Liabour corruption "crimes"

#1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk

http://www.transparency.org/

The "world's leading anti-corruption watchdog" has sent an 8-page dossier to the Met on the loans-for-peerages scandal, outlining possible criminal offences committed.

Send Bliar down now! He can have Jeffrey Archer's old cell. :twisted:

Dossier lists cash-for-peerages 'crimes'
Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor
(Filed: 23/04/2006)

More than seven separate criminal offences - including bribery and conspiracy to defraud - may have been committed by the leading players in the "cash-for-peerages" affair.

The world's leading anti-corruption watchdog, Transparency International (TI), has sent a detailed dossier to John Yates, Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner, who is heading the inquiry into the funding of the Labour and Conservative parties.

The eight-page document, compiled by the British branch of TI, signals that the police investigation could be wider and have far more serious consequences than has so far been suggested.

The possible criminal offences that TI UK suggests may have been committed - after a detailed legal analysis of the reported facts of the affair - are bribery, two separate counts of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, false accounting, conspiracy to defraud, fraudulent trading, and offences under the Competition and Enterprise Act.

Up to now, police had been expected to concentrate their inquiries on whether the 1925 Honours Act or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 had been broken.

TI UK's submission also presents 51 questions that it believes should be asked by police - covering everything from the terms of the loans taken out by Labour and the Tories, to nominations for peerages, the awarding of Government contracts, and planning decisions.

The questions also seek to discover which senior politicians knew about secret loans - totalling £14 million for Labour and £20 million for the Conservatives.

Neill Stansbury, project director for TI UK, a non-government organisation that gets £1 million a year funding from the Department for International Development, said: "The UK has a very chequered record of law enforcement on bribery and corruption.

"The government tends to talk big at international conferences, such as the G8, on the need to tackle worldwide corruption, but it does nothing."

Senior figures on the list that police want to interview are understood to include Lord Levy, the Prime Minister's personal fund-raiser and a key figure in organising the £14 million of Labour loans, and Lord Sainsbury, the science and technology minister, who loaned £2.3 million to the party in the run-up to last year's election.

Lord Levy, nicknamed Lord Cashpoint after raising £40 million for Labour over the past decade, has said he will not be the "fall guy" for Tony Blair over the cash-for-honours affair.

Sources close to the peer said he would tell police that he was against getting wealthy backers to offer secret loans, instead of publicly declared donations, but was urged to do so by Mr Blair to save the party from bankruptcy.

Lord Levy, the president of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, which recruits sponsors for Mr Blair's high-profile city academies, is also likely to be questioned about remarks by a head teacher, Des Smith, who was arrested and bailed after claiming that donors to the academies would be rewarded with honours or peerages.

Jack Dromey, the Labour Party treasurer, who sparked the row by revealing that he had not known about Labour's loans, made a fresh intervention by saying on BBC radio yesterday: "All I would say is that, as somebody who passionately believes in transparency, it was wrong to compel the exposure of donations but then to exploit a loophole to obtain secret loans."

Asked if he thought the loophole was "consciously" exploited by senior Labour figures, he replied: "Yes."

Mr Dromey, who is married to Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister, added: "There is the perception in the public mind of wrongdoing, there is the perception of a culture built on cash-for-favours, and that is bad news."
 
#2
I find it amazing that until pointed out by an external body, the scope of the Police Investigation is limited and focused.

Could it be suggested that they (the Police) have also been 'guided' in this direction, is the contravention of Honours Act less worrying then being found guilty of Bribery? I find the comment 'detailed legal analysis' interesting, at least Ian Blair can't suggest that there is no case to answer.
 
#3
Latest News!!!!

Tony Blair has signalled his intention to crack down harder on organised criminals, with a set of sanctions designed to "harry, hassle and hound" them into going straight or leaving the country.

Does this apply to the Liability (Labour) Party????????
 
#4
Bravo2nothing said:
I find it amazing that until pointed out by an external body, the scope of the Police Investigation is limited and focused.

Could it be suggested that they (the Police) have also been 'guided' in this direction, is the contravention of Honours Act less worrying then being found guilty of Bribery? I find the comment 'detailed legal analysis' interesting, at least Ian Blair can't suggest that there is no case to answer.
Oh dear, what you have overlooked in your zeal to see justice, and Tony, done is that where there is detailed legal analysis, there to is detailed legal opinion. Usually if there is a legal opinion to be had, the permutations on that are n+1 (where n is the number of lawyers consulted).

Personally I have always liked Jack Dromey and thought him of the same ilk as Wedgie Benn, Frank field and dennis skinner. Men whose politics I do not share in the main but whose principles I admire. I am sad to see that he is either an empty vessel or sadly so foolish and naive as to undermine everything he ever stood for. I personally, from the point of view of "normal" governance find it incredible that a treasurer did not a)notice the big bucks and b)question where they came from. It seems sadly that he went along, even if he wasn't a driver. His comment about the double standard of transparency is achingly profound and just as achingly ironic!
 
#5
Message to HMG. "Get bent!"

Sorry they already are.
 
#6
It's an interesting article but the writer has put his own paper's party political slant on it by failing to name the movers and shakers in the Tory party. The ones who may be coming under closer scrutiny as a result of this. We know they're all corrupt but we, the disenfranchised, should be reminded of the individuals involved across the narrow political spectrum. I'm no apologist for Labour (they're disgusting), but I note that the loans figure is greater for the Tories, yet the focussed reportage further down the same article is disproportionate.

It's just occurred, the fact that the Tories are the opposition shouldn't get them off the hook or entitle them to a lower level of scrutiny!
 
#7
frenchperson said:
It's an interesting article but the writer has put his own paper's party political slant on it by failing to name the movers and shakers in the Tory party. The ones who may be coming under closer scrutiny as a result of this. We know they're all corrupt but we, the disenfranchised, should be reminded of the individuals involved across the narrow political spectrum. I'm no apologist for Labour (they're disgusting), but I note that the loans figure is greater for the Tories, yet the focussed reportage further down the same article is disproportionate.

It's just occurred, the fact that the Tories are the opposition shouldn't get them off the hook or entitle them to a lower level of scrutiny!
Whilst i agree with your sentiment, the fact is that labour are the party in power, and as such bear the biggest responsibility. Hence why they should be (and are) facing the probing lights of transparency :D
 

Latest Threads

Top