Why have they moved against the BBC?
March 3rd, 2007
Is the investigation getting near to closure ?
The big political news overnight has been the gagging order that the High Court granted last night to the Attorney General to stop BBC News broadcasting an item in its 10pm bulletin on the cash for honours investigation.
-
Clearly what I can write on a blog like this is very limited. You can only conclude that the story was of such a magnitude that the authorities, at the request it appears of the police, felt compelled to act.
The big fear in all highly publicised cases like this is that what is reported might prejudice any trial which is why they felt it necessary to seek an injunction.
We appear to be getting close to the end-game. The “Blair leaving date” betting market now makes Q3 the odds-on favourite.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
We have to be very careful about how we discuss this story. Comments that go too far will be deleted.
Wow Mike don’t you ever sleep?!
Fascinating news. Treading Very Carefully - ! - I can only see two possible interpretations.
1. As you say, the Beeb has found - or been leaked - some very significant evidence which would, if broadcast, prejudice a future trial. As the evidence itself makes a trial most likely, the AG has stepped in, correctly, to stop the broadcast of such material.
2. The AG, despite his protestations, is simply trying to cover his master’s butt - and prevent the leaking of some snide, nasty, unproven and irrelevant allegations, before Blair retires.
I don’t buy number 2. It has to be number 1. Looks like someone is going to be facing the beak. Sehr interresante.
I agree with seanT. Wow! Didn’t think I’d say that too often sean!!!
Either that or something that could prejudice further investigation of the alleged crimes.
However what effect will this story have on the politics of the week? I guess that unless someone leaks what is being gagged it won’t really matter that much. All the mainstream media will leave well alone because they will not want to come close to breaking the court order.
Of course if there are charges that could change the political picture considerably, depending on who, and what with.
I too think someone will end up being charged - if not just to justify the expense of the investigation so far - but I doubt it will be anyone important. I really cannot see Tony being led away in handcuffs no matter how much Gordon might want that…
OK, guys, you’re all in bed - but I’m up with the Bangkok lark. A couple of comments, therefore, which I shall post on both threads, just in case they get missed. I crave your forgiveness for doing do.
1. Ave atque Vale, Commentator. You and I have crossed swords a few times, quite vehemently, not least when you recently called me a sad failed dad reliving his youth, and I responded by alleging you were balding, angrily undersexed, and not quite five foot nine.
Believe it or not I’m going to miss you. In general your comments have been sage, articulate and interesting, apart from when you referred to me, when you spouted utter bilge, of course.
It’s bizarre, on blogs, how you can come to feel a certain fondness and respect for people whose views you dislike or disavow quite intensely. I’d feel the same genuine sadness if NickP left.
2. Benedict White! Congratulations! I’ve not been alone in my wry derision of your ceaseless blogvertising, but you’ve had the last laugh this weekend. Gnarly, dude.
3. I want more gossip! Is Blair going? How exciting!
Ming Campbell argues that the injunction suggests that a trial is likely. (This because the risk is that a trial would be prejudiced.
There are beasically 2 types of contempt by journalists publishing stories about criminal investigations.
First, there is statutory contempt. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there would be strict liability contempt if (1) Proceedings are active and (2) there is a “substantial risk of serious prejudice” to the course of justice. In this case “active” means that someone has been charged or arrested without warrant.
Secondly, before proceedings are “active”, journailsts can still be held in contempt of court under the Common Law. In a case in 1983, the test laid down was that proceedings are “imminent” and “pending”.
That’s the law which a High Court judge will apply in any injunction hearing. Since there is no suggestion at this stage that anyone has been charged or arrested without a warrant during the course of the investigation, it does tend to suggest that proceedings are either imminent or pending.
O/T for this thread but not the threads of the last few weeks, the Newsnight programme that revealed the Goldsmith story also ran a poll about Ming’s weakness as a future pm. The same poll put Brown and Cameron level as to who was preferred, or rather Brown trailed Cameron 29-28, so nothing in it. The question was “better pm” rather than “preferred” and no idea how the poll was carried out.
I’m suprised that wasn’t the headline today (smiley thing)
Hang on a minute. Would the BBC use evidence that would clearly prejudice a trial? They have lawyers in the BBC too. I am afraid that what has been stopped is more likely to be something that would seriously embarrass the Government - I am wondering if this was the reason for Gordon’s price slipping?
re 8. Icarus - I, too, feel constrained by the terms of the injunction and your suggestion that it has something to do with Gordon’s price slipping is not correct.
Like Ben, I am astonished to find myself agreeing with SeanT. I must however refer him to a major theme in yesterday’s thread which deprecated the poor standard of spelling on the site.
No e on the end of ‘interessant’, dear boy. Smarten up.
10. I also got the doubled ’s’ and not double ‘r’ wrong. The only problem with my quoting foreign phrases is that I can’t actually speak foreign.
Apart from ‘do you do short time?’ a handy Thai phrase I have picked up recently.
8 & 9 I repeat the message of one of my posts yesterday. The GB price movement was plainly related to the Clarke/Milburn ‘initiative’ and NOT the injunction or related matters.
By the way Mike, I think Benedict’s scoop should be honored in some way, perhaps by the addition of a link to his blog from this site? I think we can safely so that his blog is no longer a secret.
9. I feel like I’m being pulled both ways on this one. If there is serious evidence that can’t be broadcast (or published), because of the impact that would have on any trial that might take place, then surely the person who would be most damaged would be Blair - the one who makes the nominations? The fundraising chain doesn’t go through Brown as far as we know, so any evidence of this nature should bring the likely departure date forward (Q2? Even Q1 if it is so damaging - though not now it’s been suppressed), but should strengthen the position of the runaway leader in the race to succeed him.
Yet there’s something not quite right. The piece I wrote last month questioned who was betting against Brown. I raised three possibilities as to why people were doing this: one was that against all the known evidence, they didn’t expect him to win (the one I thought most likely); one was to manipulate the prices to make him look less of a certainty; and one was because someone knew something we didn’t. That last point was dismissed as a bit of conspiracy-theory thinking by some at the time. Now I’m not so sure.
Even this government, even the AG who was so supine in his advice over Iraq, couldn’t interfere in the legal process to protect a PM who’ll be gone in a couple of months? Could he? Surely with his credibility as low as it is because of his Iraq advice it provides an incentive to be as independent as possible - as does Blair’s impending departure.
If all this sounds like thrashing around in the dark, then that’s because it’s not far from the mark. Something is wrong somewhere: either the Blair departure date or the odds on Brown or (and I accept this sounds absurd but it’s the logical conclusion if those are ruled out), the 50/1 on Cameron being PM at the end of the year. I still think it’s the odds on Brown.
11 PMSL! You must teach it to me. Could come in very handy with Mrs PtP.
Trust you are very well but hurry back. We need you at this exciting time.
Sad news about Commentator, wasn’t it? Do you know some people blamed me. No justice in this world.
12 - Indeed, it might replace the link ‘The Fundraiser- My Other Bloc’ which was last updated, er, in April 2006
In other news, 60 ordinary people are meeting in Downing Street today to decide the future of the country.
13. I should add that PtP’s quite right about the effect of the Milburn-Clarke initiative on the price, but it was a bit of a damp squib and neither announced he would stand. It did illustrate that there were senior backbenchers/ex-ministers who didn’t want Brown (or at least Brown’s thinking), but that’s hardly news to the world. Were that the only thing, the GB’s price ought to be drifting back in now - it’s not.
David
On last night’s thread, Benedict specifically ruled out any link between the injunction and Brown. I think the failure of the GB price to move back is attributable to the febrile atmosphere currently prevailing at Westminster.
On the Blair Switch markets, the earlier dates should be shortening.
Regrettably, I am away most of the day. In my absence, the site will have to rely on you for its good sense and wisdom. (No laughing in the cheap seats please.) Will you also please keep an eye on spellings. Perhaps you could engage Augustus Carp as compliance officer to assist you in this respect.
Catch up with you all tomorrow. Could be ’sehr interessant’ today. Bugger family obligations.
re 10. I am planning to re-vamp the links section of the site when I get the time, hopefully after Easter. At the moment I’m changing jobs, finalising my book, as well as keeping the site going.
My plan is to have near the top a list of my top ten sites - the ones I visit daily. Then we can go in for different categories.
18. Thanks for the info - I logged off about 9ish last night and haven’t caught up with the rest of the thread. I have taken advantage of the 1.3+ value though.
Sadly, I’m out as today well - it’s a lovely day up here in Yorkshire and I’ve got several thousand leaflets to deliver before April. I’m not sure about Augustus as compliance officer: he was dissing Cicero yesterday - there’s form there.
…meanwhile the move by prominent Clinton supporters to Obama continues.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/another_hillary_defector_mccai.html
“Why have they moved against the BBC”
It sounds as though you already know the answer Mike.
Is this an invitation for the rest of us to make guesses in the knowledge that if we guess correctly our post will be moderated?
16 - thought we had general elections to decide the future of the country.
A polling company chose the 60 - Opinion Leader Research?
10 PtP - my how you twist in the wind - now you are in favour of correct spelling; but only for foreigners… I can’t keep up!
Ref the end of last night’s “honourable” thread. Yep - let’s pick it up on a slow news day sometime (which this certainly isn’t!). I was in dire danger of becoming a CotN at that late hour.
Can I be the first to extend cordial felicitations again today to Benedict White. Having myself ribbed him about his shameless self-promotion on here (yes he does indeed have a blog, if you’ve not heard about it!) last night his server nearly exploded under the sheer weight of injunction-related interest from across the globe (well Norfolk anway). Blogtastic.
My own take has shifted a bit from last night. I think it is important that the original pic on the Beeb website story about the injunction was apparently of one Ruth Turner. Which suggestes to me that the email is between her and Lord cashpoint, and possibly relates to the cover-up/perversion side of the story. That at least would explain why the Met would want an injunction as there could be a risk either to a future trial, or more likley (as it was a police request) to an ongoing investigation into an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Before the AG bang up Mike, let me be clear that this is pure groundless speculation on my part.
The facts would seem to be that the BBC got posession of an incriminating Email. They then asked the person who sent it to comment. At which point an injunction was sought.
……My guess because the people who would have had to leak the email were the police and not only might it have prejudiced a trial but also because it could have been defamatory.
My view is that someone has leaked something to the BEEB that is so incriminating (to Ruth Turner), it makes a trial inevitable. So I too agree with seanT.
I personally think there is a real conflict at the heart of this investigation- on the one side Yates and his team who want to make a scalp, the other the establishment CPS who would rather not bring the govt into disrepute (IMO quite rightly).
I think this leak has been done calculatedly by the Yates team to bind the hands of the CPS- and force a prosecution. Ultimately Yates will be vilified for the fool that he is, but at this point it seems like the moment is his!!!
Well, there is of course slightly more detail on my blog,
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
But Mike, I broadly agree. It does look like the only pretext would be charges about to be made.
Re SeanT at 4, Many thanks. I have had one hell of a lot of visitors since I broke the story!
Re 9, Mike, that is my information as well.
Re 12, Peter, How kind
25 Roger- I think again we are like minded. If Yates is behind this leak because he is frustrated about how the investigation is going (or the lack of support he is getting either in the higher echelons of the police or CPS) the guy has seriously lost the plot. He is a dangerous maverick with a clear judgement problem- and to think the police probably picked him because they thought after the Burrell case he would want a low profile.
All conjecture I know- but how the hell else could such an incriminating bit of evidence land in the hands of the beeb?
Have to go, but the intrigue here is utterly compelling!!
26. Sorry Tyson, but gotta bring you up on that. ‘The Establishment CPS who would rather not bring the government into disrepute, IMO quite rightly’.
??
You seem to be saying that a whitewash and a cover-up is justifiable, even if Number 10 bigwigs have been conspiring to pervert the course of justice - because the alternative might lead the government into disrepute?!?
Earth to Tyson. The government is already mired in disrepute, wallowing in the ordure of risibility, and splattered with the stinking manure of general contempt. Because of Iraq. Frankly, there ain’t no repute to dis.
Moreover your point is morally wrong, of course. Justice must be done, and be seen to be done, especially when it concerns wrongdoing in the elite and the Establishment.
Let’s face it, if this was a Tory government in similar trouble, you’d be sitting by the guillotine with your knitting.
Re 30, Tyson, an unbelievable comment even by your standards!
seanT and Benedict- have to go really because I have a lecture to give- but to defend my position- this affair is so miniscule in the greater corruption of public life across our political elite- (has always been thus)- and to hang some poor policywonk on this is risible, and nothing to do with justice or the independence of the law. More about Yates’s inflated view of himself.
I think a prediction we can all make is that Yates reputation will not be enhanced by this pantomime. After his Burell debacle most sensible police forces would have had him on points duty somewhere in the highlands.
Not our thick blue line! Perhaps I’m being unkind. Perhaps they thought the inquiry so delicate that the best thing was to give it to a policeman of such incompetence that by the time he reported the politicians would be long gone if not dead? Little did they know that amongst his team would be a serial leaker!
New. ETA 2020.
Re 34 and 35, Tyson and Roger, you do write the most unbelievable things about Yates of the yard!
33. Fun watching Tyson and Roger ‘it will all blow over’ squirm, isn’t it?
In my opinion, good move. It is wrong for the media to release stories that prejudice judicial proceedings. Not that they can’t comment, but sometimes they really do go too far.
Better safe than sorry here.
Come on Benedict! Elliott Ness had the whole Al Capones gang behind bars in the time it’s taken Yates to read some emails!
Incidentally are congratulations in order? Was it you who broke this story yesterday before the news channels?
I suspect there is less to the underlying Beeb story than meets the eye - it may well have been reasonably dull. I think Ming Campbell hit the nail on the head - essentially, a trial looks likely and it is quite usual to shut down virtually all fresh reporting that could influence a future jury (particularly if it includes things that may be inadmissable in court).
Re 39, Roger, Elliot ness was not working against the PM’s office.
Roger, many thanks for the congratulations! Yes I think so, though Iain Dale also had bits as well.
Any way must dash. Got a couple of things I need to do!
(O/T 39 - Roger, Could you please send me your bank details - I believe you may have won a small cash prize….but mum’s the word
Is it not timely to say well done to the BBC on this. They get a knock on this site. Good stuff.
42. It’s the way you tell ‘em!
40 - but the media “shutdown” usually only starts when charges are laid. Ref the Ipswich murders recently, when we got all the prurient details of the suspects and their history with prostitues, etc up until the point the chap was charged and then total silence.
The injunction in this case seems designed to protect the ongoing police enquiry as much as a future trial. I still think that Turner is in the soup and charges are about to be laid.
44 roger. Send your details for a full refund of your choice of a pair of grey Y fronts or a tin of warm beer to :
John Major.
Managing Director.
Bank of Fidelity.
Family Values House.
Hypocrisy Street.
Huntingdon.
39. Roger if this is all a non-story, why are you congratulating Benedict for breaking it?
44. No, I think refunds for New Labour voters are available here:
Tony Blair
“Whiter than White” Retirement Home
Tragicomic End
The Moral Wilderness
Near Desperate Straits,
Iraq
If Robin is correct and this enquiry ends in the charging of Ruth Turner for deleting some emails (that have subsequently been read-otherwise how would anyone know they were significant?)then it’ll be the worst of all outcomes.
Would the charging of a No10 aide really be a justification for a year of ten policemen’s time? Would anyone who ever suffered a minor crime not wonder why they too couldn’t have ten policemen for a year so no stone was left unturned?
44
Roger, so you are still confident with your prediction that cash for peerages and other related charges will simply blow over without any charges?
Seant don`t salivate too much, you might get serious wind.
49 - Cause we expect our leaders to not break the law, pretty much.
Well, am I the only one here in shock at the news that Benedict White has a beard and a ponytail?
53. Benedict White is Michael Brown?????
49. And let’s not forget that no one now really doubts that Labour were indeed selling peerages for cash. They were, we all know it. They even admit it. The main defense of course, is that everyone else did it before. Which is true.
But Labour came in to power promising to end sleaze, and to be “whiter than white”, to stop the selling of power for money. And then they brought in actual legislation to end the practise. And then they circumvented their own legislation, when they ran out of money.
And then, when they got caught doing this, it seems they tried to desperately cover up what they had done.
This is why they are in trouble. It’s the reeking hypocrisy. Labour deserve all they get. This government will go down as the saddest and most disappointing in recent British history.
.. and a new Tory utopia will raise Britain from the ashes of dispair!
48 seanT.
re 53. IA. I agree. What about interesting tattoos or piercing? Now they are banned from PBC’s links list.
56. I think a change of government is now a moral necessity, mainly because of Iraq. This shower of liars and incompetents, responsible for the greatest blunder of recent times, the most grotesque foreign policy mistake since Appeasement, has to pay.
I don’t particularly mind if its the Lib deDms that take over. I genuinely believe that, for the moral health of the nation, we simply need to cleanse the stables. We need to fess up to what we have wrought in Iraq, and prosecute those responsible.
If the only means of doing this is via prosecutions for corruption, then that will have to do. Unsatisfactory as it is.
The third IPSOS rolling poll for the Presidential elections has little change:
First round:
Sarko 31( no change)
Sego 25 (-1)
Bayrou 19(+1)
Le Pen 12 (-0.5)
Second round
Sarko 54 (+0.5)
Sego 46 (-0.5)
54. “Benedict White is Michael Brown????? ”
The LD donor or the former Tory MP?
K, I’m off shopping in the Siam Paragon Department Store, with lots of Chinese ladies with poodles.
Anon!
61. I was thinking Lib Dem Donor, but if the former Tory MP has a beard and a ponytail then equally applicable.
60 - I know absolutely nothing about French politics, but I still find all these poll figures as somewhat suspicious. Is there any site offering spread betting on the first round percentage of the vote - because i think there must be money to be made from “SELL, SELL, SELL”.
In 2002 the two “main” candidates got 36% between them. Candidates other than Le Pen and Bayrou, standing for all sorts of wierd and wonderful causes got 40% between them.
And yet the current polls reckon this 40% from last time will only muster up about 10-15% this time up.
It’s not very likely, is it?
63. No, he hasn’t a beard. So it’s just the LD donor
I go away for a week to Argyll - no papers, no internet and no TV - and I come back to hear about these extrodinary revelations:
Benedict has a beard, a ponytail and apparently now has his own blog!
What is the world coming to.
As a non-better, and apologies for being incredibly thick here, but why hasn’t the betting moved to make the 2nd Quarter the ‘bookies favourite’ ? We know he will no longer be around at the time of the next party conference ? So with possible ‘bad news round the corner’ it surely is starting to look far less likely that he will hold out till July.
I am sure there is a technical explanation around the difference between when he announces he’s going and when Gordon gets the keys to Number 10, but no one has ever explained to me…
60. Bayrou looks like a very attractive outside bet…anyone know what the best odds we can get on him are, peut-etre?
“Well, am I the only one here in shock at the news that Benedict White has a beard and a ponytail?”
And tatoos? Where does this information come from? I’m picturing a blond biggles!
I think that Yates has (finally) gone too far even for the Met Police this time. I wonder if any bookies are going to be opening a market on whether he will be charged.
If as now seems likely one of Blair’s inner circle is charged and he is obliged to step down in disgrace, we should consider how this will affect the next Labour leader market. There will be a huge groundswell of opinion in the country and (even) within the Labour Party for a new broom to sweep away the corrupt detritus of the Blair administration.
I cannot see how GB can provide this, given his intimate connection wit the regime since its inception. As a result, his price must be at risk of drifting further if this story does indeed play out in the manner suggested above. The GE seats market will surely be significantly affected too.
What are roger/tyson/MJCGP on about?
This is an injunction on behalf of Yates of the Yard - are you suggesting he leaked something just so that he could get an injunction against himself?
Get a grip would you……
Matthew Alphabet What are you on about?
59 - Just messing with you! I’m a tory too
I understand from Tory sourses that after this inquiry ends Yates is thinking of following the great Benedict White in becomming a Tory blogger. Dave Cameron is thought to be so enthusiastic he released this statement;
‘I’ve known John Yates from when he first became a Conservative and since then he has done everything to promote our cause. That his latest venture didn’t achieve the results I or my supporters had hoped doesn’t in any way detract from the effort he has put in. No-one could have done more to damage our political opponents and though he might have failed this time he has managed to unite the Party in a way that I didn’t think possible when I became leader.”
75. Utterly pathetic.
67. Philip
It could be any number of reasons, for example:
He nature of the punters in the market. Its possible most of those who have a live interest have taken and covered options on Q2 & Q3. Thus there isnt much additional money around to punt on Q2.
Alex the big difference from last time is that the main parties are well aware of the fact that Le Pen made it into the second round in 2002. Hence there have been strong messages for a ‘vote utile’ in the first round to make absolutely sure that this doesn’t happen again. The wierd and wonderful candidates you refer to are standing again but are credited with 3% or less because of this tactical squeeze. The danger for Sego is that Le Pen is now seen as well behind Bayrou in fourth place and secondly she is performing badly in hypothetical match ups with Sarko in the second round. By contrast Bayrou is seen to beat Sarko in every second round poll I’ve seen. The Liberation blog is full of comments from left wing voters saying they’ll vote Bayrou either for tactical reasons or because they’re genuinely impressed with his approach. Bayrou is now seen as getting as many votes from the Left as from the Right; an incredible performance from someone hitherto seen as a centre Right politician. Bayrou has also been drawing huge crowds; 4000 the other day when the capacity was 2000. People had come from many miles away to hear him on giant screens. If he can manage 20% in one or two polls the fat will be in the fire for Sego. There will be a desperate appeal to supporters of the fringe left candidates to save her position. Her problem seems to me to be that a lot of french voters even though they like her seriously doubt her capacity to be President. Sarko, on the other hand, is less liked but strongly seen as capable and experienced. If you’re choosing a Head of State with real power it’s very likely that the head will rule the heart. Sarko’s problem is that he is seen as over ambitious and divisive by a lot of frenchmen. That’s where ‘le troisieme homme’ Bayrou comes in. His appeal is to overcome the left right divide and bring together the french people. It may be corny but a lot of french people are attracted by the ‘ni droite ni gauche’ slogan. The first round is on April 22 so there’s plenty of time for things to change yet.
75 - That posting isn’t worthy of you Roger.
For those who are thinking this through properly you have to imagine who would possibly gain from a leak of, what is believed to be, vital evidence.
The only viable answer appears to be from those who would like a potential trial to be seen as unfair because of said leaks. So it’s far more likely (although by no means certain) that any leak came from givernment sources or from someone close to a person who is likely to be charged. Now, if that was the case, is there to be a further police chase after the person(s) who leaked this information to come?
72 & 73 -
I could well imagine Yates leaking some embarassing (but not prosecutable) information on a minor govt aide to the press and then pressing for an injunction to increase the amount of attention that this non story will get in the press (of course to comply with the laws of libel I’m just presenting this as a possible - though very likely - scenario). This would be par for the course for such a egoist like Yates.
‘Givernment’?
Government…..
80. Another interesting question is who tipped the authorities off about the BBC having this info? Another example of Robin Aitken syndrome?
72 - Can you really not see it Paul.
It’s a plot so fiendish that even the great minds on Pb.com can’t figure it out.
Remember there are no lengths to which ‘the establishment’ won’t go to sully the good name of Tony Blair and the Labour party.
I for one am disgusted.
Roger - seriously for a minute your hostility to the Assistant Commander has developed into a Snowflake-like obsession. You have zero idea of what is going on and neither have I. How on earth can you make the judgements that you are making?
To investigate the PM and those closest too him is probably the toughest assignment any policeman has ever been asked to do. Of course he has to be absolutely certain before he can proceed and if the PM is being protected by his team is it any wonder that this takes time?
76. Haven’t you got a sympathetic bone in your body?
Please try to understand how it is to live with such a delusion inducing condition. I understand that some of the overt sysmptoms are comedy inducing, but please don’t laugh or indeed sneer. I believe Jeremy Hardy will be doing a Radio 4 appeal for the conditon sometime soon. I think its called Desiring Attention Delusional Disorder or DADD’s. Please consider donating.
Stephen. All the postings on this subject are ridiculous because no-one not even the legend Benedict White knows anything!
However for Tory watchers this is quite an experience!
This is the most excited they’ve been for ten years and it’s excruciating!!
There is a sad desperation in the air from Labour supporters this morning.
Slagging off the police as you Labour people are doing is counterproductive. it makes you look vicious rather than simply misguided.
There is much to criticise the police for, in general and in this investigation in particular: pedestrian speed,and over-egging the process for two. But to criticise them legitimately you would have to accept that many of their problems come from the Labour government.
The creation of the CPS has added a level of delaying bureaucracy that is often too politically correct to press hard on criminal activity. In the current case the political appointess (except the AG) have excused themselves. Quite right but it leaves gaps and presents further problems for those left to do the job.
The HRA has added a level of uncertainty to many investigations. Restrictions on the police operations based on perceived racial bias (whether true or not) have created a stutter mode in some cases, and the form filling, awareness training, group development and all the other impositions on time without any real consideration of the operational effect have taken their toll.
Add to that the appalling quality of senior appointments driven by style and Pc-ness ( the other Blair comes to mind) are solely the government’s responsibility.
Roger brought up the Elliot Ness comparison earlier in asking why the investigation is taking so long. So I offer:
Lets start from premise that Yates believes a crime has been committed. He has seen enough evidence to make him conclude that - an opinion but in his eyes a fact Yates’s prime suspect must be the PM, he is after all who actually finally puts forward the names, is the person who’s ear the donors want, the man with responsibility, the person linking those being investigated. However, like Capone, his fingerprints cannot be traced directly to the crime - Al was in Florida on the day of the St Valentines Day Massacre.
If the PM is the target - and police tend to concentrate on the person that in balance of probabilities they believe has committed the crime- then a heavy handed police investigation would most likely have failed - as earlier attempts on Capone failed. So it has to be a slow, deliberate, operation with occasional actions to pressurise & upset the balance. Yates wants someone to break, wants people to add uneccessary elaboration to their stories which expose the differences between witnesses.
Political corruption is a serious offence because it eats at the roots of the constitution. It is quite true that we have become blase about the petty use of political power over appointments whether through peerages, to quangos, to commmissions or other offices at discretion of the Crown. Its time that the whole thing was cleaned up. I really don’t care if Blair is gulty or not guilty in law but the affair exposes just how generally corruptible the process is. We need more elective offices rather than appinted ones, more independent appointment boards - perhaps if we get an mostly elected HoL these could be under control of that House.
Roger, you’re doing it again and it’s getting worse, IT IS NOT JUST TORIES. Sorry for shouting but you don’t seem to understand at all. You are supporting a government with the votes of barely 20% of the population, if you feel you’re outnumbered then reflect on that.
85.
I’m not obsessed Mike just having some fun! If you don’t believe selling peerages is a big deal overtly or covertly and you believe it’s been going on for 60 years and the way to deal with it is through Parliament then it’s difficult to take this enquiry seriously. It’s also difficult to accept the need for ten policemen to spend a year sorting out a few emails.
91 - So would you take perverting the course of justice seriously?
Sorry Paul but when I talk of ‘Tories’ I automatically include you. My mistake!
How long do ICM have under Polling Council rules before they have to put up their full WA poll results.
Anyone on this site got a house worth a million or more.
Lib Dems are going to tax you heavily. (Vince Cable today).
Living in the provinces, faced with M6 widening, this will not happen to me.
Suppose they are gambling that in their southern target seats, including London, and those areas in the Midlands and the North, very few owners of such properties vote for them anyway.
However as with most things the Lib Dems, is anyone really listening, the media especially is so Cameronised, they seem to praise whatever he does and says, without considering the real and actual consequences, ie tax breaks for marriage.
92. “Perverting the course of Justice”. It depends.
Take the example of the police raiding a club and someone flushes a joint down the toilet. I guess it’s perverting the course of justice but unless you think having a spliff in the first place is a big deal then it’s hard to get excited about someone flushing it down the toilet.
93 - By that count you’re a lib dem roger, more so as you spent some time saying you’d vote that way; that you see only one ‘enemy’ when in fact you’re surrounded is quite perplexing. Still, at least you’re going down fighting and it’s faintly glorious in a ‘going over the top into no man’s land’ type way.
93 - By that count you’re a lib dem roger, more so as you spent some time saying you’d vote that way; that you see only one ‘enemy’ when in fact you’re surrounded is quite perplexing. Still, at least you’re going down fighting and it’s faintly glorious in a ‘going over the top into no man’s land’ type way.
97/98 - Whoops.
Re Eliot Ness although he did much to disrupt Capone’s operations he did not bring him down. It took a lot of lengthy and painstaking work by other people before a case could be made against him for tax evasion. The evidence eventually used, pace the film, owed nothing to Ness.
91
‘I’m not obsessed Mike just having some fun!’
Is perverting the course of justice,just fun?
Was cash for questions,Archer & Aitkin also just fun ?
Or is it just a case of New Labour sleaze being ok?
O/T but hey so what I’m just settling in to watch Liverpool beat Manchester united by 1 -0.
It’s not enough for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her Iraq vote in 2002: She was witness to years of President Bill Clinton’s deception and lying about Saddam Husseins’s weapons programs to justify attacks on Iraq.
Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. “I’m in, and I’m in to win,” she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election.
Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of this war.
This issue won’t be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq’s WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq’s weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration
Have a great weekend folks !
I understand the 12.32 anonymous comment on Guido’s thread to be the case.
When all this has blown over serious questions must be asked about the right of an unelected body like the police to cause havoc for a democratically elected government. If Yates has Tory inclinations (which is probable, such attitudes are dominant in an essentially reactionary organization like the police) then at best he is allowing his right-wing attitudes to subconsciously cloud his judgement when dealing with a Labour Prime Minister; at worst he is deliberately making malevolent mischief. Personally, I think government ministers and their functionaries should be immune from the criminal justice system of ordinary people. If there is evidence of wrong doing in a government - admittedly this was rife during the last Tory administration but I’ve seen scant evidence of it since 1997 - then a committee of senior government figures chaired by the PM himself should investigate and pass judgement. As Tyson said earlier, it is about the stability and well-being of the country - not the vanity or obsessiveness of one man.
We’re debating in the dark about a twist in an investigation that has been rife with apparently misleading rumours, so I don’t think there’s much point in adding to the speculation about what it’s about, though the report that the police asked for the injunction is suggestive of a straightforward attempt to protect whatever case they believe they have.
But it’s easier to respond to the query about why most people expect a Q3 handover rather than Q2 or even Q1: so far as we know, all the allegations that the police are following up have related to people who are not elected politicians and who are not exactly household names. If anyone is prosecuted, they will be entitled to presumption of innocence in the usual way, and the case will proceed over some months, but there is no reason for TB to resign suddenly since the police have reportedly cleared him.
So it defaults to the generally-expected sequence, which is that TB stands down as Labour leader and JP as deputy leader in early May, there is then the election process, and the handover is in early July.
103 - In which case the leak could have come from the person who is/was being ‘leant on’.
(Adrian Harper is a very subtly written spoof by the way, just to save anyone the effort of getting annoyed)
87 - Roger, please don’t call me “Stephen”. It really does grate - I’ve had almost 33 years of it.
Normally a lurker, but can’t resist this. Am I the only Tory who’se both loving this all while agreeing with Roger that the whole investigation is a load of nonsense? Surely nobody on this site can honestly be shocked that there’s shall we say a correlation between donations and peerages. Short of finding a price list, it’s hard to see what evidence they could ever come up with sufficient to press charges. So the police are falling back on ‘perverting the course of justice’ - all rather like Scooter Libby in Washington, where they seem to have given up on the original charge of betraying the identity of a ‘covert’ operative and run with the obstruction charge too. If people only kept their nerve and didn’t do silly things deleting emails (speculation, I hasten to add…), I can’t imagine this investigation would ever get anywhere
105: “We’re debating in the dark about a twist in an investigation that has been rife with apparently misleading rumours”
and
“there is no reason for TB to resign suddenly since the police have reportedly cleared him”
Discuss,
85.
If some aide is charged with deleting an e mail, ie perverting the course of justice so called.
But no one is charge with the original offence the Police were investigating namely `cash for honours` which has gone on for centuries.
Then the Police could be rightly accused of an over reaction, and it would be seen as such by the wider public.
Re 58, Admin, no tattoo’s or body piercings! But some interest from the broadcast media.
Best comment I’ve read , from Wife in the North, it seems Roger has a 6 year old alter ego
“This cash for honours thing is gaining currency. As BBC Radio 4’s Today programme mumbled on, my four-year-old lifted his bed-haired head from his rice krispies to ask: “Is Tony Blair going to prison?”. Milk dripped from his spoon as he waited for my answer. “No,” I said, “I very much doubt it.” Difficult to judge which way my four-year-old would jump if breakfast focus push came to infant ballot but his brother is firmly behind TB. Already on his muffin, my six-year-old chimed in: “I think Prime Ministers should be allowed to do what they want.” That’s TB and a six-year-old then.”
Re 66, Max yes I do, and it is here!
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/
Re 83, Scallywag, The BBC did the tipping off. It is sort of normal journalistic protocol.
re 83. Nick Robinson explaiend quite clearly on the Today programme this morning that they themselves did the tipping off when they were checking their story with the parties concerned.
interesting quote from
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070303/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070303094504
“Scotland Yard detectives have interviewed all members of Blair’s Cabinet while Blair himself has been quizzed twice as a witness, rather than a suspect.
But two of his closest aides — director of government relations Ruth Turner and his Middle East envoy Lord Michael Levy — have both been arrested on suspicion of breaching the the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.
They have also been quizzed about alleged conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, which has led to speculation there was an alleged cover-up at the heart of government.
Both Turner, whose job involves liaising between government and the Labour Party, and Levy, nicknamed “Lord Cashpoint” because of his key fund-raising role for the centre-left party, have not been charged and are on police bail.”
Just caught up with today’s thread and also yesterday’s. Firstly, congratulations to Benedict - a notable scoop. Sorry I missed all the fun.
What I do find funny is the attitude among some Labour supporters that ‘we’re the good guys so we can do anything’. This leads to the situation where Tyson believes the establishment is and should be protecting the government by covering up illegal wrongdoing from investigation by rogue officers, but roger believes the evil Tory establishment is out to get the government. It might be suggested that the government is pretty much by definition a part of the establishment.
Anyone who thinks Blair can just walk away if it’s only a member of his inner circle who’s charged is (deliberately?) ignoring political reality. In the same way that no-one believed the Hutton enquiry conclusions because it contradicted the evidence people had seen and heard, so Blair will inevitably suffer should Turner or Levy be charged. He appointed them, gave them positions of trust and they were doing his work. Even if no evidence exists that Blair instructed or suggested that they sell peerages or destroy evidence, should such a charge be laid people will believe he will have. And in politics it’s mainly what people believe that matters.
Still, as I’ve said before, I don’t expect much to happen before Blair stands down. It is difficult for the police to investigate senior members of the government - partly because of the defensive networks that exist to protect them and partly because they have to be careful not to undermine the democratic process on the basis of allegations. It will be easier once Blair’s out of No 10.
Re 104, Adrian, you mean like a Berlesconi 9sic) type law where you can be as bent as you like as long as you hang on to power.
I do hope you are joking.
Re 117, David Many thanks
Yes. Well done Benedict.
No need to hide your light under a bushel any longer!
118 - agree - much of English (and British) history was about ensuring that no-one was above the law, shame if we threw it away because a sleazy administration couldn’t stand its actions being examined under the laws it swore to uphold.
Has Guido’s site disappeared from anyone else’s computer?
British ministers might learn something from America on honourable behaviour.
“US Army Secretary Francis Harvey has resigned amid a row over the treatment of wounded US soldiers.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6414183.stm
122 Nope
The odds on Q1 have been chased right down to 22/1 having touched 80 recently (probably just before this latest story broke), though there’s a huge back/lay gap with the shortest lay odds in the sixties. Still, it looks like a big overcorrection - there’s only four weeks left this quarter, not enough time for a leadership election and there’s the budget in the wings so there’ll be no pressure from Brown. I don’t generally lay odds of that nature but for those that do, it looks like there’s value there.
122. I hope so.
Re PBC PARTY.
MESSAGE FROM PETER THE PUNTER.
Peter has asked me to relay the fact that the limit of numbers for the PBC party has now been reached and that for the moment he is operating a reserve list. He says this may change and that he will be in touch again shortly.
I might just, might just change my allegiance to the Liberals
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6414793.stm
QUOTE
People owning homes worth £1m or more would face a new “wealth tax” under plans being considered by the Lib Dems.
Treasury spokesman Vince Cable wants to hit “obscenely large” property investments and believes an annual 1% levy could be the solution.
The estimated £1bn return would be used to cut inheritance tax and stamp duty bills for the less well off.
Can anyone answer the query at 94.
Back from delivering a poorly planned lecture at a medical conference, and winging it (too busy last night trying to look at Benedict- pony tail, earing, tattoos, goatee, White’s- blogspot- have a brief interlude now before questions (equally poorly planned).
Anyhow talk about high horses, and Smithson perched the highest. This enquiry is over something as petty as cash for honours, cash for honours for chrissakes. Yates is beginning to make Kennth Starr seem like an independent voice of reason. I think the guy is a maverick and an idiot (and a Tory to boot but goes well with the idiot)- and if he wants to string up some poor, young, ambitious, female for deleting emails just to enhance his reputation he deserves a good kicking.
And no Mike Smithson- the outcome of a 10 man, year long, police investigation is (probably) for a young, bright, girl (apparently very nice) to face the prospect of imprisonment for deleting emails-well bloody done. Ruth Turner is no Aitken, or Archer. This whole affair is a bloody, political oriented fiasco. I harbour nothing but contempt for this process.
Re 130, Tyson, so corruption is fine as long as it is Labour doing it? Fantastic!
Perhaps Tyson you do not appreciate how cancerous corruption is to politics.
I also suspect there will be more than one person charged.
125. I hope you all got on Q1 at 65 last night, as I advised….
Mike at 9 is correct. Alas, for obvious reasons cannot elaborate.
Going to be fun watching the ‘Levee’ break, isn’t it?
130. V poor, Tyson Minor. 2/10.
Just cause Ruthie is “nice” doesn’t mean she shouldn’t face prosecution for a criminal act.
Just cause all she is alleged to have done is delete emails, does’t mean that isn’t perverting the course of justice. If she’d been caught burning documents, or telling witnesses to keep quiet, would you still say this? It’s exactly the same.
Just cause you’re a Labour voter doesn’t mean you have to stay loyal to this gruesome, inept, corrupt, tired and increasingly embarrassing goverment. You demean yourself, you sound like Matthew
Alphabetti Spaghetti Partridge - a fate you must surely wish to avoid.
Interesting proposal for the tax on million pound homes from the Lib Dems…seems to be heading back towards the 50% on top earnings, but without hitting as many people, which may have cost us seats last time.
We made hay before by saying that our policies were fully costed with the proposed tax rise, unlike the Tories, and if Cameron doesn’t get his act together, we may well be able to do it again.
Great writeup for Ming on the Trident debate as well - seems to be taking the party with him impressively this weekend.
94. Punter (as I know you’re interested in Wales), BBC website reports that the tories are confident to gain Cardiff North, Clwyd West and Preseli Pembrokeshire.
Other targets are Aberconwy and Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. They’ve hopes in Vale of Glamorgan.
And “outside chances of surprise gains” are Delyn and Bridgend.
More or less what it has been discussed so far here (apart Bridgend which was never mentioned)
Benedict- corruption is rife in public life- but this is so petty. Next we are going to have the whole fraud squad examing the travel claims of Ken Livingstones PA. Bloody hell she claimed 20 miles from Paddington to Waterloo when it is really 18. Who signed it off, who knew about it? Get the writs and injunctions.
I said last night you may not like what you wish for- which is obviously for some young lass to be hung out for deleting emails. That is what all you vultures want isn’t it anyway.? Nothing less than people being charged and imprisoned will satisy your bloodlust. But heh- what do you expect of Tories? They want to bang up as many people as they can
I think it will undermine the legitimacy and independence of the police. Ultimately, the public will have some common sense and be able to judge this charade as it is, because Yates and co appear to have taken a collective leave of their sanity.
Anyway, you will be relieved that I have to be off now.
I’m thinking of publishing a Christmas toilet book for pb.com readers:
The Collected Predictions of Roger
Given pride of place in the book would, of course, be Roger’s various predictions through the past year about the Yates Investigation, viz:
‘It will end next week’ June 2006
‘Mark my words, this will come to nothing’ October 2006
‘The police are pathetic, this will dribble away at the weekend’ April 2006
‘What a farce. The police have nothing. No one will ever be arrested. Hartlepool will win the Champions League,’ last summer
‘Gordon Brown will be deified in 2008, Ruth Turner is made of gold, Yates will soon be revealed as a Nazi’ Yesterday
We could also include his various laughable predictions re elections results, etc. Could be a bestseller in the Humour section of Waterstones.
tpkfar I would have thought the 1 million ceiling might be a tiny bit dodgy in south west London. There must be plenty of homes in that bracket in Richmond, Barnes, Surbiton etc. Is this a real wealth tax ie is the suggestion being made that a full declaration will have to be made of all assets on a regular basis or is it just on homes? It certainly suggests a strategy of going after Labour seats but it could backfire in some areas susceptible to a Tory challenge.
Re 138, Tyson “Benedict- corruption is rife in public life-” Is it? In what way?
Even so, if you are right it needs to be stamped out.
“I think it will undermine the legitimacy and independence of the police.”
I disagree. I think it will do the reverse.
As for wanting someone locked up, well if guilty yes, if not, know.
122) yes mine- I cant get it either
Re 122 and 142, no problems here!
You have to wonder at the thought process which says that it’s okay to buy your way into a position where you can contribute to, and vote on, the laws of the land.
Of course, that could never be important could it?
Neither could subsequent attempts to cover up any evidence of such.
All in a day’s work for any self respecting government.
Perspective lost completely there Tyson. I thought last night you’d realised the seriousness of these potential charges.
It’s indicative that you can only talk about tories too, well maybe it’s left to the rest of us to speak from a less compromised position then, so here goes.
It’s corrupt, it stinks and, if proved, people should pay dearly , even if they are a ‘nice young woman’ (as if that mattered).
143) 122) cant get it by going via my usual search engine link it fails, but has worked by typing in the address manually - maybe just heavy traffic?