Full text of the CPS Decision
Full text PDF here.
Peston Profile - Indy on Sunday
Friday's Lehmans CDS Auction - Forbes
Austria's Right-Wing Haider Dies in Car Crash - Reuters
How I Swerved to the Right to Avoid Car Crash - Iain Dale
European Elites Want to "Get Ganley" - Mark Mardell
Anatole Kaletsky, Long and Wrong - FirstPost
Alistair Darling Channelling Keynes - FT
Ignore Gordon's Gallows Humour, This is Game Over - Rentoul
Greed is Good - Telegraph
Flat - no positions
As at 0030 GMT, 24 September 2008: +39.5%
-FTSE (Dec) +GBP/USD +EUR/USD
As at 1230 GMT, 23 September 2008: +50.6%
-FTSE (Dec) +GBP/USD
As at 2130 GMT, 22 September 2008: +21.5%
+Gold (Dec) -FTSE (Dec) +EUR/USD
Portfolio performance as at 0800 GMT, 22 September 2008: +4%
75 comments:
Bugger!
The "insufficient" defence. As briefed.
Presumably Guido you will now tell us exactly what evidence has been overlooked by the CPS. Reading this judgement it seems that any agreement not in writing will be deniable after the fact and no offence will have been committed.
How can the CPS say they cannot exclude the possibility that the loans were on a commercial basis??
Does the CPS know a bank who'll give interest free loans with no repayment schedule? If so I'd like their number.
utter bullshit!
Look forward to hearing from you.
Hutton anyone?
So the CPS cannot find direct evidence of a deal of an honour for cash. Surprise, surprise!
But how they cannot infer that an agreement existed based on outcomes ....
(Statistical analysis shows that 58.54% of all donors giving more than £50,000 to the Labour Party receive an honour. This compares to just 0.035% of non-donors. Large Labour Party donors are 1,657 times more likely to receive an honour than a non-donor and 6,969 times more likely to receive a peerage) etc etc
....frankly beggars belief.
The fact is that the 2005 election was financed by NuLab from secret loans obtained from rich men, who were advised to make a loan rather than a gift, and who were subsequently recommended by Tony Blair for an honour.
Like the Hutton inquiry I thought the bastards had been nailed as the evidence was as plain as Cherie Blair, and then found out it was a total whitewash.
I guess I was naive again...
..also very puzzled about the bit on loans being on a commercial basis. If so, can the Labour party please publish the interest rates, repayment schedules, guarantees provided and any covenants enacted?
My fat arse the loans were commercial...
I fear the CPS judgment, as hard as they have tried to make it watertight, is total bullshit.
"How can the CPS say they cannot exclude the possibility that the loans were on a commercial basis"?
Because they cannot prove they were not. Legal, lawyerie stuff, sorry!
However, lets look at the stats Guido produced in a year or so's time. Start taking bets Guido on how different they will be. Pure coincidence that the number of £1million "donators" becoming peers has reduced significantly.
Mind you, might be its because the buggers have managed to get thier hands on public funds to fund their party. If they start this, me thinks its time to rise up and revolt. Bastards get enough of our cash.
WOT A LOAD OF BOLLOX.
they are guilty as sin and we know it
its a fucking white wash.
Just to point out that correlation does not equal causation, so saying that a certain percentage of donors receive an honour does not prove anything. The graph at the link below demonstrates this quite clearly:
http://www.alchemysite.com/blog/uploaded_images/piratesarecool4-755921.jpg
So 'The Director of Public Prosecutions' Matrix Chambers founder member Ken Macdonald, played no part in the decision not to prosecute. Why not? And why stress this fact?
The DPP does however play a part in the rise or fall of his deputy's career, as her boss, n'est-ce pas?
So what's going on here?
I think it's pre spin title would be "an Establishment cover up"
Beyond reasonable doubt, anyone? I want to see them banged to rights as much as anyone, but the CPS has got to take a view on the likelihood of being able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, and the statistical odds that something funny was going on does not constitute such proof.
On the balance of probabilities though, perhaps a civil case could succeed?
...but who would the plaintiff be in a civil case?
Fuck me another whitewash. I booked a weeks leave and put a wad of cash behind the bar to celebrate the CPS decision. My old dad always said 'Never count your chickens' - I don't know what he meant by that but it could be relevant.
Jusrt because you, like I, believe that he's as guilty oas sin, remember that the CPS have to establish, before they take a case to court, that there is a god chance that a Jury will determine on he evidence which they have to submit that someone will be found BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT (not just 'on balance') to be guilty. If you have sat on a jury you will know how heavy a burden of proof that is.
Tut tut. These verbal agreements to exchange loans for peerages - clearly not worth the paper they're written on.
So how does someone get done under the 1925 Act?
Carmen Dowd has form:
she believes you can hold an innocent Brazilian electrician down on the floor of a tubetrain, pump 7 dumdum bullets into his head and then lie about it - all without raising enough legal doubt for a court hearing to be necessary.
Nice.
Looks like it is the second time David Perry QC has worked for Blair.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,2075831,00.html
He was the prosecutor of the civil servant and researcher who leaked the Blair Bush memos.
Anyone got the cash to bring a private prosecution?
Odd change in font in the middle of the second paragraph?
Deals have been done and all those directly involved have been satisfied. Even Yates of the Yard will have a promotion or gong come his way. I'm beginning to think that the whole "Cash for honours" scandal was initiated, not by an obscure Scottish politican, but by Number 11 Downing Street. It was the picker to winkle Tony Blair out of Number 10.
Now we come to the fallout. The Loans for Lordships leads us to:
1. No-one did anything wrong but to make sure it doesn't happen again we will now stick our noses even more in the trough (while still accepting sub-threshold gifts/loans - BTW we will decide the threshold).
or,
2. It's a fair cop. We accept that the previous practice is unacceptable. Therefore, we will now stick our noses even more in the trough (while still accepting sub-threshold gifts/loans - BTW we will decide the threshold).
In other words state funding of cunts.
Basically there was no agreement in writing that someone that gave some cash for an honour would be certain to receive one and therefore no "crime" has been committed as far as the law is concerned. Furthermore, since no crime has been committed, there can be no issue of "perversion of the course of justice".
The law is, as it stands, pretty much unenforceable. It is the system that allows corruption that is guilty as charged. If Lord Levy took 10 Labour donors at random with no particular reason for them being proposed as peers other than they were Labour donors, but just asked Tone to make them Lords, then there is nothing in Law to say this is not permitted. Once the precedent is established, anyone fancying being made a Lord will quickly realise that a few quid bunged in the right direction is very likely to produce one. However, nothing would have been put in writing nor would anything have been guaranteed. The sums of money were never great for the very rich. They could afford to take the small chance of rejection. Most would get what they wanted of course.
The fact is that Yates has been wasting everybody else's time. There was never a chance of this ever going to court. There was never any concrete evidence. There was no NEED for writing things down. The fact that WE all knew what was going on without hard evidence is exactly what Levy relied upon to ensure that rich donors would click on to to ensure they coughed up for a knighthood. Yates should be fired.
The practice is corrupt, but the law is insufficient to prevent the honours system being abused. It is British government that is rotten to the core. The honours system is a licence for the government to print money. It should be taken out of their hands and given to the Queen, who is already too rich to take bribes. Of course it won't be, because the political parties are all up to their necks in the same shit.
Veritasmo said... (in your last post)...
'What goes around.... Comes around'
Right will be done
"The truth has a way of bubbling to the surface even after a whitewash like this. The fire has not yet totally burned out, and a breeze may yet waft in, and stir the still smouldering embers into a new life."
Veritasmom beat me to it.
Surely this is the best 'dirty time bomb' for the Opposition to have around, for explosion just before the next election.
You know as well as anyone, Guido, that powder kept dry for the time being will produce the best explosion.
Plenty of time...
Anonymous said "So 'The Director of Public Prosecutions' Matrix Chambers founder member Ken Macdonald, played no part in the decision not to prosecute. Why not? And why stress this fact?"
Because Ken Macdonald, head of the CPS was given his own knighthood during the investigation, was a former colleague of Cherie Blair at Matrix chambers and was - lets say -- unusually - the first head of the CPS who had never prosecuted and the first to win the post despite a criminal conviction for supplying cannabis?
Yep, as sure as eggs is eggs our taxes will now be used to fund these parties, which between them increasingly fail to represent the opinion of more and more of the silent majority.
Politicians are never going to be prosecuted by the CPS....Lloyd George's bagman Maundy Gregory only got done because Lloyd George was out of government permanently by 1922
Try new CPS powder - washes even whiter than Hutton
Read the transcript and my my are they trying to cover their arses - it ain't going to work - advice will be leaked, police evidence will be leaked and ultimately a private prosecution will be bought. CPS is not the ultimate judge and jury - let the people decide!
Welcome to the progressive new socialist kingdom of graft, corruption and do as you are told world. We in Spain and others in the EU have been living in this environment for some time and now the lid is off the rotten mess you have in the UK political system. Echoes of Enoch Powell and others who saw what was coming spring to mind but you still have voters putting them in Westminster, ignoring reality. The Tory party had better not forget that the natives (not the immigrant type) of the British Isles are not prepared to vote for those who are obviously not of the level of “Super Mac” who we remember today. As recent elections have shown.
Perhaps the CPS will let us know where we can obtain loans on a commercial basis which carry no interest.If these cannot be ruled out, they must therefore presumably exist.Bank of Hutton,perhaps?
Ken Macdonald had already declared a conflict of interests and removed himself from the process. Sounds fair enough to me.
Neat little clause at number 30:
30. In relation to possible breaches of the 2000 Act, we are satisfied that we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice - can properly be characterised as commercial.
Scottish law has a provision for such a case .. ' not proven'
Time for the rise of a right wing, pro-monachy, anti-EU, anti-BBC and anti-state handout party.
Guido, our time will come mate dont worry.
So they ain't innocent then.
Just not enough firm evidence to Bang them to rights.
"Chris Newell is a barrister and prosecuting lawyer. He is currently Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions. His career also includes two secondments to the Attorney General’s Office."
http://www.cri.org.uk/about_cri/who_we_are.php
I'm going to pick up on paragraph 24:
"There is no complaint from any person that they have been offered a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour. There is no complaint from any person that they have been asked to make a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour."
This reasoning has been used to exclude the consideration of this offence:
"an unambiguous offer of a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour, is either made or solicited by one person to or from another, even if that other person refuses either to accept or to make such an offer;"
However there is nothing in this statement which refers to the requirement for one of the parties to have made a complaint.
So there may be strong evidence that a one sided offer was made but they haven't considered it because there was no complaint from either the offerer or the offeree.
This was my comment on the blog back in September:
"Mark my words, this will be just the Kelly Inquiry. The government behave in a disgraceful manner and are found out....amid all the criticism the government don't comment pending a proper inquiry....as the evidence becomes public and we see how damning it is we all to begin to write obituaries for Blair and his government....against all odds, the inquiry totally exhonourates Blair and the government....Blair can state on and on that there was a propery inquiry and that he has never did any wrong.
There is no chance in hell that any establishment inquiry, whether by Law Lords or the Police, will ever look to bring a conclusion that could bring down the government."
I HATE THE FACT TAHT I AS RIGHT!
"In a case such as this, the essence of the offence lies in that unambiguous agreement. If one person makes an offer, etc, in the hope or expectation of being granted an honour, or in the belief that it might put him/her in a more favourable position when nominations are subsequently being considered, that does not of itself constitute an offence."
The point is that Levy never needed to make an offer of an honour because it had simply become established practice. Hence no agreement was required because everyone KNEW that you could buy an honour. Not only was the government corrupt but its corruption was so established that everyone KNEW it was corrupt and those that had the inclination took full advantage of it. No actual EVIDENCE of a law being broken was ever likely to come to light.
You can now see how the current government works. It is known to be so open to corrupt practices that those who wish to take advantage of the goverment are basically free to do so. From PFI to IT systems to WMDs or whatever, the government can be relied upon to do the WRONG thing. There is no need for dirty little pieces of paper to give the game away. No need for secret meetings and discussions. The government is so totally corrupt and so known to be corrupt that those that want to take advantage of the fact can just go right ahead and take advantage.
In some ways this might actually be the best outcome. Citizens will consider that the honours whitewash happened on BROWNS watch not Blairs, so Brown is responsible. If the CPS had charged Levy then Brown would have been seen in a more positive light.
I don't think NUlab should be too overjoyed.It is no longer sub judice and the facts will now come out.Remember Walpole-"Today they are ringing their bells .They will soon be wringing their hands".
anonymous [3.50 PM] I agree with your analysis.
All the prosecution have to prove under s.1(1) of the 1925 Act is that the defendant solicited a loan, adding, by way of inducement that if the loan was forthcoming he or she (the defendant) would endeavour to procure a title for the lender.
They don't have to prove that the loan or the title was forthcoming, or that it necessarily would have been forthcoming; only that the loan was solicited on the understanding that the person seeking the loan would 'put in a good word in the right quarters.'
Of course, the best evidence of such a crime would be a complaint to the police by the person to whom the offer was made. But, realistically, no one is ever going to make such a complaint. That does not mean that the inducement cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be very powerful, "as, for example, when you find a trout in the milk."
So the suggestion that in order to succeed under the 1925 Act the prosecution would have to prove a concluded agreement is just plain wrong.
Moreover, paragraph 23 of the CPS reasons puts a gloss on the wording of the statute. They say, "an offence is committed if an unambiguous offer of a gift, etc., in exchange for an honour is ... solicited..."
But the statute says nothing about an "unambiguous" offer. The word "unambiguous" only appears in the CPS reasons.
It would be for the jury to decide whether a loan was solicited, and if so whether on terms which were caught by s. 1(1) of the 1925 Act.
Moroever paragraph 29 of the CPS reasons is less than persuasive.
The CPS says "There is furthermore substantial and reliable evidence that there were proper reasons for the inclusion of all those whose names appears on the 2005 working peers list [and] that each was a credible candidate for a peerage."
That was not the view of the Scrutiny Committee which, if I remember correctly, referred three of the names back, even before it was told about the loans.
anyonebutbrown 1:59pm
So the CPS cannot find direct evidence of a deal of an honour for cash.
The standard of proof for conviction must now be a confession.
...oh well, at least the evaporation of the 'cash-for-honours' debacle is keeping the by-election off the rolling news channels, hee hee hee hee heee hee.
And with the great boris still to hove fully into view... ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho.
it may be pissing down where you live, but in this neck of the woods the sun shine, birds chirrup, skool dog doze fitfully in the shade of the crikit pav and all is well, hem-hem..
Paragraph 30 of the CPS reasons is the weakest link. As to this, I entirely agree with anonymous [1.51 PM]
The CPS say they "cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made ... can properly be characterised as commercial."
That is surely a question for the jury.
Are the CPS really saying, there is no reasonable prospect of persuading a jury that these were "loans made other than on commercial terms"?
I am quite sure I could persuade a jury of that fact. It would take me about ten minutes. I would do it by pouring scorn on the suggestion that a loan which might or might not be repaid at a future unspecified date could conceivably be described as a loan "on commercial terms."
The fact that the Labour party may have taken legal advice before accepting the loans is nothing to the point.
How often have the CPS brought quite ridiculous cases against private individuals to court because they needed to be 'tested' in public?
What about that Essex headteacher who was recorded offering honours for cash?
One law for them, a different one for us, I hope they all rot in hell.
At the end of the day it's irrelevant - the NuLab shower will be out soon anyway. In case you missed it, there was another big political story today - the death knells of NuLab:
Sedgefield:
NuLab down 14.11%
Tories up
Ealing Southall:
NuLab down 7.28%
Tories up
They might not be going to jail, but at least they won't be in power much longer.
One final point: Do the CPS rigorously apply the evidential test (i.e. no prosecution without a reasonable prospect of conviction) to all their cases?
Or do they prosecute dozens of rape cases (for example) in which the prospects of a conviction are more or less remote. And if so why?
Could it be because they are influenced by political considerations, pressure groups and government targets?
This is what happens when you let a bunch of cheap little lawyers into government - corruption just unprovable enough to let the bastards walk free.
Alas I suspect the other mob are no better. If you ask me, there's barely an ounce of decency or honour to spread among the whole shoddy crowd.
...oh well, at least the evaporation of the 'cash-for-honours' debacle is keeping the by-election off the rolling news channels, hee hee hee hee heee hee.
And with the great boris still to hove fully into view... ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho.
it may be pissing down where you live, but in this neck of the woods the sun shine, birds chirrup, skool dog doze fitfully in the shade of the crikit pav and all is well, hem-hem..
Lest we forget - these are the same people who decided 7 bullets in the head wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the killers of Jean Charles de Menezes...
2 brief comments about this whitewash:
1. There must have been compelling evidence that there were misdeeds all the way to the very top, and that prosecution of minions would have opened this can of worms.
2. The cops will have to justify the time this took and the expense. It will be worth watching to see what evidence they deemed it worthy to follow. I reckon it will be quite compelling.
Well just so long as the decision making process was all above board then...
If you've got a sickbag handy take a look at the McTernan gloating on the Guardian's Comment ids Free page. Some of the responses to him are spot on though.
anonymous 2:18 PM
Fascinating graph...it also correlates to period a contemporaneous with the rise of socialism.
So Nulab is responsible for global warming! The bastards! I knew they were up to something!
the labour party - friend of the people. 2:31pm
Carmen Dowd has form:
she believes you can hold an innocent Brazilian electrician down on the floor of a tubetrain, pump 7 dumdum bullets into his head and then lie about it - all without raising enough legal doubt for a court hearing to be necessary.
Nice.
and Yates was the guy sent to Brazil to try smooth things over with the de Menezes family...
Only in the fantasy nether world of the supine thoroughly corrupt oil soaked media and their equally as vile political masters could the decision not to bring charges in the cash for hours enquiry be greeted as a vindication or even more preposterous an exoneration.
Of course only the most naïve could have expected that the legal establishment which saved Blair at the Hutton Whitewash, would have brought charges against Blair’s coterie of brigands and cutthroats.
The most hideous aspect of the whole sordid affair is that this gives loathsome slugs such as Dennis MacShane, Eric Joyce and Lord Foulkes and opportunity to pontificate unchallenged about how there is nothing wrong with soliciting big donations from corporate fat cats in return for peerages.
The line coming from the Labour lie co-ordination bureau will be that over enthusiastic policeman has damaged public trust in politician with a frivolous partisan investigation. This turns reality on its head worse that the Ministry of truth in 1984.
What has done most to erode trust in politicians is Blair’s addiction to telling lies and smearing anyone who dares to tell the truth or speak out against him.
The decision not to prosecute in the cash for honours is the death knell for political trust in Britain. It has shattered the illusion forever that the law is equal or fair
The basic problem with initiating a private prosecution - apart from having enough cash and laying one's hands on the evidence - is that the AG can intervene at any time and take over the case. And surprise, surprise, what happens then...?
anonymous 3:20pm
Echoes of Enoch Powell and others who saw what was coming spring to mind but you still have voters putting them in Westminster, ignoring reality. The Tory party had better not forget that the natives (not the immigrant type) of the British Isles are not prepared to vote for those who are obviously not of the level of “Super Mac” who we remember today. As recent elections have shown.
In the UK, the Labour and Tory party are both equally prone to hardline nationalist policies against immigrants - just take a look at the track record of a minister like David Blunkett. You cannot rule out immigrants switching to the Conservative party if the economic price is right, because it is becoming increasingly obvious that all mainstream politicians are racist. You may not like immigrants, but you cannot blame them for putting socialists/moderate conservatives in power - that is down to the ordinary middle-englander. Many immigrants do not have the vote and the demogrphic distribution of non-white voters will always restrict any real electoral influence.
anonymous 4:36pm
You can now see how the current government works. It is known to be so open to corrupt practices that those who wish to take advantage of the goverment are basically free to do so. From PFI to IT systems to WMDs or whatever, the government can be relied upon to do the WRONG thing. There is no need for dirty little pieces of paper to give the game away. No need for secret meetings and discussions. The government is so totally corrupt and so known to be corrupt that those that want to take advantage of the fact can just go right ahead and take advantage.
Similar environments fostered the murder of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket and the Holocaust - all without direct orders from the head of state.
May I say that anonymous and mr justice cocklecarrot have done admirable work in giving the CPS decision a good and thorough seeing to - and for their endeavours I would venture to suggest that they both deserve the same fate!
I have now had the opportunity to read the pith of the document and would heartily concur with all their criticisms.
I would further propose that there is nothing in the Act which stipulates that absence of 'any agreement between two people to make/accept a gift, etc, in exchange for an honour' automatically constitutes a bar to a possible route to prosecution (and nor is such an agreement a prerequisite to a prosecution!) - indeed, this is a concept created by the CPS and introduced at Section 24 of their decision. If available, evidence of a unilateral attempt at inducement would still be sufficient to secure a conviction in court.
The 'get-out clause' at Section 30 in respect of legally informed commercial loans is not pertinent - since it does not specify the legal advice offered, nor whether this legal advice was heeded. This paragraph sounds extremely callow in the way it superfluously offers the Labour Party a crude defence and betrays the CPS's political bias. Who wouldn't seek legal advice for a loan of that magnitude?
The 'evidential test' as to whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction is intended to be an 'objective' assessment of the case - with a decision made on the balance of probablities - but, against a vast political backcloth which could have been painted by Jackson Pollock, it is practically impossible for an individual to view the multitude of circumstancial evidence in anything other than a subjective manner - and, in light of this undeniable fact, the CPS should have humbly suspended their involvement and referred this particular duty to a jury. (Especially as most ordinary citizens would never believe that the suspects acted with anything other than the utmost impropriety!)
Cocklecarrot J's comments are absolutely to the point. So is the comment of Anonymous, 8.35 p.m., that "the decision not to prosecute ... is the death knell for political trust in Britain." Is there any way at all in which the text of Yates's report to the CPS can be brought into the public domain so that at least we can see what was in it, even if there is no prosecution? I appreciate that the report might have to be dragged out of the clenched fingers of the politico/legal establishment. But the comments of Mr Justice Cocklecarrot (allusion to the great A.P. Herbert recognized) show that there is at least one member of the legal profession (which from the internal evidence I feel sure he is and, clearly, an honourable person) who feels deeply ashamed of the decision taken.
mitch said...
"Ken Macdonald had already declared a conflict of interests and removed himself from the process. Sounds fair enough to me. "
He DIDN'T remove himself from the process - he was getting 'regular briefings' from Dowd on the investigation. And that's having admitted a conflict of interest. No opportunity to influence there then... no unspoken-even expectations from your boss comming into play at all.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=469857&in_page_id=1770
"May I say that anonymous and mr justice cocklecarrot have done admirable work in giving the CPS decision a good and thorough seeing to"
Thank you.
Now I am going to suggest that the CPS have perverted the course of justice.
'. If one person makes an offer, etc, in the hope or expectation of being granted an honour, or in the belief that it might put him/her in a more favourable position when nominations are subsequently being considered, that does not of itself constitute an offence.'
How is this different from offering an inducement?
No, it was Beachcomber, wasn't it? - not APH as I said.
Points still hold.
The crucial paragraphs in this press release are paragraph 29 relating to the 1925 Act and paragraph 30 relating to the 2000 Act.
As to the 1925 Act, paragraph 29 states: "the CPS is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the available evidence is not sufficient to enable an overwhelming inference to be drawn, such as to afford a reasonable prospect of convicting any person ..."
Point one: it applies the wrong evidential test. The evidential test is whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Nothing more, nothing less. If so, it should prosecute, provided it is in the public interest to do so.
Point two: illogicality. If an inference is overwheling, a conviction is inevitable.
In short, having set itself the wrong evidential test, the CPS misapplied it.
As to the 2000 Act, paragraph 30 states: "we are satisfied that we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made ... can properly be descirbed as commercial."
Point one: the wrong evidential test.
Point two: a different wrong evidential test! The capacity to exclude an exculpatory defence is even higher than satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of a reasonable prospect of conviction.
Point three: the assessment of evidence is remarkable. Since when were interest free loans, with no date set for repayment, commercial?
In short, having set itself the wrong evidential test, the CPS misapplied it.
I smell a rat here.
establishment lawyers give the establishment the benefit of the doubt... its called treading the safe career path. No brainer for them really. And the next honour goes to...
The Director of the DPP (recently knighted) has 'stood aside' from the cash-for-honours investigation 'because he is a former colleague of Cherie Blair at Matrix Chambers'.
Well, so he is: he's a founder member of Matrix, and surely the 'conflict of interest' is that he got his job as DPP Director BECAUSE he was CB's source of income.
We see this so often with NuLab: highly-paid 'public service' tax-funded officials 'standing aside' because they realise their own appointments would be rumbled if they didn't.
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to emigrate.
Paper trails, paper trails. The IR or HMRC (or whatever they're called this week) are so keen to follow up anyone's payment to anyone, however innocent: so all you have to do is to say it was to the Government party who made you a peer, and they back down, and admit it as business expenditure? Hm.
Can't believe anything these days, especially when several members of the investigative team have helped Ex president Tony get out of tight spots, Just to name one "State sponsored execution of a non-white running for a train" Health & Safety!!! Indeed, What, was the executioner colour blind or did they put use ammunition instead of plastic ones.
Carmen Dowd - how appropriately named. As her operatic namesake sings: 'La la la laaah, la la la laaah, la la la lalalala la la laaah...'
Which makes about the same amount of sense as her statement.
anonymous 11:11am
"State sponsored execution of a non-white running for a train" Health & Safety!!! Indeed, What, was the executioner colour blind or did they put use ammunition instead of plastic ones.
There is no question that the gentleman concerned recklessly ignored TFL rules and regulations - his velocity breached the locally laid-down restriction. Photographic evidence was sent to his family, who have not seen fit to appeal the fixed penalty.
Post a Comment