No Charges in Cash for Honour Farse

#1
Right - it's official. Either the cops were completely incompetent or the cronies really were all innocent.

See Here

Another great day for British Democracy! :oops:
 
#2
Bugger - beaten to it

MODs - amalgamate please?
 
#3
Couldn't find the other thread and so decided to comment on this one.

I hate to say I told You so but . . . . .


It was obvious nothing was going to happen when the Yard went back for more statements and then we heard nothing more for ages. The CPS probably told Bill to get something more substansive or drop the thing.

Personally I think that whilst doners were rewarded for their gifts TO ONE OF ALL THREE PARTIES, the police found no indication that anyone was told that donations would automatically result in peerages
 
#5
The man handling this 'sensitive' enquiry,was the same man who failed in the 'Diana butler case'.After that fiasco most of his team(and himself) were promoted.Looks more like a METS PR exercise,than a proper investigation.
 
#6
And the DPP who had to decide whether to press charges is a colleague of Cherie at Matrix Chambers.

If this was fiction it would be rejected as less plausible than the adventures of a certain H. Potter. But then, both feature witches and magic*




* "Never mind Tony darling...I'll make those nasty criminal charges disappear when I go into work tomorrow..."
 
#7
Heard Radio 2 listener suggest that as Plod's enquiry had contributed to the early departure of B'Liar it was cheap at a million quid!

And announced by a breathless BBC hack a few minutes after Bye Election, spooky that !

Bunch of C.......the lot of them.
 
#8
Yes, the contribution to Bliar's early exit so it was a good thing.

This still has to go a little further. Reading between the lines, the cops are furious and believe the rug has been pulled out from under their feet by the CPS. Questions will be asked (by MPs and by the public) as to why this took so long and cost so much. The answer will be in the evidence followed by police. If it is compelling, then questions will be asked of the CPS.

I predict a reopening of the case, with another officer brought out of retirement to take charge:



Right Levy you ponce! We know you did it so cough up, you slaahg! I've got a Jock snout that has you bang to rights! Ahh, the delightful Miss Turner. Right, love....
 
#9
Awol said:
And the DPP who had to decide whether to press charges is a colleague of Cherie at Matrix Chambers.

If this was fiction it would be rejected as less plausible than the adventures of a certain H. Potter. But then, both feature witches and magic*




* "Never mind Tony darling...I'll make those nasty criminal charges disappear when I go into work tomorrow..."
Now that surprises me Awol because I was under the impression that DPP was employed full time by the CPS and so not available to work in chambers
 
#11
Sven said:
Awol said:
And the DPP who had to decide whether to press charges is a colleague of Cherie at Matrix Chambers.

If this was fiction it would be rejected as less plausible than the adventures of a certain H. Potter. But then, both feature witches and magic*




* "Never mind Tony darling...I'll make those nasty criminal charges disappear when I go into work tomorrow..."
Now that surprises me Awol because I was under the impression that DPP was employed full time by the CPS and so not available to work in chambers
Pretty much like most other things you comment on you are uninformed and more stupid than we give you credit for.
 
#12
Ord_Sgt said:
Sven said:
Awol said:
And the DPP who had to decide whether to press charges is a colleague of Cherie at Matrix Chambers.

If this was fiction it would be rejected as less plausible than the adventures of a certain H. Potter. But then, both feature witches and magic*




* "Never mind Tony darling...I'll make those nasty criminal charges disappear when I go into work tomorrow..."
Now that surprises me Awol because I was under the impression that DPP was employed full time by the CPS and so not available to work in chambers
Pretty much like most other things you comment on you are uninformed and more stupid than we give you credit for.
So You are saying that the DPP can carry out work for other employers?

I really would appreciate an answer to one of the questions I ask You O Sgt. This one will do for a start
 
#13
Sven said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Sven said:
Awol said:
And the DPP who had to decide whether to press charges is a colleague of Cherie at Matrix Chambers.

If this was fiction it would be rejected as less plausible than the adventures of a certain H. Potter. But then, both feature witches and magic*




* "Never mind Tony darling...I'll make those nasty criminal charges disappear when I go into work tomorrow..."
Now that surprises me Awol because I was under the impression that DPP was employed full time by the CPS and so not available to work in chambers
Pretty much like most other things you comment on you are uninformed and more stupid than we give you credit for.
So You are saying that the DPP can carry out work for other employers?

I really would appreciate an answer to one of the questions I ask You O Sgt. This one will do for a start
You really aren't too bright are you - the obvious answer is YES. Did you get that - YES!!!

Stop pretending people are not answering your questions, you're the obfuscating walting dullard.
 
#14
Glad of a straight answer for a change OS.

Now I will further my knowledge by talking to a lawyer chappie I happen to know (I will be meeting Him on Monday) and confirm.
 
#15
Sven said:
Glad of a straight answer for a change OS.

Now I will further my knowledge by talking to a lawyer chappie I happen to know (I will be meeting Him on Monday) and confirm.
Ooooh look at her all imoprtant with lawyer friends. Are you going to tell me your dads bigger than my dad next. Stop pretending you are anything other than a walting dullard.
 
#16
This will run for a little longer.

I would like to hope that the CPS may end up pressured into reconsidering their decision, but this is not likely.

The cops are furious with the CPS and the facts will enter the public domain, because the cops will be asked why they pursued the investigation for so long. Their answer will be the evidence they uncovered, which will be quite the opposite of an exoneration of all parties, and perhaps even more damaging than a prosecution - which, after all, could fail, with possible restrictions on the admissibility of evidence.

Parliament will continue with their own select committee inquiry, which may well call Bliar to appear. I believe that attendance can be compelled. There will be no wrangling over admissibility or otherwise of evidence. The greatest risk is that any investigation descends into a whitewash farce, given the tendency of MPs to close ranks and protect their own rather than to face facts.

This is starting to look like Hutton - the evidence says they did it, the establishment delivers a whitewash, but we all know what and who to believe.

Chances of Levy etc suing the police or journalists? Nil! A bit of bluster to try an bolster their reputations, then back to making money.

No 10 honours plot: four new names

David Leppard and Robert Winnett
POLICE investigating the cash for honours scandal seized evidence that Downing Street had plotted to hand peerages to eight of the 12 businessmen who had bankrolled Labour’s 2005 election campaign.

A draft honours list, drawn up in September 2005, showed that the plan to offer peerages to businessmen who had loaned Labour millions of pounds had involved twice as many lenders as previously disclosed.

Scotland Yard discovered that every Labour lender who was eligible for a seat in the House of Lords was initially nominated in lists compiled for Tony Blair by his top aides.

Sir Christopher Evans, the biotechnology entrepreneur, Rod Aldridge, former executive chairman of Capita, Derek Tul-lett, the broker, and Andrew Rosenfeld, chairman of Minerva, were all on an internal Downing Street peerages list. Until now the names of only four lenders – Sir David Garrard, Barry Towns-ley, Chai Patel and Sir Gulam Noon – were known to have been put forward.

The Sunday Times has also discovered that there was a second key piece of evidence – a diary kept by Evans that allegedly details a series of meetings at the House of Lords in 2004 with Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fundraiser, to discuss a peerage.

One well-placed Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) source said the diary was “dynamite” and provided “spectacular” evidence of an alleged “agreement” for Evans to be ennobled in return for a £1m loan.

Evans’s name was removed from the honours list after Downing Street discovered that his company was the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

A CPS official said that these two pieces of evidence formed the core of the 16-month police investigation, which the Yard believed until recently would lead to charges against key Downing Street aides.

However, the investigation was effectively halted at a meeting on July 4 when a leading government barrister, David Perry QC, ruled that the diary was not admissible as evidence.

Perry also said the police must have evidence of an “unambiguous agreement” showing that the financial backers gave money only on the explicit understanding that they would be honoured in return. The CPS announced last week it would not be charging anyone.

The decision followed a criminal investigation that led to the arrest of Levy and Ruth Turner, Blair’s director of government relations. Blair himself was questioned three times by police.

Government insiders revealed that the police were shocked at the decision not to prosecute. An official said the police and the CPS had worked side by side on the case for 18 months until there was a “sudden change that pulled the plug”.

The official said: “All those eight people gave massive loans, then shortly after they all appeared on No 10’s peerages list. It looked pretty odd, to say the least. Were the Met right to investigate it? Yes, they f****** were.”

Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who led the investigation, is expected to be called this Thursday before the Metropolitan Police Authority, which is reviewing the inquiry. He may be asked to disclose evidence which had led his team and CPS advisers to be so confident.

This is understood to include details of at least three drafts of the working peerage list drawn up by Downing Street aides in September 2005.

Police obtained the document last summer after which Yates told MPs he had uncovered “significant and valuable” evidence not yet in the public domain.

The document revealed that eight people were on an internal peerage list. This was hinted at in the CPS’s formal-document explaining its decision on Friday. It is understood police obtained information on how Levy was involved in supporting names who were to be on the list.

Drafts of the list were then compiled by Turner, John McTernan and Jonathan Pow-ell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff. Detectives also studied e-mails sent during its compilation which referred to the potential nominees’ loans to the party.

The other four who loaned Labour money were ineligible for peerages as they live abroad or had already been ennobled.

Government sources revealed Evans’s diaries were central to the investigation. The Sunday Times has established that there are entries apparently recording discussions between Evans and Levy in 2004. In these meetings, the diaries allegedly explicitly link the offer of a loan to the promise of a peerage. Levy told police he had never made any such offer.

“If those diaries ever get into the public domain, the effect will be spectacular,” said one person who has read them.

Evans’s spokesman said yesterday no such discussion had taken place, adding: “The CPS judgment was crystal clear – there was no evidence of wrongdoing and the CPS explained that in some detail. That is the end of the story.”

Evans himself attacked Labour for abandoning him during the inquiry. Asked if the party had been supportive, he told a Sunday newspaper: “The short answer is no,” adding that some in the party considered him and the others “dispensable pawns”.

Sarah Helm, Powell’s wife, described the early morning police raid on Turner during the investigation as “Gestapo tactics. Pick on the vulnerable, preferably a single woman living alone”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2116324.ece
 
#17
Deja Vu? Same sort of whitewash seems to have occurred in a report about something to do with Iraq?! No maybe I am just being cynical. Pat on the back to the police but maybe the CPS should have a sharp rethink.
 
#18
Sven said:
......... the police found no indication that anyone was told that donations would automatically result in peerages
Yes they did!!!!! The investigation would not have dragged on as long as it did if evidence did not indicate wrongdoing.

The case has been blown apart by the exclusion of key evidence being defined as "inadmissible". Whether this exclusion has been initiated due to evidence gathering irregularities remains to be seen.

The Sunday Times has also discovered that there was a second key piece of evidence – a diary kept by Evans that allegedly details a series of meetings at the House of Lords in 2004 with Lord Levy, Blair’s chief fundraiser, to discuss a peerage.

One well-placed Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) source said the diary was “dynamite” and provided “spectacular” evidence of an alleged “agreement” for Evans to be ennobled in return for a £1m loan.

Evans’s name was removed from the honours list after Downing Street discovered that his company was the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

A CPS official said that these two pieces of evidence formed the core of the 16-month police investigation, which the Yard believed until recently would lead to charges against key Downing Street aides.

However, the investigation was effectively halted at a meeting on July 4 when a leading government barrister, David Perry QC, ruled that the diary was not admissible as evidence.
What really makes my blood boil is the self rightgeous display of indignation that these individuals were innocent. They were NOT and are NOT.

IMO there has been obstruction, collusion and wilfull destruction of evidence to avoid legal accountability resulting in the case being thrown out.

These are the very people who are entrusted with power by the electorate, blatantly abusing this power with a total disregard for accountability and the rule of law, whilst smiling with hidden contempt at the great unwashed.

I look forward to this going public to see the reasons why key evidence has been ruled inadmissible.

Edited for carp spelling
 
#19
It's gone all quiet on here regarding the cover up of the criminal shambles that is 'Cash for Honours'. This is strange since I would have assumed this would have been a vitriolic and lengthy thread. Is it weariness of the government and the realisation that no matter what is said nothing will change?

Amazingly the leader of the Observer supports the decision of the CPS and claims that the suspects are 'vindicated'. However, even the Guardian Gestapo is allowing its readers to openly express their disdain in the comments section. Quite a nice debate there with two or three sycophants poorly defending the government, only to be bitch-slapped down:

Comment is Free
 
#20
Ord_Sgt said:
Sven said:
Glad of a straight answer for a change OS.

Now I will further my knowledge by talking to a lawyer chappie I happen to know (I will be meeting Him on Monday) and confirm.
Ooooh look at her all imoprtant with lawyer friends. Are you going to tell me your dads bigger than my dad next. Stop pretending you are anything other than a walting dullard.
Well, the walting dullard has checked with Her lawyer friends and it turns out that the DPP cannot work on anyone elses behalf whilst employed by the CPS
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top