Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Lord Levy Arrested
The news on the television this evening carried a report on the arrest of Lord Levy as part of the investigation into abuses of the honours system in our country. The "Loans for Lordships" scandal see here. I take no pleasure in the arrest of anyone, for of course it means a failing has occurred that would have been far better had it not happened; nevertheless, the law must be enforced and if as a consequence, the arrest of people who are in elevated positions is needed then so be it.
What I found ironic was that the report included an interview with a spokesperson for Lord Levy, possibly a solicitor. The spokesperson informed us that Lord Levy went voluntarily to the police station and was arrested there, it seemed there was an implication that the police had acted improperly or perhaps unfairly as, of course, Lord Levy would provide full co-operation with the investigation.
Now I remeber reading on the Policeman's Blog that this is quite normal practice for the police to "invite" the suspect for an interview; then arrest and caution them when they arrive, obviously this means the interview can be used as evidence. I personally take a fairly dim view of this because for me it is unfair on the suspect, they've voluntarily gone to the police for the interview and suddenly find themselves needing a lawyer. Of course it means the police don't have to bother with a warrant which no doubt saves administration. In any event, I'd imagine Lord Levy took the precaution of taking a lawyer with him as I can't believe this came as a total surprise to him; so I feel in his case there has probably been no violation of his rights. As an aside, I wonder if his fingerprints and DNA were taken as I believe is now standard on arrest?
The irony is that here we have a senior member of a government that has been keen to drive a coach and horses through ancient rights and liberties, in the name of efficiency and quoting platitudes such as "if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear"; and as soon as he's on the receiving end of this process his spokesperson is complaining about the unfairness of it.
Well Lord Levy, it's a bit late now; maybe you should have been more concerned with the rights and liberties of the individual rather than funding statist socialism.
Still, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I'm sure he'll be happy to hear the advice so often given by the politicians and apparatchiks: "if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear". So don't complain about the unfairness of it; think of the efficiency savings to the (good) state; abandon this bourgeois individualistic obsession with perceived unfairness; think of, and find comfort in the socialist cause comrade.
Remember: "if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear".
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
What I found ironic was that the report included an interview with a spokesperson for Lord Levy, possibly a solicitor. The spokesperson informed us that Lord Levy went voluntarily to the police station and was arrested there, it seemed there was an implication that the police had acted improperly or perhaps unfairly as, of course, Lord Levy would provide full co-operation with the investigation.
Now I remeber reading on the Policeman's Blog that this is quite normal practice for the police to "invite" the suspect for an interview; then arrest and caution them when they arrive, obviously this means the interview can be used as evidence. I personally take a fairly dim view of this because for me it is unfair on the suspect, they've voluntarily gone to the police for the interview and suddenly find themselves needing a lawyer. Of course it means the police don't have to bother with a warrant which no doubt saves administration. In any event, I'd imagine Lord Levy took the precaution of taking a lawyer with him as I can't believe this came as a total surprise to him; so I feel in his case there has probably been no violation of his rights. As an aside, I wonder if his fingerprints and DNA were taken as I believe is now standard on arrest?
The irony is that here we have a senior member of a government that has been keen to drive a coach and horses through ancient rights and liberties, in the name of efficiency and quoting platitudes such as "if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear"; and as soon as he's on the receiving end of this process his spokesperson is complaining about the unfairness of it.
Well Lord Levy, it's a bit late now; maybe you should have been more concerned with the rights and liberties of the individual rather than funding statist socialism.
Still, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I'm sure he'll be happy to hear the advice so often given by the politicians and apparatchiks: "if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear". So don't complain about the unfairness of it; think of the efficiency savings to the (good) state; abandon this bourgeois individualistic obsession with perceived unfairness; think of, and find comfort in the socialist cause comrade.
Remember: "if you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear".
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
