Labour Party Corruption

#1
Labour is now starting to sweat over the "cash for peerages" scandal.

To appoint Lord Goldsmith as the key person to decide on prosecution is unethical at the very least, and is likely to embroil Labour in further corruption allegations.

This is a gentleman who rose from political obscurity in 1999 to become a peer of the realm (Courtesy of our Dear Leader), and was promoted to Attorney General in 2001. He is a close friend and ally of our benevolent leader, T Bliar.

Goldsmith, corruption from the Torygraph

The Attorney General, assisted by the Solicitor General, is the chief legal adviser to the Government. The Attorney General has overall responsibility for the Treasury Solicitors’ Department, superintends the Director of Public Prosecution as head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. The Law Officers answer for these Departments in Parliament. The Attorney General has public interest functions in which his responsibility is as guardian of the public interest.

Is not the inclusion of Goldsmith into this affair a serious breech of ethics as he has a vested interest. Would he bite the hand that feeds him and hold Labour to account? Judging by his U turn on the legality of the Iraq War he is susceptible to being leant on by Labour political heavyweights.

Was Goldsmith placed in this position as an insurance policy to give Bliar a "Get out of Jail" card? I shall be writing to my MP to state my objections to this apparent whitewash.

Anyone with any POV, or am I being oversensitive and a conspiracy theorist???

Edited for shoit spellig.
 
#3
BootneckBlitzkrieg said:
I'd do anything to get rid of these swines.
Bootneck,

The use of ones democratic right to voice an opinion is a step in the right direction. If you feel this is a "fait accompli" by the Liarbour Party, write to them. Follow the link:

Write to your MP

The present Government as of yet, have not taken this right away from the electorate. Time will tell though!!!
 
#4
Don't forget, the tories are up to their necks in it as well.


Apparently, 'Lord' Goldsmith will advise whether bringing a prosecution is in the 'public interest' - but somebody called Carmen Dowd at the CPS has the final decision on whether to prosecute or not.


ps. 'Lord' Adonis is another wet behind the ears no mark brought in lately by Blair and made a peer in order to give him a ministerial position. It's done to circumvent the inconvenience of having to be elected an MP, as part of the democratic process.
 
#5
frenchperson said:
Don't forget, the tories are up to their necks in it as well.


Apparently, 'Lord' Goldsmith will advise whether bringing a prosecution is in the 'public interest' - but somebody called Carmen Dowd at the CPS has the final decision on whether to prosecute or not.


ps. 'Lord' Adonis is another wet behind the ears no mark brought in lately by Blair and made a peer in order to give him a ministerial position. It's done to circumvent the inconvenience of having to be elected an MP, as part of the democratic process.
I have no doubt that this is a tri party scandal. However the important issue here is that the Liarbour party are in a position to deliver on peerages as they are the party in power. I will look into this Carmen Dowd business.
 
#6
If you *really* want to raise a question of corruption, lets talk about the gross conflict of interests between Tony, Cherie and the Human Rights Act.

What really motivated him to bring in the HRA?

I wonder...
 
#7
mad_mac said:
I shall be writing to my MP to state my objections to this apparent whitewash.

Anyone with any POV, or am I being oversensitive and a conspiracy theorist???
Agreed, yes! I suggest everyone writes to their local MP to voice objections to this.

Bloody cnuts, every single one of them.
 
#8
mad_mac said:
frenchperson said:
Don't forget, the tories are up to their necks in it as well.


Apparently, 'Lord' Goldsmith will advise whether bringing a prosecution is in the 'public interest' - but somebody called Carmen Dowd at the CPS has the final decision on whether to prosecute or not.


ps. 'Lord' Adonis is another wet behind the ears no mark brought in lately by Blair and made a peer in order to give him a ministerial position. It's done to circumvent the inconvenience of having to be elected an MP, as part of the democratic process.
I have no doubt that this is a tri party scandal. However the important issue here is that the Liarbour party are in a position to deliver on peerages as they are the party in power. I will look into this Carmen Dowd business.
Excerpt from my letter to my MP concerning Ms Dowd:

"I am aware that Miss Dowd, the head of Special Crime, may well be the
next to appear if she decides to press charges against anyone in the
loans-for-peerages inquiry. She is reviewing several files of evidence
and will decide in the next few months whether anyone should be
charged. Is Ms Dowd accountable to Lord Goldsmith for her actions?; in
which case a conflict of interests has arisen."

This whole thing is really starting to stink!!!!!!!
 
#9
CARMEN DOWD

The head of the special crime division handles some of the most important cases, from serious public corruption and election offences to deaths in custody corporate manslaughter and alleged wrongful convictions.

When the police file on the “cash-for-peerages” inquiry is handed over, it will be chiefly her decision whether to prosecute anyone.

Miss Dowd, 41, began her career as a legal trainee with the CPS in 1990 and in 1997 moved to “central casework”.

In 2003, she took several months off to be treated for breast cancer and was determined that her career would not be affected. She handled Operation Cathedral, the worldwide case involving paedophiles on the internet.
Ultimately Goldsmith will ADVISE if it is in the public interest to prosecute.
 
#10
frenchperson said:
Don't forget, the tories are up to their necks in it as well.


Apparently, 'Lord' Goldsmith will advise whether bringing a prosecution is in the 'public interest' - but somebody called Carmen Dowd at the CPS has the final decision on whether to prosecute or not.


ps. 'Lord' Adonis is another wet behind the ears no mark brought in lately by Blair and made a peer in order to give him a ministerial position. It's done to circumvent the inconvenience of having to be elected an MP, as part of the democratic process.
I'm looking forward to watching IDS Who is "Bricking it" over this. Shame hes isn't party leader. More tory sleeze I hope
 
#11
Cpl_ripper said:
I'm looking forward to watching IDS Who is "Bricking it" over this. Shame hes isn't party leader. More tory sleeze I hope
IDS may have proferred the elusive peerage for loans. Due to not being in power, this becomes a loan under false pretences, as peerages were never attained.

In the case of Liarbour the peerages have been given, establishing the link and providing the "body of evidence".

I think Liarbour have helluva lot more to lose here than the Tories!!!!!
 
#12
Sir Ian Blair has stood back from the investigation.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1940467,00.html

Sir Ian Blair, Britain's most senior policeman, has excluded himself from making any of the key decisions in the cash for peerages inquiry, the Guardian has learned.
The commissioner of the Metropolitan police, who has had a close working relationship with the prime minister particularly over security issues, decided to take a back seat to ensure that his officers could conduct the investigation without any appearance of a conflict of interest.
A good question is:

Why has the Dear Leader not actually volunteered to assist the police with their enquiries? What sort of example does this set?
 
#13
spoomo said:
If you *really* want to raise a question of corruption, lets talk about the gross conflict of interests between Tony, Cherie and the Human Rights Act.

What really motivated him to bring in the HRA?

I wonder...
The fact that it was costing a fortune to keep taking cases to the ECtHR, whereas if we had the legislation in our law it could deal with it most of the time in our own courts. We have been bound by the ECHR for more than 50 years so bringing in the HRA didn't make that much difference. People in this country just take their rights such as freedom of speech and even the right to vote for granted.

I don't really see what this has to do with the cash for peerages though. Are you another one that jumps on the Liabour bandwagon and blames everything on the HRA.
 
#14
What the HRA has got to do with corruption is the fact that Mrs Blairs Matrix Champers has made £5 Million plus from the HRA. In other words the Blair family is directly profiting from this most dangerous legislation.

Just like other government ministers are profiting from Hedge funds etc. The people responsible for huge hikes in taxes are using every loophole they can to avoid paying any themselves.

The privatisation of DERA is also one for an investigation I think. Labour party donors were effectively given first refusal on the shares to the exclusion of othere potential investors.

Our Home Secretary (Defence Minister at the time has some questions to answer regarding this)

This entire Government is steeped in corruption and sleaze from the top down. Let us not forget some of the EU corruption that certain Labour Members seem strangely reluctant to tackle.
 
#15
Some interesting quotes from the Telegraph page on this story.

Asked whether he should step aside, Lord Goldsmith insisted that he would not do so. "I have a constitutional responsibility," he explained. "And I always exercise any responsibility I have independently, in the public interest, in the interests of justice."

He did not know why controversy over his role had surfaced now, as no file on the inquiry into allegations that Labour chiefs offered peerages to businessmen in return for donations to party funds had been received from the police.

Asked specifically if the final decision would be one for him, he said: "Absolutely. I have always made decisions in the public interest, in the interests of justice, absolutely independently of any political interests. That is a first principle for any Attorney General."
Consideriong the number of politiicains who were screaming a month ago about the Constitutional crisis created by CGS's comments it is revealing to see how little broohah there is about this which is an explicit constitutional issue and conflict of interest. A political appointee being asked to advise if his benefactors have done wrong.

If the Attorney General's comments are correct then whay hasn't the Governement pulished his 17 page and subsequent One page advice on the legality of ops in Iraq?
 
#16
Bliar currently on BBC News 24 refusing to answer any questions on this subject.

I wonder if Lord Cronysmith's advice on a prosecution in this case will be 'flexible', in the same way that his advice over the legality of invading Iraq appeared to be?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
jest265 said:
We have been bound by the ECHR for more than 50 years so bringing in the HRA didn't make that much difference.
I think your Maths is worse than mine Bro

( Goatman counting: ONE...er...TWO...er...LOTS.....uh....MANY)

FIFTY Years ? what Brussels based website did you read that on ?

the UK did not grant what is known as "individual petition" - the right to take a case to Strasbourg - until 1966. The Convention has now been incorporated into all forms of UK law through the Human Rights Act of 1998 and Acts setting up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies.
....and , although I cannot cite the first case presented to Strasbourg from a British respondent, considering we did not accede to membership of the EEC until 1973, I doubt it was before then ( but standing by to be enlightened)


Le Chevre
 
#18
The EEC had nothing to do with it. The ECHR was set up by the Council of Europe, which was set up in 1948 by various ex-Resistance figures and Winston S. Churchill of this parish.

We were still bound by the treaty before 1966. Like any treaty it became legally binding when Parliament ratified it. Between 1948 and 1966 we were just as bound by it as after 1966, just the government was trying to weasel out of it.
 
#19
It will be interesting to see how this panns out, I am not surprised at The Dear Leaders PC Crony at NSY backing out, I would just love the DAC to turn up in a van at the front of Number 10 and lead him out in cuffs, would never happen though, sadly.

I cant remember which paper I read it in, but several of the Snr Labour Cronies are actually worried about the AG being involved as they think he will deliberately advise to charge the people to prove he is impartial have been hung out to dry over his 1 page views on going into Iraq.

Could you imagine any jury in this country finding the dear leader Not guilty
 
#20
Lord Goldsmith has been well indoctrinated with Labours "blind arrogance" approach. He sees himself as being impartial, which may be the case, but despite being an educated fellow, fails to appreciate why his motives are being questioned by the electorate. Maybe he has a very shallow view of the general publics ability to grasp the difference between politics and corruption.

Asked whether he should step aside, Lord Goldsmith insisted that he would not do so. "I have a constitutional responsibility," he explained. "And I always exercise any responsibility I have independently, in the public interest, in the interests of justice."

He did not know why controversy over his role had surfaced now, as no file on the inquiry into allegations that Labour chiefs offered peerages to businessmen in return for donations to party funds had been received from the police.

Asked specifically if the final decision would be one for him, he said: "Absolutely. I have always made decisions in the public interest, in the interests of justice, absolutely independently of any political interests. That is a first principle for any Attorney General."
Glad to see the leaks are occurring. Is this "umbrellas" starting to go up pending the "incoming". Oh, I do hope so :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Downing Street was reported to be in a "blind panic" over the handling of the inquiry by police after the leaking of an e-mail allegedly written by Tony Blair's Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell. The e-mail, which apparently has been examined by police, said "ML will not be happy about this", referring to Lord [Michael] Levy, Mr Blair's chief fundraiser, who is at the centre of allegations that peerages were offered in return for donations before the last election.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads