• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Blair plots cash for honours revenge on police

#1
Tony Blair and his allies are secretly planning an all-out assault on the police conducting the cash for peerages investigation if they fail to bring charges against him, it was revealed.

Senior sources claimed the Prime Minister is increasingly confident that the inquiry has failed to produce evidence of any wrongdoing and is preparing to take revenge on them for 'dragging his name through the mud'.

The move is identical to Downing Street's response to Lord Hutton's report into the death of Ministry of Defence weapons expert Dr David Kelly.

When Hutton announced his shock ruling that the BBC, which reported Kelly's claims, and not the Government, was chiefly to blame, No10 went on the attack.

Labour called for heads to roll at the BBC and the Corporation director general Greg Dyke and chairman Gavyn Davies were forced to resign even though Hutton's findings were dismissed by many as a 'whitewash'.

Now it is believed Downing Street intends to repeat the operation with the police on the receiving end.

Labour spin-doctors have already targeted Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who is in charge of the cash for peerages inquiry.

He has interviewed scores of witnesses including Labour donors at the centre of claims that the party offered peerages in return for secret loans to pay for its Election campaign last year. But Labour sources believe Mr Yates has failed to link the honours to the loans. 'There is no evidence and never was any,' said one source.

'The whole exercise has been a political stunt that has caused great damage to the Prime Minister and the party as a whole.

'It should never have been started. If Yates fails to produce his smoking gun, we will respond in the strongest possible terms.'

When the inquiry was launched nearly six months ago, Downing Street expected it to last no more than a few weeks.

Instead Mr Yates, supported by a group of Scotland Yard's most experienced investigators, has gathered a massive quantity of evidence in his search for the truth.

Key figures such as Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy have been interviewed. And Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt recently became the first Cabinet Minister to be interviewed by Mr Yates.

One of Ms Hewitt's aides is said to have accused Mr Yates of trying to make amends for his role in the ill-fated prosecution of former Royal butler Paul Burrell. Mr Yates led the investigation into claims that Burrell had stolen Princess Diana's possessions. But the trial in 2002 collapsed after a last-minute intervention by the Queen.

One of Ms Hewitt's aides is understood to have claimed that Mr Yates had gone on a 'fishing expedition' to gain a 'big-name' prosecution against Labour in an attempt to restore his reputation.

It is not the first time that No10 and the police have clashed during the inquiry.

Following claims by Downing Street that Mr Yates's team was deliberately leaking details of the inquiry, Mr Yates issued a denial. He also said that far from reaching a dead end, he had acquired 'significant and valuable material'.

He indicated he planned to complete the inquiry by January.

Mr Blair is expected to be interviewed by police soon.
Source: Mail on Sunday
 
#2
Senior sources claimed the Prime Minister is increasingly confident that the inquiry has failed to produce evidence of any wrongdoing and is preparing to take revenge on them for 'dragging his name through the mud'.
I`m sorry, WTF is this about name through the mud!!!!! His Bliarness has succeeded quite sufficiently on his own to achieve this and does not require the assistance of the Met.

I hope the Met have some aces up their sleeve and throw the book at these sneaky, dispicable, arrogant sh*ts who dare to say they are representing me!!!!

I hope he is humiliated and questioned under caution!!!!!!!
 
#3
Also from The Mail on Sunday

Teacher thrown in cell over cash-for-peerages says: 'Do the same to Blair'

A key suspect in the cash-for-peerages inquiry has broken his silence to call for Tony Blair to be arrested and quizzed in a police cell like a common criminal.

Retired head teacher Des Smith, who spent eight hours in police custody following allegations that he was involved in the sale of honours, demanded the Prime Minister receive the same harsh treatment.

[align=center]...[/align]

He says: 'If the police are determined to treat everyone equally and be even-handed, a cosy chat at Chequers with Tony Blair simply will not do. My experience was dehumanising and designed to reduce me to my bare essentials. The Prime Minister must be treated the same way.'

[align=center]...[/align]

'It is quite terrifying when the State gets hold of you. There is a dreadful logic about their procedure, booking you in and putting you in a cell. You are utterly powerless. It feels like they are showing you the instruments of torture. It is quite nerve-racking.

'I think Tony Blair should now see the same instruments of torture. As a citizen I am equal to Tony Blair. I need him to be treated the same way.

'If you are sitting in Chequers surrounded by your advisers, it might be quite a comfortable interview.

'I demand that Blair is arrested at 10 Downing Street at 7.20am, that he is taken to a police station - hopefully Stoke Newington, which is a very unpleasant Bastille-type place - and treated in the same way that I have been treated.'
This could be an interesting constitutional debate: the rule of law versus the dignity of office. I'd love to see Bliar treated in the same way, but I'd hate for the office of Prime Minister to be so tarnished. Saying that, Bliar's pretty much dragged the position into the sewer anyway, so would further damage be possible?
 
#4
Random_Task said:
So it's true because the Mail on Sunday say so?
I personally trust the media as far as I can throw them. Whilst I class myself as apolitical (loathing each party equally), I cannot say that for the media.

When this has been verified by different facets of the media I will be inclined to believe it. So far:

Quote 1
Quote 2

I`m sure as time goes on, more dirty tricks will come into play as a seemingly desperate Government try to avert this political disaster by playing the "blame game".

I was truly surprised it actually worked in the Hutton inquiry (into the death of Dr Kelly) and the BBC paid the price, with resignations whilst the Government were exonerated!!!!!!

Political whitewash. I hope not this time. Send them down for a long time!!!!!!!!
 
#5
Random_Task said:
Like yourself, I've got little time for this current government, but the Mail getting holier than thou is like pinocchio boll0cking someone for lying.
True, but we can choose to ignore The Mail without any impact upon our lives. Unfortunately, this government and its decisions have a direct impact upon all of our lives.
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#6
Being a bit evasive as well the little tinkers,
From The Telegraph:
Scotland Yard says 10 Downing Street is not co-operating fully with the cash-for-honours inquiry.

Aides say the Prime Minister is happy to co-operate but should be interviewed as a witness

Senior detectives have twice asked the Prime Minister's office for copies of all emails, letters and other documents relating to the system for awarding peerages, sources close to the inquiry revealed.

Yet detectives have complained privately that they received a "very slim" file of material only to discover, through further investigation of their own, that there were hundreds more documents, mainly emails, which had not been handed over. It is believed police gained access remotely to a Government computer to gather some of the material.

When Acting Assistant Commissioner John Yates wrote to Tony Wright, the chairman of the Commons public administration select committee, last month, updating him on the inquiry, he praised others for co-operating but made no mention of No 10.

"We continue to liaise with the Electoral Commission in relation to the PPERA [Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act] 2000 and we have also received excellent co-operation from both the Cabinet Office and the House of Lords," Mr Yates wrote. According to sources, No 10 was excluded because of frustration over the level of help on offer.

Scotland Yard and No 10 are also at loggerheads over how Mr Blair should be interviewed. Detectives, who are due to see him later this month, were expecting to put questions under caution, which would mean his being treated as a suspect.

No 10 believes this would be unnecessarily embarrassing for Mr Blair during his final months in office and argue that there is insufficient evidence to treat him in such a way.

Aides say the Prime Minister is happy to co-operate but should be interviewed as a witness.

The Yard and No 10 have clashed over the source of leaks about the investigation to newspapers.

It is understood the senior Labour figures have accused top detectives of talking to journalists, though Mr Yates said in his letter that he was confident that operational security remained tight.

Labour disclosed earlier this year that 12 businessmen had lent it £14 million prior to last year's election. Under election rules, the loans did not have to be made public.

At the time, the party was in such deep debt that banks may have refused further credit or charged higher rates of interest because of the risks posed of lending to a debt-crippled organisation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/03/nhons03.xml
 
#7
It's all a bit speculative isn't it? Exactly what we'd expect from a rag like The Mail On Sunday.


That said, I wish I could be confident that he'll be in a 6x6 cell and not capable of any retribution. To me, the happy ending would be for him to do himself in, and if I was the screw looking after him, I'd do my duty to humanity and slip a nice strong expensive tie under the cell door. Think of the lives that would be saved should he ever get in a position to wantonly cause death, serious injury or wreck lives again.
 
#8
Scotland Yard and No 10 are also at loggerheads over how Mr Blair should be interviewed. Detectives, who are due to see him later this month, were expecting to put questions under caution, which would mean his being treated as a suspect.
Aides say the Prime Minister is happy to co-operate but should be interviewed as a witness.
I have obviously missed something here!!!!

Bliar is the man in charge.
Bliar was aware of the loans.
Bliar had dinner with some of the main contributors just prior to the loans.

Yet he feels he is a WITNESS?????? I must be very niaive as I was under the impression that if evidence clearly pointed to you in a criminal investigation you were regarded as a SUSPECT.

I wonder if Liarbour will try to fast track some new laws ensuring complete non accountability. Oh I forgot, they`ve done this already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
#9
In criminal investigations, the witnesses are generally interviewed first and the main suspect(s) last under caution when the evidence is placed before him/ them.

The Blair machine can 'spin' all it likes. They should also realise that they are not immune from a charge of obstruction or attempting to pevert the course of justice!

Even though the evidence may be cogent, and there is a case to answer, we still have the hurdle of other government servants to surmount, namely, the CPS and Attorney General.

I wonder which will be the first to certify a charge against a Prime Minister, serving or by then, recently retired? Or will we face the same mentality echoed by successive Home Secretaries dealing with the issue of parolling Myra Hindly, ie, "I am not going down in history as the first!"
 
#10
Iolis said:
In criminal investigations, the witnesses are generally interviewed first and the main suspect(s) last under caution when the evidence is placed before him/ them.
Considering everyone else associated with this affair has been interviewed bar Bliar, this would indeed indicate he is a SUSPECT.

Public humiliation awaits. I hope so!!!!!!!!
 
#11
Slightly off topic but relevant to the article in the Mail on Sunday - there was an interview on R4 at about 0915 today with an American journalist.

First of all he bemoaned the lack of red-top equivalents in the US, other than 'Elvis is alive on the Moon' type publications, then he praised them (UK red-tops) for being extreme examples of the pamphleteers from days gone by, always ready to challenge authority / the party line. As opposed to the big names (Telegraph; Times; Guardian; Independant).

Must admit that he was talking about the eavsdropping stuff and that also I've classed the Mail as a red-top. Articles in Newsweek apparently.
 
#12
Iolis said:
The Blair machine can 'spin' all it likes. They should also realise that they are not immune from a charge of obstruction or attempting to pevert the course of justice!
Assuming the coppers can get the slippery little sh*t on something (even perverting the course of justice or obstruction) how much will it f*ck his next career of lecture tours round the US up and is anyone else looking forward to seeing him bankrupted when he's refused access to the US for having a criminal record and he can't afford the mortgage on those dodgy flats he bought?
 
#13
Yates of The Yard,has a pretty patchy record himself.Remember the Royal Butler saga.After that he was promoted!!!Once he has' completed his enquiries(reminds me of the various Stephens inquiries)'',then the matter gets kicked up to the CPS.It is inconceivable that there will not then be a 'political moment',and someone will be scapegoated.Same will probably apply to the present SFO enquiry into Saudi Arms deals.If the SFO are stamped on,which seems entirely possible,then I imagine that both Bliars will come to a suitable accomodation on honours matters!
 
#14
Did anyone ever find out whether any of these witnesses have had their DNA taken, in line with other citizens having them taken for far less serious offences? Des Smith referred to 'implements of torture' metaphorically, but I imagine if he'd had has prints and DNA taken, he'd be absolutely livid??
 
#15
When investigating any serious crimes we would always leave the main suspect until we had as much evidence as possible to put to them. Do they not realise that the BLiar machine is making it look bad for themselves.

As for them demanding he is interviewed as a witness, I have one thing to say to them go f*ck yourselves.
 
#16
frenchperson said:
Did anyone ever find out whether any of these witnesses have had their DNA taken, in line with other citizens having them taken for far less serious offences? ??
Because, my tinfoil hat wearing friend, you dont collect DNA from witnesses, or fingerprints, or mug shots. Only for people that have been charged, cautioned or fixed penaltied for an offence, or from a person you suspect to have commited an offence and need his, or her DNA to help prove the offence.
 
#17
There are a limited number of possible outcomes from this investigation:

1. Bliar and/or allies are cleared with not even the slightest shred of evidence. Highly unlikely, or the investigation would not have proceeded this far.

2. There is not enough evidence to make a case. Possible. However, I am sure enough damaging information will leak out, and the Public Administration Select Committee will investigate regardless. It was reported today that No 10 were not co-operating fully and that emails had been retrieved "remotely". However, the public will scream "cover up".

3. A fall guy is prosecuted. Likely, although they will surely grass up others further up the chain. The public will scream "cover up".

4. Goldsmith overrules a prosecution. Possible. Even more possible if the Al Yamamah BAE investigation is allowed to progress unhindered to obscure matters somewhat. The public will scream "cover up".

5. Senior Labour/No 10 figures are prosecuted. Very likely. The police won't want to stop at a fall guy if the evidence leads them further. Even if Bliar doesn't face charges, the damage will be immense.

6. Bliar is prosecuted. Unlikely. His dabs are unlikely to be plastered all over the crime scene, but you never know.

The police may have agreed to play along with No 10 if this had occured some years ago. However, the damage the Met in particular has taken since Lawrence and De Menezes is considerable, and they would not want to be forever associated with a whitewash as is neatly described by the word "Hutton". Also, Bliar and No 10 have no political capital or authority whatsoever left, and this would be required to browbeat or bully the Met into playing along.

The psychotic crusade against the BBC post-Hutton was enormously counterproductive as it further alienated the public and contributed to the received wisdom that Hutton was a whitewash. I suspect that, in the immediate aftermath of Hutton, a few wiser heads in No 10 concluded that too many coats of the white stuff had been applied by the eager-to-please Hutton.
 
#18
DozyBint said:
This could be an interesting constitutional debate: the rule of law versus the dignity of office. I'd love to see Bliar treated in the same way, but I'd hate for the office of Prime Minister to be so tarnished. Saying that, Bliar's pretty much dragged the position into the sewer anyway, so would further damage be possible?
Surely better to have this than (arguably) the system in the US where the office and person of the President have become so inextricably linked that criticism of the latter is often frowned upon because of (over) respect for the former?

I'd rather see our politicians as human beings: subject to the same treatment as the rest of us and also allowed to make the same mistakes as the rest of us, rather than often being crucified for infractions that would be overlooked if your neighbour did them. (With the proviso that there are of course situations where "normal" c*ck ups have particularly bad results and so should not be overlooked.)
 
#19
GM_1000 said:
Surely better to have this than (arguably) the system in the US where the office and person of the President have become so inextricably linked that criticism of the latter is often frowned upon because of (over) respect for the former?
Absolutely my preference also - it's just distasteful that we have someone who even if (for whatever reason) not charged in relation to this matter is thought by so many to be guilty of something underhand. I just hope we get a better class of person in No. 10 next time round.
 
#20
The_Seagull said:
frenchperson said:
Did anyone ever find out whether any of these witnesses have had their DNA taken, in line with other citizens having them taken for far less serious offences? ??
Because, my tinfoil hat wearing friend, you dont collect DNA from witnesses, or fingerprints, or mug shots. Only for people that have been charged, cautioned or fixed penaltied for an offence, or from a person you suspect to have commited an offence and need his, or her DNA to help prove the offence.

Lord Levy is fairly high up the food chain on this. OK - I got the terminology wrong. What is he? A witness, or perhaps he's a 'person you suspect to have committed an offence and need his, or her DNA to help prove the offence.' Does your brain go all the way to the top of that hat? If so, use it to answer the question, my pedantic friend.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top