Levy Makes An Admission
Martin Bright has been all over the Loans for Lordships story. In this week's New Statesman he recounts a recent conversation he had with the Sleaze-Master General himself.
The exchange took place at this year's Labour Party conference during a reception hosted by the GuardianObserver, where Levy took it upon himself to act as an unofficial "meeter and greeter".
Levy and I started talking, particularly about a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on the "cash for honours" affair which I had presented and had been broadcast that same night.
Levy was his legendary charming self. Disarmingly, he told me that his wife had watched the programme and found it very fair. I was delighted, but said there was one matter I felt I had to raise with him. What did he make of the general point I made in the programme: that the loans from wealthy party supporters were not intended as loans, but were to be converted into donations?
He gripped my arm like a long-lost friend and said, by way of answer: "Only some of them." I asked him what he meant and whether he could point to any specific loans. He volunteered the name of Lord Sainsbury, the billionaire former science minister who had lent the party £2m.
The point is that large donations, under this government's own legislation, had to be declared, but loans did not. So what exactly was Levy saying to me? Did he misunderstand my original question? That is possible, but he had gone on to give me an example. Was he joking? Again possibly, but it's an odd matter to joke about. Or was he merely expressing his hope that the loans would be converted into donations?
Guido thinks that this is an admission of some guilt. If Sainsbury's loan wasn't really a loan and the intention was always to turn into a donation at some point, that is an offence. A false loan which disguises a donation is surely an evasion of the legally required reporting of donations under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000?
UPDATE : According to an impeccable source who has just emailed me, the Yard's attention has been drawn to the Martin Bright story in this week's New Statesman.
UPDATE : According to an impeccable source who has just emailed me, the Yard's attention has been drawn to the Martin Bright story in this week's New Statesman.
27 comments:
It seems you're losing your touch Guido. The Labour Party Conference was nearly 2 months ago now, surely you should've heard about this already? I overheard this story on the train the way back from the conference - I pressumed it would've been common knowledge by now.
Catesby Esq
Its last week's New Statesman. It comes out on Fridays.
With respect
I wonder if Yates asked him the same question.
And I wonder if he gave the same answer?
Lying to police would be the shiny glace cherry on top of labour's 99 flake (or should that be £23m flake?) this christmas.
Anonymong,
Nice try, but unless you were sitting next to Martin Bright how did you hear it?
Of course...Labour never intended to repay any of the "loans" they were all donations but hidden from the public and media. Everybody knows this. If they were common-or-garden loans from supporters, why go to great lengths to disguse them?
Cynic @6.22 Please note the Sleazy levy didn't actually answer any of Inspector Yates' questions. When interviewed under caution he read out a prepared statement (presumably evasive) and refused to answer any of Knackers questions. According to Sleazy's lawyer Neil O'May "Lord Levy has always been ready and willing to co-operate and to meet the police at any time of their choosing.
Yeah right, pull the other one it's got bells on
With friends like Levy, and you Guido, it's a wonder we haven't hanged, drawn and quartered Blair already!
What a crime! Almost matches first degree murder or international drug trafficking.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com
P.S. Thank you for your mention of my blog, btw, Guido. Traffic shot up today.
What is an offence?! I'm desperate to know. But Guido, your "People should not be afraid of their governments..." "how mendacious..." banner is in the middle of this post, obscuring your wise words. Is this an issue with IE7, or sabotage by Miliband?
New Statesman, funded by Robinson the Brown cheerleader, has it in for Blair. Martin Bright's conversation may be two month's old but the question is 'Did Levy say this and if so what does it mean.' On its own not the silver bullet but when supported by other statements it adds to the weight of evidence. Step up to the plate Mr Bright, witness for the prosecution.
I was one of those visitors, Anonyming (6.39pm). Don;t try and raise a mortgage on today's hits.
Can I respectfully request one thing to be sorted out? The really annoying html screwup of your lower banner layer (the bit with the Matthew Taylor quote) dropping down over important text. It is becoming very tiresome indeed.
danger - you need to get 'firefox' me old china.
great story guido. I suppose the shame is that 'hearsay' evidence won't really cut the mustard in court - but as Teflon Tony once said, he's prepared to be judged by the court of history / public opinion
Guido, I appreciate the fact that some of the 'donors' were told to provide the money as a loan.
But Martin Bright may have a point that Levy only wanted/needed for some of the loans to turn into donations.
Bizarre as that may seem, coming up to the General Election, their planning horizon was just up to the point of getting back in for another term.
Blair may well have appreciated that some of them would might have wanted the dosh back - but what choice did he have? Spend less on the election ?
Some would say that all the advertising was a waste- but that is easily said with the benefit of hindsight. He must have known he was storing up trouble.
But the trouble could have been solved by proposing 'state funding' or hopes that other rich individuals might be found. At least that might be feasible if they got back in. Tricky stuff, but a heck of a lot easier than planning how to spend 10 + years in opposition.
I agree with the previous post. If Blair alone takes the whole wrap for the peerages business he could be forgiven for feeling ever so slightly put out by Brown and cronies for their behaviour after Blair won them a third term even in the midst of an unpopular war.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com
Gr(L)ab Party charged a couple of us around 1500 quid for passes to conference which were never issued. We asked the credit card co to reclaim it (taken a month after conf incidentally - err... are you allowed to charge for something you know you never provided?) An e arrived today offering us free passes for next year's conference instead... wonder if anyone else has had this 'offer'? You'd think they were strapped for cash or something wouldn't you...?
Pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap.
Guido, you do the Lord's work here. I mean THE Lord. Not some crony. Sure, you honk some people off. But this is good stuff.
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com
You are so in the wrong place
I had an impeccable source once, but it dropped off!
In related news, as a clueless foreigner here I'm wondering what makes Sainsbury all of a sudden so fuckoverable? Has he publicly said he won't be giving them any more money, and has to be made an example of, like a pusher's worst customer?
Anonymong 9:50 - in this context it's "rap" rather than "wrap". You exhibit the level of intelligence I'd expect from someone who acts as a volunteer toady for that psychopath Blair.
Anonymongs who keep punting keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com (and this includes you, Lillimong), do you really truly think that people who read this blog are going to vote for your silly motion? If the answer is 'yes', you are even more stupid than I give you credit for.
PS How's the air conditioning at Lab HQ today?
Put 'im in a dark room and use extreme predujice whilst under interrogation.
These bastards will only tell the truth if they are under the cosh. The namby-pamby Human Rights Act, et al, have ruined the art of interrogation and learning the truth from a bunch of mendacious little shits hell bent on protecting their bournevilles.
Anonymous 8.56 pm - I have it in mind that an admission of guilt is an exception to the hearsay rule and would be admissible in court. Isn't that how all those dumb crims who confide in their cellmates in prison get done?
Perhaps a lawyer can enlighten us.
karswell - i understand that cherie booth qc is an expert in these matters..
Lord Levy, a man who entrapped ill-educated naive young people into working for him, and then living off the ‘commission’ he charged for finding them work. How fortuitous that you have juxtaposed this story with one about East European pimps whose career paths are so very similar.
HI Guido,
I got a dodgy record to pimp. Can you put me in touch with the Levy geezer?.
Mikey you twat, I was telling It to Fuck Off, not endorsing it..
Post a Comment