Friday, January 26, 2007
Jail the chief? Is there a place?
The Times informs us of a delay in the "Loans for Lordships" enquiry. Normally I'd be disappointed, but given this unrelatred story about our lack of prison places, it's probably just as well.
It's only right and proper, that people who commit offences and derserve prison get what they deserve, and whilst the image of our (soon to be) ex-Prime Minister handcuffed and taken into custody will bring shame upon the whole country, consider how much worse it would be if there wasn't a prison place to accomodate him.
So yes whilst things are as they are, delay might turn out for the better, it would be a travesty if Blair were denied his place inhistory prison, because of the incompetence of his government.
It's only right and proper, that people who commit offences and derserve prison get what they deserve, and whilst the image of our (soon to be) ex-Prime Minister handcuffed and taken into custody will bring shame upon the whole country, consider how much worse it would be if there wasn't a prison place to accomodate him.
So yes whilst things are as they are, delay might turn out for the better, it would be a travesty if Blair were denied his place in
Tags: Labour, Tony Blair, probity
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Labour, probity, Tony Blair
Monday, December 18, 2006
"Jail the Chief"
The Times reports here on the latest from the loans for lordships affair.
We're told: "the investigation has widened to include a suspected cover-up by those around the Prime Minister ... A prosecution source said: “There is more than a suspicion that evidence has not been handed over, people have colluded and the police are not being helped.
More detail is helpfully given: "The possibility of charges on perverting the course of justice was discussed by CPS lawyers after meetings with police. Such charges can be brought if a person tries to interfere with an investigation that might bring criminal proceedings. The charge, which carries a maximum life sentence, ... . According to the CPS, “it does not matter whether or not the act results in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done”.
It certainly doesn't bode well. The Prime Minister is enmeshed in this scandal and has brought shame and dishonour not just on himself and his family, but on the office he holds and on the nation. The loans business was bad enough on its own, but now (and unfortunately it comes as no surprise) we can see a culture of deceit and dishonesty. Tony Blair is supposed to be responsible for the government and even if he has no direct involvement with any alleged "cover-up" he has at least allowed and possibly encouraged this rotten culture right at the very heart of our country.
We are told that The Times on Saturday reported: "... his [Tony Blairs'] evidence contradicted that of his close friend, Lord Levy, who will now be interviewed again." [authors' additions] Clearly one of these two (shall we say) must be in error and the investigation seems to be going as I predicted, in that the interview with Blair was just a first tentative step. If he is innocent, and presuming he is genuine about leaving office, he should resign now and concentrate on clearing his name thus leaving the office he holds as unsullied as possible.
Personally I can't see that happening although I hope we're not treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister leaving Downing Street handcuffed in a police car. These are serious charges, and whilst this cloud hangs over Downing Street, the office of Prime Minister cannot be effectively carried out. When something like this reaches this level there are no excuses, no "poor deprived childhood", no "not my job", no "just following orders" and no "not my responsibility". There are many benefits and much power associated with high office, but very few realise the burden such carries, a better person would never have allowed themselves to get into such a position and Blair must "carry the can" for his failings.
It's so ironic though, a Socialist Prime Minister, who has been responsible for curtailing our freedoms and inflicting all sorts of nonsense upon us, and what's going to get him? Dirty little bourgeois deals involving affectations such as titles of nobility. You should have left these things to the capitalists comrade! Socialists earn their living by the sweat of their brow!
We're told: "the investigation has widened to include a suspected cover-up by those around the Prime Minister ... A prosecution source said: “There is more than a suspicion that evidence has not been handed over, people have colluded and the police are not being helped.
More detail is helpfully given: "The possibility of charges on perverting the course of justice was discussed by CPS lawyers after meetings with police. Such charges can be brought if a person tries to interfere with an investigation that might bring criminal proceedings. The charge, which carries a maximum life sentence, ... . According to the CPS, “it does not matter whether or not the act results in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done”.
It certainly doesn't bode well. The Prime Minister is enmeshed in this scandal and has brought shame and dishonour not just on himself and his family, but on the office he holds and on the nation. The loans business was bad enough on its own, but now (and unfortunately it comes as no surprise) we can see a culture of deceit and dishonesty. Tony Blair is supposed to be responsible for the government and even if he has no direct involvement with any alleged "cover-up" he has at least allowed and possibly encouraged this rotten culture right at the very heart of our country.
We are told that The Times on Saturday reported: "... his [Tony Blairs'] evidence contradicted that of his close friend, Lord Levy, who will now be interviewed again." [authors' additions] Clearly one of these two (shall we say) must be in error and the investigation seems to be going as I predicted, in that the interview with Blair was just a first tentative step. If he is innocent, and presuming he is genuine about leaving office, he should resign now and concentrate on clearing his name thus leaving the office he holds as unsullied as possible.
Personally I can't see that happening although I hope we're not treated to the spectacle of the Prime Minister leaving Downing Street handcuffed in a police car. These are serious charges, and whilst this cloud hangs over Downing Street, the office of Prime Minister cannot be effectively carried out. When something like this reaches this level there are no excuses, no "poor deprived childhood", no "not my job", no "just following orders" and no "not my responsibility". There are many benefits and much power associated with high office, but very few realise the burden such carries, a better person would never have allowed themselves to get into such a position and Blair must "carry the can" for his failings.
It's so ironic though, a Socialist Prime Minister, who has been responsible for curtailing our freedoms and inflicting all sorts of nonsense upon us, and what's going to get him? Dirty little bourgeois deals involving affectations such as titles of nobility. You should have left these things to the capitalists comrade! Socialists earn their living by the sweat of their brow!
Tags: justice, corruption, Labour
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: corruption, Labour
Friday, December 15, 2006
A Mixed Bag
Apologies for the lack of posting yesterday, but an unfortunate over indulgence in sleep meant I lacked the time slot to write. I'm rather disappointed as I seem to have missed Professor Canter's last article, but I'll maybe try it over the weekend, giving me the hat trick as it were.
The Times leads today here with the publication of Lord Stevens report into the death of Princess Diana. I've never been one for the conspiracy theories that abound this tragic event; mainly because I can't see how anyone would benefit from her death especially at that juncture in time.
Princess Diana had a very good public image and a lot of public support, even assuming that she was planning to and would have married Dodi Fayed, it is my view that this would have lost her quite a bit of public support. She would have been seen as someone who'd been married to Prince Charles and who was the mother to a future King, but who had "moved on", and this would have been reflected in how people would have thought about her.
My view is that from the point of view of the establishment, the best thing for them would have been for Princess Diana to re-marry especially to a figure unlikely to engender much public support. This unfortunate situation for me contrasts sharply with the death of Dr David Kelly and I'm not convinced that his death was indeed suicide.
This brings us nicely onto pages 2 and 3 of The Times where we have Mr Blair the Prime Minister securing his place in history by being the first prime minister holding office to be questioned by the police as part of a criminal investigation. The investigation of course not being into the death of Dr Kelly, but rather into the loans for lordship affair.
"Teflon Tony" wasn't arrested or interviewed under caution, or anything like that, he was merely "treated as a witness", so I suppose sort of "helping the police with their enquiries". According to the report he had no lawyer with him, although the report fails to mention that Mr Blair used to be a barrister, (a point I would have thought relevant) so perhaps he didn't feel the same need for legal advice that a non-lawyer might.
According to the report, these honours were "party peerages" and a spokesperson stated: "The honours were not therefore for public services but expressly party peerages given for party service. In these circumstances the fact that they have supported the party financially could not conceivably be a barrier to their nomination." Which is all very well and good but somehow ignores the main problem being of course: "it would be against the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act to promise peerages in return for money."
I don't know where all this is going of course. It would have been ridiculous that the first interview with the Prime Minister would be anything other than what happened. I suspect it might end up like an episode of Columbo where he keeps going back to clear up a small minor point, and eventually the criminal is trapped. Of course I'm not saying that Mr Blair is a criminal, but obviously on the television, on Columbo, the whole point of the program is to find the culprit, and an unsuccessful investigation would fail to make an episode. So it could equally be that when they go back to clear up minor points, the Prime Minister emerges as whiter than white and we can all sleep safely in our beds.
Anyway I'm sure you'll all agree with me that the most important thing is for Mr Blair to have secured his place in history. Now this glorious accomplishment has been achieved, he can leave office safe in the knowledge we shall relish his legacy.
The Times leads today here with the publication of Lord Stevens report into the death of Princess Diana. I've never been one for the conspiracy theories that abound this tragic event; mainly because I can't see how anyone would benefit from her death especially at that juncture in time.
Princess Diana had a very good public image and a lot of public support, even assuming that she was planning to and would have married Dodi Fayed, it is my view that this would have lost her quite a bit of public support. She would have been seen as someone who'd been married to Prince Charles and who was the mother to a future King, but who had "moved on", and this would have been reflected in how people would have thought about her.
My view is that from the point of view of the establishment, the best thing for them would have been for Princess Diana to re-marry especially to a figure unlikely to engender much public support. This unfortunate situation for me contrasts sharply with the death of Dr David Kelly and I'm not convinced that his death was indeed suicide.
This brings us nicely onto pages 2 and 3 of The Times where we have Mr Blair the Prime Minister securing his place in history by being the first prime minister holding office to be questioned by the police as part of a criminal investigation. The investigation of course not being into the death of Dr Kelly, but rather into the loans for lordship affair.
"Teflon Tony" wasn't arrested or interviewed under caution, or anything like that, he was merely "treated as a witness", so I suppose sort of "helping the police with their enquiries". According to the report he had no lawyer with him, although the report fails to mention that Mr Blair used to be a barrister, (a point I would have thought relevant) so perhaps he didn't feel the same need for legal advice that a non-lawyer might.
According to the report, these honours were "party peerages" and a spokesperson stated: "The honours were not therefore for public services but expressly party peerages given for party service. In these circumstances the fact that they have supported the party financially could not conceivably be a barrier to their nomination." Which is all very well and good but somehow ignores the main problem being of course: "it would be against the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act to promise peerages in return for money."
I don't know where all this is going of course. It would have been ridiculous that the first interview with the Prime Minister would be anything other than what happened. I suspect it might end up like an episode of Columbo where he keeps going back to clear up a small minor point, and eventually the criminal is trapped. Of course I'm not saying that Mr Blair is a criminal, but obviously on the television, on Columbo, the whole point of the program is to find the culprit, and an unsuccessful investigation would fail to make an episode. So it could equally be that when they go back to clear up minor points, the Prime Minister emerges as whiter than white and we can all sleep safely in our beds.
Anyway I'm sure you'll all agree with me that the most important thing is for Mr Blair to have secured his place in history. Now this glorious accomplishment has been achieved, he can leave office safe in the knowledge we shall relish his legacy.
Tags: justice, Labour, corruption
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: corruption, Labour
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Equal opportunities.
The Times reports here on another example of Labour stacking a board with it's own supporters. Yesterday there was a report of the Big Lottery Board (gives out lottery cash) where 5 out of 12 members of the board are members of the Labour Party.
This time with true irony, it's the Equal Opportunities Board, with 4 out of 10 members being members of the Labour Party, so it's good to see it living up to its name. Strangely the board seems to have two chairmen (both men), but don't worry as they are both Labour supporters: "A spokeswoman for the Culture Department admitted that Ms Jowell “may have been aware” of the party affiliation of Sir Clive Booth, the new chairman, before he was appointed." and "The chairman of the board will be Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, who wanted to be Labour’s candidate for London mayor in 1999." I can't work out just precisely who will be the chairman, unless it genuinely will have two (nothing's impossible under Labour).
I just love that "may have been aware"; the reality is if she wasn't aware then she must be incompetent.
Of course we have the platitudes: "A spokesman for Ms Kelly said that the appointments were in line with the rules ..." Oh well that's OK then, nothing to see here, move along now please.
From the article: "Applicants for jobs on public bodies are not required to declare their membership of a political party — only whether they have engaged in “political activity”. But, under the rules set out by the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments, information about political activity is withheld from the shortlisting panel and the minister making the final decision." Oh well then the minister can't possibly know, I imagine they have some set procedure where the applicant writes to the minister to "check if Labour membership is compatible with the role" just to be on the safe side. In any event we're not talking about ordinary people you're likely to find at your local working mans club, they are all public figures, so they'll mix together at conferences and party organised things etc. I fairly confident the minister will know.
"Labour Party membership - in tests 8 out of 10 board selectors who expressed a preference said their boards preferred it."
This time with true irony, it's the Equal Opportunities Board, with 4 out of 10 members being members of the Labour Party, so it's good to see it living up to its name. Strangely the board seems to have two chairmen (both men), but don't worry as they are both Labour supporters: "A spokeswoman for the Culture Department admitted that Ms Jowell “may have been aware” of the party affiliation of Sir Clive Booth, the new chairman, before he was appointed." and "The chairman of the board will be Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, who wanted to be Labour’s candidate for London mayor in 1999." I can't work out just precisely who will be the chairman, unless it genuinely will have two (nothing's impossible under Labour).
I just love that "may have been aware"; the reality is if she wasn't aware then she must be incompetent.
Of course we have the platitudes: "A spokesman for Ms Kelly said that the appointments were in line with the rules ..." Oh well that's OK then, nothing to see here, move along now please.
From the article: "Applicants for jobs on public bodies are not required to declare their membership of a political party — only whether they have engaged in “political activity”. But, under the rules set out by the Office for the Commissioner for Public Appointments, information about political activity is withheld from the shortlisting panel and the minister making the final decision." Oh well then the minister can't possibly know, I imagine they have some set procedure where the applicant writes to the minister to "check if Labour membership is compatible with the role" just to be on the safe side. In any event we're not talking about ordinary people you're likely to find at your local working mans club, they are all public figures, so they'll mix together at conferences and party organised things etc. I fairly confident the minister will know.
"Labour Party membership - in tests 8 out of 10 board selectors who expressed a preference said their boards preferred it."
Tags: corruption, Labour, favouritism
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: corruption, Labour
