tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post4336109891616708757..comments2007-07-23T17:33:04.691+01:00Guido Fawkeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15091277669318213298noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-4996855858688309782007-07-23T11:54:00.000+01:002007-07-23T11:54:00.000+01:00Mark,<BR/><BR/>Hiding / disguising a donation is an offence, if the situation as reported widely with regard to Mr Noon's donation is true, an offence has been committed.<BR/><BR/>He made a donation that was disguised as a loan.Guido Fawkes Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15091277669318213298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-67448048295290833122007-07-23T11:36:00.000+01:002007-07-23T11:36:00.000+01:00Guido,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry to say that I think the chances of a successful prosecution on the basis of "uncommercial loans" is very slim indeed, unless there is conclusive evidence that the loans were, for example, not to be repaid. <BR/><BR/>First, the issue of "commercial" loans comes up in tax cases, where the courts are very reluctant to opine on what is commercial based entirely on matters like interest rates or loan terms. If the terms matched the terms that the Labour Party would get from the Co-op Bank or Nat West, that might be accepted as evidence of commerciality, but on the other hand the simple fact that banks are not offering loans on the same terms does not necessarily make the loan "uncommercial". After all, faced with many offers of a loan from different lenders, a rational person will choose the offer with the most advantageous terms. That doesn't make it an uncommercial loan.<BR/><BR/>Second, the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution is much higher than the balance of probabilities required in a tax (i.e. civil) case.<BR/><BR/>Ergo, without a smoking gun document saying that the loans did not have to be repaid, I would say that your case would go nowhere.mark williamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-27472405057050802812007-07-22T23:10:00.000+01:002007-07-22T23:10:00.000+01:00fishing-expedition,<BR/><BR/>I am most insulted by your comment! Indeed! Furthermore, I note that you have failed to submit any written reasons for your judgement! I might tell you that I am highly distinguished in the field of jurisprudence and the holder of high office! Humph! I cannot, of course, reveal my identity here, but let it suffice to say that I was awarded a knighthood from the Queen in the 2007 New Year's Honours list for my tireless services to the enrichment of British cultural life - a deserved recognition of the fact that, in my spare time, I selflessly devote myself to making small pizzas out of bagels. I also act as an ad-hoc stand in for Tony and regularly knob Cherie when he can't be arsed.little chefnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-75858525499006394702007-07-22T22:32:00.000+01:002007-07-22T22:32:00.000+01:007:14pm<BR/><BR/>Codswallop!!fishing-expeditionnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-38042398875092154892007-07-22T22:00:00.000+01:002007-07-22T22:00:00.000+01:00I'm with Hitch on this. Can't we just put the money towards buying some Polonium and a Russian fallguy?Julianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03851642585686790590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-83796494368015237212007-07-22T19:16:00.000+01:002007-07-22T19:16:00.000+01:00What happened to the charge of false accounting? Surely the Newlab Gestapo are guilty of this on the admission of their own treasurer on Channel 4 News!!!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-34647697160092748102007-07-22T19:14:00.000+01:002007-07-22T19:14:00.000+01:00mr justice cocklecarrot 9:29am<BR/><BR/><I>Puzzling. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the story is true. As an out of court statement the diary would be inadmissible in evidence against anyone other than the maker. But it would certainly have been evidence against Evans himself.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>The manner in which the CPS decision attempted to argue proof of an agreement essential to bringing a prosecution under the 1925 Act demonstates just how desperately the government wish to protect the <I>bribers</I> in this case - surely, the businessmen who 'loaned' money and subsequently made extremely revealing statements about the honours system are the most obvious targets for criminal proceedings. However, by wilfully misinterpreting the 1925 Act and adjudging as impossible a prosecution against individual donors, the CPS has sought to exclude this possibility - presumably because they are fully aware that such action would lead to donors squealing and dealing.<BR/><BR/>Guido should concentrate on pursuing prosecutions against the <I>bribers</I> under the 1925 Act as this is the only route to obtaining solid evidence against the <I>bribees</I>. Unfortunately, a conviction against Blair's aides under the 2000 Act will simply be viewed as a slap on the wrist - and they will be able to pass the affair off as 'a technical error of judgement'.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the insertion of the 'legal advice get-out clause' at Section 30 of the decision (this being primarily a 'get-out clause' for the CPS) is <I>prima facie</I> evidence of the CPS bottling it. The inserted clause is both amateurish <I>and</I> unprofessional (what double damnation!) and displays that CPS lawyers well understand the uncertainty of the ground upon which they tread <I>à propos</I> the commerciality of the 'loans'. This clause was unnecessarily inserted in a state of panic - it may even have been added under the duress of direct political pressure from New Labour officials.the lady doth protest too much, methinksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-42713730288592715022007-07-22T17:36:00.000+01:002007-07-22T17:36:00.000+01:00nappie man 11:23am<BR/><BR/><I>i.e. One pint of beer a week = £10 per month<BR/>two pints £20 etc</I><BR/><BR/>Although (put like this), that one pint of beer seems an almost insignificant sacrifice in the great scheme of things - in reality, if that pint of beer happens to be the one for which you are fixatively gasping and of which you have already formed a mental picture as it stands there in a frothy cap, gold-ice-cold gently effervescing in a tall glass on the bar...the sacrifice becomes more akin to going over the top at Passchendaele.kafka contemplates k2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-22312750095507540562007-07-22T16:47:00.000+01:002007-07-22T16:47:00.000+01:00garypowell you maythink you are joking but I would put nothing past these bastards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-5389992105700643802007-07-22T16:36:00.000+01:002007-07-22T16:36:00.000+01:00howard 9:00am<BR/><BR/><I>Lurked here for ages. Always enjoyed the site. I am not in the habit of commenting on the web as its full of tedium, but have signed up for the pledge!</I><BR/><BR/>I drink to health sir, you are a lurker and a gentleman!the fire attracted nocturnal visitors whose eyes wre discernible glinting in the undergrowthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-77734502851963547592007-07-22T15:18:00.000+01:002007-07-22T15:18:00.000+01:00There you are again with that FAITH thing I told you about. <BR/><BR/>This is Neo-Labours 3rd way Fascist Britain after 10 years. Did you seriously expect anyone to do ANYTHING?<BR/><BR/>Still have 'fun' if you wish, but be prepared for the worst of all outcomes. <BR/><BR/>( Being a public martyr for liberty is sometimes a tough job and can, may I remind you, be 'painfull. It's probelly best if you find an unmarried chap with no kidds for this one. Iain Dale would be better, no one would miss him after all. ) <BR/><BR/>For example; keep your toothbrush handy, and do not commit in advance to any foreign holidays over the next year or two.<BR/><BR/>Oh and I nearly forgot. Dont on any account fly anywhere on private aircraft or take solitary walks in woods or seemingly unpopulated places. <BR/><BR/>One more thing get your heart checked out by a good TRUSTED independant foreign registered doctor. You never know when the thing may 'suddenly stop' for no sensible or legal reason.garypowellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-87362285157264161932007-07-22T15:11:00.000+01:002007-07-22T15:11:00.000+01:00The CPS report says the Labour Party received legal advice before accepting the loans. This is the first we've heard of it. In that case, how come the Labour Party treasurer didn't know about the loans? Who was the advice from? Cherie Booth, perhaps, or Lord Goldsmith?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-53237632331852332852007-07-22T12:17:00.000+01:002007-07-22T12:17:00.000+01:00I have changed my mind it would be cheaper and far more efective if we hired the services of a Russian hit man rather than some twat in a wig and gown.The Hitchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17007793676288933155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-58933891123938431522007-07-22T12:00:00.000+01:002007-07-22T12:00:00.000+01:00evan's diary shows nothing other than his own indescretion and frustration. and the entries are years before the time he made the big loanations - hence why the cps decided the killer extracts would not be admitted as evidence at trial.<BR/><BR/>the only thing they really show is that new money is so much worse at playing this game than old money - thats what this is all really about.<BR/><BR/>anyway it will be leaked in full next week, no doubt.Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-45315499826893691862007-07-22T11:43:00.000+01:002007-07-22T11:43:00.000+01:00What Legal Eagle says above opens up a new - a second - avenue, does it not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-78085467990730057872007-07-22T11:23:00.000+01:002007-07-22T11:23:00.000+01:00A Pint for Justice.<BR/>Now that it looks that the 100 Justice Angels have been found<BR/>-<BR/>How about getting this appeal Viral-<BR/><BR/>For the price of only a pint of beer a week, we can all help<BR/><BR/>Lets make a fighting fund, where we can all committ to help- paid as suggested over the counter- i like the idea of G Brown signatures, hee hee<BR/><BR/>i.e. One pint of beer a week = £10 per month<BR/>two pints £20 etc<BR/><BR/>Just imagine, if we all contact our mailboxes - just 10,000 would give a fighting fund of £100,000 per month<BR/><BR/>There must be more than ten thousand supporters of the SNP alone who would not miss a pint, I am sureNappie Mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-71799263149668763142007-07-22T11:14:00.000+01:002007-07-22T11:14:00.000+01:00I'm In.<BR/>Today I heard the fat lady gargling in her dressing room!Ratty's Ghosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10029060948757520998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-2320385035725463212007-07-22T10:31:00.000+01:002007-07-22T10:31:00.000+01:00Gestapo tactics accused of being used by the police against Ms Turner and sources suggest my Lord is threatening to take legal action for wrongful arrest. <BR/><BR/>This level you reach where the law doesn't interfere with your life - Lord Conrad Black had similar thoughts - yet though he walks free until November - found guilty on something. Law hadn't read the film script there then - "with a single bo(u)nd he was free! Nice.<BR/><BR/>My Lord Levy may get his "wish" inadvertently. Be careful what you wish for Lord Michael Levy. I suspect from what I read - you may not have been arrested on a whim, sir. <BR/><BR/>Put up or shut up unnamed sources!<BR/><BR/>No - on reflection, until another matter has been settled to my satisfaction - spokes weasels - just shut up!Its Manoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-20681007614868821212007-07-22T10:28:00.000+01:002007-07-22T10:28:00.000+01:00I want my noney back. £1mil for a result of insufficient evidence. Thats not v good service is it? What ever happened to "No Win No Fee". And as for comming third the othert night, well!. And who thinks Tony pothead Mcnulty looks like a thug? I know its not the best polityical or educational coment, but its Sunday and the big fat green one i've just had, has er...um...er, where was I.Paidnuftaxesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-67732188366754336602007-07-22T10:20:00.000+01:002007-07-22T10:20:00.000+01:00In response to anonymous @ 8.50am decisions by the CPS not to prosecute are subject to judicial review: R v DPP, ex p C [1995] 1 Cr App Rep 136, CA.legal eaglenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-58968714339529005592007-07-22T09:59:00.000+01:002007-07-22T09:59:00.000+01:00Voltigeur<BR/><BR/>very good point. follow the money is usually a good tactic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-28474058575380614462007-07-22T09:29:00.000+01:002007-07-22T09:29:00.000+01:00This story is not going away. Information continues to trickle out. Thus:<BR/><BR/>"The Sunday Times has also discovered that there was a second key piece of evidence – a diary kept by [Sir Christopher] Evans that allegedly details a series of meetings at the House of Lords in 2004 with Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fundraiser, to discuss a peerage. <BR/><BR/>"One well-placed Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) source said the diary was 'dynamite' and provided 'spectacular' evidence of an alleged 'agreement' for Evans to be ennobled in return for a £1m loan."<BR/><BR/>Puzzling. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the story is true. As an out of court statement the diary would be inadmissible in evidence against anyone other than the maker. But it would certainly have been evidence against Evans himself.<BR/><BR/>These are deep waters, Watson.Mr Justice Cocklecarrotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-919384260740063332007-07-22T09:28:00.000+01:002007-07-22T09:28:00.000+01:00Guido,<BR/><BR/>I'm up for a grand. <BR/><BR/>Only 12 folks more needed, then it's game on. By midday perhaps?Marquee Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-65432551214864722392007-07-22T09:24:00.000+01:002007-07-22T09:24:00.000+01:00The police stopped persuing the investigation along the PPERA line back last summer - theres no milege in it as "commerical terms" would have to be given such a broad defination. AND its now impossible to demonstrate that they were sham loans as the investigation itself has so bankrupted Lab Party funds that donars are not recalling their loans and they have, QED, become donations. It impossible to say if that would have happened without the financial impact of CforP enquiry.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course we all know that they all were sham loans given to avoid disclosure requirements, but that is neither here nor there.<BR/><BR/>As to the 1925 Act, the CPS statement could not have been more exonarating, despite some commentators pretending otherwise. The CPS: all those nominated had good reasons to be put forward as condidates for vetting to HOLAC, asside from financial contributions.<BR/><BR/>Erm, Barry Towbsley anyone?!<BR/><BR/>As for a private prosecution: treat yourselves, but its not happening.Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8212152.post-45565378623568656052007-07-22T09:03:00.000+01:002007-07-22T09:03:00.000+01:00Cautious 12:46 above<BR/>To anonymise donations publish sort code & number of suitable a/c. Anyone can slip a few quid over the bank counter. Signing the paying-in slip G Brown would encourage Labour Party unity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com