Guardian article & "Cash For Honours" investigation

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Themanwho, Mar 6, 2007.

  1. Oh yes, comrade!

  2. No they're doing No10's bidding the pinko swines


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is the Guardian's publication of the article ref Lord Levy and the Doris's emails in the public interest, or is it a smear job so that any evidence gathered by plod is discredited and can't be used in a prosecution?
  2. Link mate?
  3. Cheers western
  4. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Without any shadow of a doubt the Grauniad is trying (on behalf of the labour party) to stink up the waters so that a trial would be stopped.

    If all else fails, the labour party will try and put so much info in the public domain that they can claim that a fair trial is impossible.

    The Grauniad and other left-leaning papers will be only too happy to print whatever information they get.

    The issue of Goldsmith trying to get a blanket injunction (too late) also smacks of him trying to get as much publicity for the leaks too. After all, the countries head laywer is a labour appointee.

    This raises another question on how power is wealded by our so-called democracy. If the judiciary is independent, what is some like 'lord' Goldsmith doing at the top table?
  5. Heard Rusbridger (Grauniad editor) on Today programme this morning being given an incredibly easy time from Naughtie, no questions about how publication of this story might affect the prosecution of any member of the labour party. I would have thought that would be the main question to be asked!
  6. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Best info on this story (and on many others) comes from the Guido Fawkes' Blog. I quote from his site (link below) which was written when the first injunction was issued:

    Guido is very wary as we enter the closing straights of the investigation. Downing Street is in serious trouble and the only defence advanced so far is that the peerage nominations were for "party peerages". That is a non-existent class of honour and the admission in itself was effectively a confession, not a defence.

    The BBC appears to be in a position to stand up the story going around in mid-January about a "Smoking Gun" email. Why else would the police want to injunct the story unless it was correct and revealing? The question is, who passed the email to the Beeb and what is their motive?

    Fact : the BBC does not do cheque-book journalism.
    Fact : Yates' team are, whatever the spin from Downing Street apologists, very tight-lipped.
    When news of arrests and interviews has come out, it has more often than not been from the politicians themselves. Given that the Beeb didn't buy this story, who profits from revealing crucial police evidence? Not the investigators, which is why the police sought to suppress the story, because defence lawyers could make much mischief, and probably will, with the "trial by media" line.

    To quote the most famous detective of all, "If you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, even if improbable, must be true." Those under investigation, now that they believe it no longer possible to "fix" the CPS because of the evidence known to have been discovered, have the most to benefit from bringing the evidence into the public domain. The desperadoes of Downing Street would not be above leaking against themselves, tactically it would also allow them to portray themselves as victims of media savvy police investigators. They already brief that the police are "theatrical" and whine that they are unable to publicly defend themselves from the "trial by media".

    These are dangerous times for Downing Street's toughest street fighters. The gloves are definitely off, which is why Guido thinks this leak has Downing Street's fingerprints on it.

    The Guardian is acting in its prime role, as a little-read NuLabour stooge. They (Guardian, Liabour, Blair, etc) would do ANYTHING to see this case dropped or discredited. As it is, it'll be fun to see who gets picked for the Jury when Blair is in the dock. That's one lottery I'd buy a lot of tickets for!

    Edited to add this link to The Times today:
    Record Tory poll lead as Cameron trumps Brown

    Can't understand why No 10 is worried :)
  7. Guido??? Just another crap blogger as far as I am concerned. As to Your hopes to be on the jury, You have as much chance for selection as anyone else, if there is a trial. But then - You've already made Your mind up, like so many on here
  8. I think they are sabotaging any chance of charges being made.
  9. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    Is your narcolepsy contagious Sven? I ask because whenever I read your tiresome attempts to defend Saint Tony, I find myself falling asleep with boredom.
  10. There's no flies on you Rab.
  11. Aw diddums, did the nasty man state an opinion criticising St Tony?

    There, there...

    After ten years of these cnuts, a fair few people have made their mind up about New Labour. Step outside your ivory tower and you might notice...

  12. Blogging about NuLabs failures = Crap blogger?

    The tide is turning Sven, those with direct experience are being heard.

  13. What seems to be forgotten in all the talk concerning the comic opera scuttling about involving e-mails and whatnot is that someone - or some group - close to the PMs office is actively trying to sabotage or deflect the entire cash-for-peerages investigation. Now, I'm hardly a legal expert, but this strikes me as coming under the heading of 'attempt to pervert the course of justice'.

    Personally, I hope that the Police go at this investigation with horse, foot, and artillery and smoke out whatever cabal of New Labour apparatchiks is responsible.

    I note with interest the biography of one of the people involved in this controversy - namely Ruth (was Caitriona a bit too Oirish?) Turner:
  14. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    Looks like more 'embaresment' for our dear leader....

    LONDON (Reuters) - Lawyers for the Labour Party failed to stop the publication on Tuesday of a newspaper story about a possible cover-up in an investigation into political party funding.

    In a further embarrassment to Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has struggled to dispel the scent of a funding scandal in his final months in office, a High Court judge refused to grant an injunction to Attorney General
    Lord Peter Goldsmith, who had applied for a gag on The Guardian newspaper at the request of the police.

    After Goldsmith's legal challenge failed, the Guardian ran a front page story suggesting some of Blair's closest aides may have attempted to influence evidence given to police leading an investigation into party political funding.

    Detectives have been investigating for the past year whether political parties nominated people for state honours in return for loans but are now also probing whether any Blair official sought to conceal evidence from police.

    The investigation has cast a dark shadow over Blair's final months in office. He is expected to go in or by July this year.

    Blair has been questioned twice as a witness by police.

    Two Blair aides were recently arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice or conspiring to do so.


    Goldsmith successfully secured an injunction last Friday to block the BBC from running a story about a message sent between two of Blair's aides.

    The terms of that injunction were relaxed on Monday, allowing the BBC to report that the document in question was written by Ruth Turner, director of government relations in Blair's office, and that it concerned Lord Levy, Blair's top fundraiser and Middle East envoy.

    Levy was arrested in January on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, signalling the inquiry had moved beyond the funding scandal. He was first arrested last year.

    Turner, was also arrested in January on suspicion of perverting the course of justice and released without charge.

    The Guardian said police were investigating whether Levy may have tried to "shape" Turner's evidence to the inquiry.

    It said police were particularly interested in a meeting between Turner and Levy last year. It said Turner had given an account of that meeting to her lawyers and to police.

    In a joint statement, Goldsmith's office and London's Scotland Yard police headquarter, said they had sought the injunction because the article "gave us cause for concern".

    The injunction "was refused by the judge on the grounds that the newspaper had already been printed," the statement said.

    A spokesman for Blair's office said he did not want to comment in detail, but "continued to believe that there are inaccuracies in some of the reports".

    A spokesman for Blair had on Monday contested the BBC report, saying: "This story is not accurate because we dispute this version of events", but declining to specify which aspect of the story he disputed.

    Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, said in a statement its story was "well-sourced and clearly in the public interest".

    "In this country there is a well-established principle that the state cannot exercise prior restraint on newspapers".

    Looks like the net is closing in but knowing el presedente he'll wriggle out of it! I love the way a 'spokesman' said they disputed the version of events but declined to specify what they disputed,Probably as they had no canned reply to hand!