Like a Vampire, "Destroy Parliament" Clause Returns

UPDATE 14.45 : Lots of claims that the article below incorrectly interprets the Act. No definitive legalistic answer on this point as yet. So proceed with caution.

UPDATE 16.25 : Head of Legal says stand down from the barricades.

---

The victorious Save Parliament Campaign needs to come out of mothballs again. SpyBlog has spotted that hidden in the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill is a little clause to legally permit a Ministerial dictatorship:

Part 6
FINAL PROVISION 43 Power to make consequential provision

(1) A Minister of the Crown, or two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, may by order make such provision as the Minister or Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of this Act.

(2) An order under subsection (1) may --

(a) amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or an Act;

(b) include transitional or saving provision.

(3) An order under subsection (1) is to be made by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which amends or repeals a provision of an Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1) which does not amend or repeal a provision of an Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Full details on the excellent SpyBlog.

Support the Gypsies!

So they buy a piece of land, fence it off, install a septic tank and connect the utilities. It is their property. So what if they haven't got authorisation from the planning commissars, it has no immediate neighbouring residential property. This is not a case of illegal squatting. They have just done a bit of green belt development, something the government says we will increasingly have to accept. Good luck to 'em.

As for Tessa Jowell's husband David Mills complaining that the gypsies broke the planning rules - he is one to talk about law breaking...

Does Yvette Know Her Granite from Her Elbow?

The Granite securitisation vehicle is causing the government a lot of confusion, it may even cause the LibDems to back out of supporting the government's nationalisation of the Crock. Yvette Cooper stated in the Commons debate definitively that Granite is not covered by government guarantees. "It is not being taken into public ownership and it is not, in fact, owned by Northern Rock, so it is not part of the taxpayer's exposure and has never been so."

Compare and contrast that with the Treasury statement of 18 December, 2007: HM Treasury today confirms that the guarantee arrangements for Northern Rock plc described in HM Treasury's announcements dated 20 and 21 September 2007 and 9 October 2007 are being extended, at the request of Northern Rock plc, to the following unsubordinated wholesale obligations, whether now existing or arising in the future... all obligations of Northern Rock plc to make payments on the repurchase of mortgages under the documentation for the "Granite" securitisation programme.

That seems pretty clear. Looks like the lawyers are going to get rich out of this...

UPDATE : Something of a stewards inquiry in the comments as to the nature of the obligation - though no one has argued that there is no obligation - except Yvette when she said "it is not part of the taxpayer's exposure". Like Guido said, the lawyers could have some fees out of the argument.

UPDATE II : Northern Rock's Annual Report 2006, Note 22, Page 86 states that the Granite group of companies "are regarded as legal subsidiaries under UK companies legislation". Odd because they aren't really structured that way.

The Labour Party is in the Dock

The list of Labour Party figures who look likely to find themselves in the courts this year is getting longer; David Abrahams (or whatever he is calling himself today), Peter Watt, Peter Hain, Wendy Alexander and Harriet Harman, plus a potential supporting cast of intermediaries, advisers and party apparatchiks as defendants.

Some 28,800 people were prosecuted last year by Hain's former department, the DWP, for failing to declare income. Many were prosecuted for small amounts of money. Poor people.

They were unable to use the defence that they were too busy, that it was an innocent mistake, or that they forgot. Peter Watt conspired to break the law, David Abrahams concocted a scheme to circumvent the law, Wendy Alexander broke the law as did Harriet Harman. If they are not prosecuted it will mean that we are not all equal before the law, the rich and powerful can treat it with contempt. Should it be acceptable that a single mother on benefits who does a bit of hairdressing for cash gets prosecuted, whereas a former Minister of the Crown gets the benefit of the doubt? No ifs, no buts, lawmakers can't be allowed to be law breakers.

Schillings Really are Clowns

Schillings, the lawyers specialising in reputation protection from online threats, are making a complete arse of themselves. See their correspondence with Wikileaks over the Northern Rock summary. Schillings look very foolish, realising that the writ of an English High Court Judge does not extend beyond England, they tried to claim breach of copyright.

Guido thinks it important to face down the clowns at Schillings. They are easily defeated in the age of cross border information distribution. They boast to clients that they can even suppress the truth. Not if Guido knows it they can't...

Who is Leaking Now?

At the last stormy meeting of Tony Wright's Public Administration Select Committee, Yates of the Yard was blamed for leaking during the inquiry into Loans for Lordships. He pointed the finger at the politicians on the committee. They in turn accused the police.

So who told the Sunday papers about Levy trying to block publication (later today) of Gulam Noon's letter to the committee? Yates hasn't even seen the letter.

Here are a selection of the stories from the Sunday papers:

Levy tries to block Labour donor letter Guardian
Lord Levy tried to stop MPs publishing Labour donor's 'frank letter'. Independent
Lord Levy 'stymied cash-for-honours report' Telegraph
MPs demand urgent peer selection reform Times
The Press Association
all 82 news articles »

Who do you now believe was really responsible for the leaks and speculation, the police or the politicians?

Parliamentary Panto

Panto season is upon us:

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what value of assets the Bank of England has accepted as collateral for loans to Northern Rock; (2) what proportion of the Bank of England's total assets are represented by claims on Northern Rock and its assets.

Kitty Ussher: The sum borrowed by the company is confidential.

Oh no it isn't! Despite much inconsequential huffing and puffing from Schillings you can still read in detail about Northern Crock's supposedly confidential finances here.

Police Confirm Investigation

Peter Watt could face up to 12 months for breaching the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 alone. There are various potential offences to consider. More here.

Roy Kennedy was the Director of Finance and Compliance when the illegal funding operation was under way. Labour sources have told Guido that he should have known, it is inconceivable that the third biggest funder of the Labour party could have gone unchecked. He was responsible for compliance with the law. The question is when did he first know about it?

He will be an early target of the police investigation.

What Laws Have Been Broken?

There seems to be a smorgasbord of potential offences committed in this illegal funding operation for the Labour party. Money laundering, fraudulent misrepresentation, numerous offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the list goes on.

So all you loafing lawyers and amateur barrister wannabees, lets see if we can compile a list of potential charges to be faced in the comments. Should make pleasant reading...

FT Drops Northern Rock Memo Fight With Schillings

"We were looking at funding a principled legal case about news that was looking increasingly historic by the day," says Paul Murphy, the editor of the Alphaville blog. The FT reckons the revelations about the government's support for the bank are now common knowledge and events had superseded information contained in the memorandum.

The memo is hosted on Wikileaks if you are still interested in reading this bit of financial history. Schillings wrote to Guido arguing that he was breaching the High Court Order by linking to it and would suffer all manner of comeback unless he gave undertakings and removed all links etc. Guido's legal people told Schillings last Friday to serve the Order properly or get stuffed. Haven't heard anything from Schillings since - so that's them stuffed.

Gordon's Favourite Banker Resigns

Adam Applegarth, chief executive of Northern Rock has finally resigned as has non-executive director, Derek Wanless (pictured), Gordon Brown's favoured and most trusted banker.

It turns out that the chief-exec sold over £2.6m of shares at peak prices while still urging thousands of employees and investors to buy shares when the company was facing trouble.

Sir Derek sits, like so many other of New Labour's great and the good, on various government quangos; the Statistics Commission and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. More importantly he chaired Northern Rock's Risk and Audit committees. If anyone should have known what was coming, it was Gordon's favourite banker. He had to sign off on all strategic risk management issues. Guido called for his resignation right at the start...

Incidentally, Schillings (lawyers who boast of being able to cover-up the truth) are huffing and puffing furiously to Guido about that Investment Memo on behalf of Northern Rock. Guido, they will find, is a little bit more resilient than a blogger in a bedroom in Guildford...

No M'Lord

The FT may have lost a High Court battle to print the Northern Rock investment memo, Gordon somewhat pathetically at PMQs claimed it was "commercially sensitive" information to get him off the hook discussing it. Vince Cable lashed into him when he made that "absolutely bogus" claim. £24 billion of taxpayers money on a bail-out is a legitimate matter of public interest.

It is definitely not secret any more. Guido told you 4 hours ago where it could be found online in the U.S., it is as of now the top Google search result for "Northern Rock Summary". You can't keep politically expedient secrets in an open source world...

UPDATE : Our old friends Schillings are at it again. No Pasaran!

Geek Note : Service Interruption Possible

Guido is doing a full dress-rehearsal of his host mirroring system today. There should be no noticeable interruption to the blog. The Californian server's 70 megabytes of contents were mirrored on a back-up server in an entirely different legal jurisdiction yesterday.

The intention is to switch servers seamlessly, see how it performs under the traffic load, then switch back to California - without losing a single comment. Isn't technology wonderful?

So anyone thinking of wielding a legal hammer, better get a bigger hammer.

How to Tell If Tony Wright Has Been Nobbled

Today is the first hearing of the Public Administration Select Committee into "Propriety and Honours: Lessons Learned". At 3.00 pm oral evidence will be taken from: AC John Yates, Metropolitan Police, Carmen Dowd, Head of Special Crime Division, CPS and David Perry QC.

This is only the first hearing, we are told there will be others.

Tony Wright chairs the committee and is being criticised for selecting the terms of reference to avoid investigating the actual allegations. He no doubt would argue that was the job of the police.

However, if at a subsequent hearing he does not call Lord Levy to answer questions, you can safely assume he has been nobbled. Arguably Blair and Ruth Turner should also be called to explain themselves.

Guido has also seen a copy of a letter sent to Tony Wright by a witness making specific allegations about being offered honours in return for donations to the Labour party. The letter specifies who made the offer, the figures discussed, as well as naming the Labour party operators involved when they were introduced to Tony Blair. The witness states in the letter that they are bemused at the lack of a prosecution. The witness also states in their letter to Tony Wright (copied to all members of the Committee) that they are willing to testify to the Committee. If that witness is not called Tony Wright has been nobbled.

To the hundreds who have pledged publicly (and privately) to financially support a private prosecution and have been wondering what has been going on, rest assured preparations have been made, legal soundings have been taken and we are waiting to see what comes out of these hearings.

You will also remember that after the dropping by the CPS of the case, the briefings in the papers by "friends" of Levy and Ruth Turner that they would be taking legal action against those who made the accusations. Nobody has received a writ. They have gone very quiet.

Private Prosecution Fund Update

As of now 145 people on the PledgeBank website have indicated they want to financially support a private prosecution. You can also pledge via Facebook and even text 'pledge cash4prosecution' to 60022 from your mobile phone. Old fashioned email works as well.

If you can help with this project contact Guido ASAP.

Surge of Net-Roots Support for a Private Prosecution

Since yesterday pledges of support for a private prosecution have come in thick and fast on the main PledgeBank website and a few via Facebook. You can even text 'pledge cash4prosecution' to 60022 from your mobile phone. One substantial financial pledge via email will hopefully not be the last.

At this preliminary stage the intention is to convene a legal conference before the end of the month and go through the issues and examine the possible approaches including the establishment of a vehicle with a legally qualified advisory committee.

Guido is keenly aware of potential hurdles and risks. Surely the Attorney General will not be able to argue that the public interest is best served by turning a blind eye to what was manifestly an attempt to circumvent the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Act? How will the public interest be harmed by testing in a court before a jury the legality of the Loans for Lordships scheme?

One example will give you a flavour of the Loans for Lordships scheme - Gulam Noon has publicly stated that he made a £250,000 donation to the Labour party, which he correctly submitted (via Downing Street) on his vetting papers for the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Two days later on October 5, 2005 Lord Levy, Gulam Noon reportedly claims, telephoned him and referred to the £250,000 donation as a "loan" which need not be disclosed on his vetting papers. The Levy-intercepted and revised vetting papers were submitted to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, now without mention of the £250,000 "loan" / donation. When the Commission independently discovered the existence of the "loan" / donation they blocked the peerage - as presumably Lord Levy knew they would - why else would he intervene in the process? What was the Labour party's chief fundraiser doing intervening in the honours process anyway? Prima facie there is a case to answer. If the CPS won't bring it, they should at least not attempt to block others from doing so.

UPDATE : The first target of one hundred people making pledges of financial support for a private prosecution has been met in less than 24 hours.

Private Prosecution : Pledge Support

Graphic courtesy of Beau Bo D'Or

Guido has been in discussion with some of m'learned friends after a careful reading of the CPS statement. The CPS has decided on a bar set very high to justify not prosecuting under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’).

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’) was dealt with far too perfunctorily in the CPS statement. More than one legal authority consulted by Guido thinks that there are avenues open to a private prosecution via the 2000 Act which have the advantage of not requiring the proving of a conspiracy.

The weakest part of the CPS statement is point 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.

There are a number of related suspected offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 governing the evasion of restrictions on donations which provide a firm and clear basis for action. Crucially, a prosecution on this basis would avoid the difficulties of having to prove a conspiracy. It would also have the advantage that there are statements from donors already in the public domain which, contrary to the stated view of the CPS, exclude the possibility that the loans were made, or intended to be made, on a commercial basis.

The attempt by Levy et al to portray themselves as the victims of an over zealous policeman are contemptible. They deliberately subverted the law in a secret attempt to cover up donations made by persons they later put forward for honours. A fact they deliberately and disingenuously hid from House of Lords Appointment Committee. If you want to see justice done and the law upheld, pledge your support for a private prosecution here.

BBC - Criminal Conspiracy?

If BBC staff knowingly deceived viewers into believing that they could win a prize by calling a premium rate phone number when they knew they could not, isn't that a conspiracy to defraud?

What do m'learned friends think?

Do You Know Now?

Just in from the Court:

A Metropolitan police security officer, Chris Ham, 21, told the high court in London today that Mr Jones, the MP for Clwyd South for 20 years, swore at him after he "politely" asked to see his pass at Portcullis House in Westminster. Mr Ham, who said he had never seen Mr Jones before the incident, described the outburst as having left him "shocked and flustered".

Giving evidence on behalf of Mail on Sunday publisher Associated Newspapers, Mr Ham said: "His immediate response was to tell me to fuck off and that he was a member of parliament. I again asked politely, persisted. His second response was 'Fuck off, you should know who I am, you don't have the right to question me, you are only security.'"

Who is fucked now?

Who are Ruth Turner's Solicitors?

Just chasing up something, having difficulty finding out the name of the firm representing poor Ruth. Do any of you many loafing lawyers happen to know?