he actually stammers out the image of a pretty girl showing her underwear.

Hmm.

fairground follies

Andrew Gilligan's semi-regular appearances in various comment sections have taken on the quality of the popular fairground game whackamole. For those of you catching up to this particular episode of blogospheric fun, go here first.

In short, the game involves waiting for Gilligan to appear and then asking:

Do you deny leaving comments underneath your own articles and/or articles about you, whilst pretending to be a third person?

which has the quality of sending the mole back under the table, pretending that he has not been hit with any kind of squeaking DIY implement.

I oversimplify, of course. The plastic mole doesn't normally accuse you of failing to recognise that is, in fact, you who has been hit on the head by an oversized novelty hammer, and you who has made a squeaking noise.

Addressing Dave Hill in the comments at Liberal Conspiracy, Gilligan writes:

I repeat, because you have not answered it, the charge I make: that your blog consists almost entirely of cutting and pasting other people’s work, notably Ken Livingstone press releases..

How terribly, terribly annoying that must be. To continually ask the same question and have that same question ignored. Like this:

Everyone on the internet: Do you deny leaving comments underneath your own articles and/or articles about you, whilst pretending to be a third person?

Gilligan: "I invite you to find one example - just one - of anything I wrote about Ken during the election campaign that was untrue."

In short, you're not playing whackamole, after all. No, we have it on good authority from the mole that the issue of the hammer has been resolved and that it's your turn to get under the table.

EDITED TO ADD:

Gilligan has reappeared to play stupid:

How come almost everyone attacking me for allegedly writing under an alias themselves writes under an alias?

The problem isn't writing under an alias - and never has been, as has been repeatedly pointed out. The issue is what a person chooses to do with that alias. i.e. whether you try to defend yourself and attack your opponents while pretending to be an impartial third party.

the only post on this subject

Leading manufacturer of flaming torches, pitchforks, enraged villager costumes etc. declares surprise at unexpected use of merchandise, and calls for calm:

Here are some extracts from the blog on a social networking site, offering a horrifying insight into Baby P's home life and the character of his callous and hopeless mother.

Or not.

in charge of the asylum

It might be a little discomforting for The Spectator - "champagne for the brain" - that they ended up declaring Nadine Dorries one of its Parliamentarians of the Year.

The fact that she won in the Readers Representative category may be particularly unnerving: Dorries - fabulist, bully, repeater of the most transparently untrue myths as fact - is the MP with whom The Spectator readership identifies most closely.

There is a chance, though, that those who voted in the contest have a finely honed sense of comic irony and that Dorries' win is a superb situationist gag. Why? This result:

Newcomer of the Year: Peter Mandelson

Hmm.