No 10 begins legal battle over cash for honours

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Nov 15, 2006.

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. Does this story count as an authorised leak? :?

    1997-present: HM Armed Forces
    1999: Serbia
    2001: Afghanistan
    2003: Iraq
    2004: BBC
    2006: The Metropolitan Police
    2007: ?

    Who's next on the pre-emptive strike list?

    Not interested in truth and justice, just getting off the hook on a technicality... :x

    More on the subject here: No wonder politicians are held in contempt, and here: Labour's lenders 'did not seek secrecy'
  2. Its got to get past Goldsmith first...
    Goldsmith defends role in honours probe
    Tuesday, 14 Nov 2006

    The attorney general has defended his decision not to stand aside from the cash for honours inquiry, despite being a close ally of the prime minister.

    Lord Goldsmith said he was the only person answerable to parliament for prosecutions conducted in the UK and that was a responsibility he could not give up.

    Questions have been raised about his involvement in a case that has seen senior Labour figures and potentially Tony Blair – who appointed Lord Goldsmith to the post of top lawyer in the UK and who gave him his peerage – questioned about corruption.


    If you want a good briefing on the story, read this:-
  3. Who would benefit from 'leaking' details relating to the investigation by the Metropolitan Police? Not the police surely, as that would prejudice their case should they wish to bring charges against any individuals.

    Who would benefit from prejudicing the case in advance of any charges being brought?

    However, if any persons, who may have charges brought against them, had friends in very high places in the 'Met', then the 'leaking' could be 'engineered', thus prejudicing the case and possibly precluding any charges from being brought.

    This entire matter is a disgrace and sums up the dreadful level to which this appalling government has sunk.
  4. It's interesting to note that No 10 is already preparing it's defences.The Met leaks like a sieve(just look at the number of hints going out of there straight to The Sun).No 10 is not much better,but tries to make it's spin positive.If the matter is presented to the Attorney General,no doubt he'll apply the 'public interest test''.Any guesses what the public interest will be in this matter? This whole think has all the hallmarks of a major pi$$ing contest,conducted via the media.
  5. Really don't see how giving information to the press is an abuse of process. It can be in certain cases, especially where there will be a trial by jury as it can be said that they are affected by the news and add that in to the evidence when it may not be factual.

    In all other cases press involvement should be welcomed, cases are meant to be in the public eye, that is part of due process to ensure a fair trial.

    Is Downing Street saying they don't trust the High Court Judges to be impartial to things they read in the newspaper? Not much trust in our legal system have they?

    I really would like to see their justification as to why this interferes with due process.

    I sincerely hope they don't get off on a technicality on this one, who else will they be answerable to? Can't see the Tories asking many questions at PM's PQ's. can you?
  6. Isquared,
    you have a very good point there.
    I wonder though if such self interested leaking could be considered perverting the course of justice?

    Still, no charges have been laid yet so nothing so far is sub judice.
    I think Blair will be getting some confidential help from the master spoiler, Karl Rove.
    Does anyone know who his lawyers are?
  7. Not to mention the level to which this appalling opposition has sunk, or - as well might be the case - my own party
  8. It's more that the "loans" that will get him. They were made after the end of the Liarbore Party's 2004-2005 financial year but before the accounts were prepared. As they had a material effect on the liabilities of the Party (in the form of the holding company) they should have been declared to the auditors and shown in the accounts. This is a serious breech of company law and as party leader, guess where the buck stops?

    Also as Cyclops Brown was election co-ordinator, surely he would have asked where £14m had suddenly appeared from? He could get caught up as well (shame that)

    It's like Watergate: it wasn't the original misdeed that did for Nixon, it was the cover-up
  9. A charge of false accounting would be so succinct.
    That's all Blair has ever given us about so much.
  10. Why do people assume the Met has been leaking?

    The Commons Public Administration Select Committee is regularly appraised of the progress of the investigation. Could the culprit be among their ranks?

    There are plenty of other sources for leaks, including those questioned, who may be looking to stitch up others or to scupper the inquiry. There is also good journalism - for example, catching Levy in a panic-stricken conversation with Matt Carter (who he? fall guy?) in Blackpool.

    I am sure that Yates of the Yard knows enough either not to leak or to leak without being caught!
  11. If it does go ahead, who would fund the Government's action? Or is it the Labour Party's action? I know they've been on a huge drive for funding just lately, but will they be dipping into their own coffers?

    I have a nagging feeling the taxpayer may be called upon??? If that beaming, smirking tw@t is going to be claiming he was 'vindicated' at some point, I'd hate to think I'd been instrumental in providing assistance.
  12. "It's like Watergate: it wasn't the original misdeed that did for Nixon, it was the cover-up"

    Yes I like that that Jim, now't like a spot of conspricy to bring Blairs Liers Down.
    'Also as Cyclops Brown was election co-ordinator, surely he would have asked where £14m had suddenly appeared from?'

    "Not much of an accountant", could be his epitph.
  13. Think the ARRSE mods need to do some mucking out of the sty... starting with you, SLRboy etc etc
  14. I think they may look a bit closer at you. Given that I've only just posted this topical message, in good faith, and you're straight off subject, and onto your own petty agenda.