The Return of the Vampire of Finance

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ask them to extend the all party investigation back to 1990.<hr></blockquote> spot on, slim. Whoever you are channeling, they know their stuff. 1990 is when the REAL jiggery-pokery began. When Major took over from Thatcher. THAT is when the ultra vires, unapponted prime ministers took over. Who else but the Queen and the man who should have been her First Minister would know? That he had not been formally (and hence legally) appointed? That he had not been given his seals of office? It continued for nearly ten years. Until Feira, June 19, 2000.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:38 pm

This is not something new. Tomorrow: Sir Michael Peat's reply. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> C/Eusebio Navarro, 12 Sir Michael Peat 35003 Las Palmas de Gran St James’s Palace Spain Canaria (Correos certificado 16 November 2002 Regina v Burrell Dear Sir Michael, Is the Prince of Wales not the tiniest bit curious about why Her Majesty’s Constabulary should lie about the evidence against Paul Burrell? Has he not the slightest interest in how it can be that Detective Inspector Maxine de Brunner should take it upon herself to lie to the faces of the Heir to the Throne and his successor? And that Her Majesty’s Constabulary should then take no action against the offending officer? After all, she got him into this mess, did she not? Cards on the table. The only reason why a junior officer would act in such a way – commit barefaced treason for no personal gain – is because said junior officer was acting on orders. And the only persons that are empowered to issue such an order are the more senior members of the royal family. The “powers…of which we know nothing” (aka the Sovereign Commander of the 33º Scottish Rite Freemasonry) ordered the frame-up of an innocent man. She told no one, and then she died. D.I. Maxine de Brunner found herself stranded in no man’s land without her sponsor. The police got caught up in their own conspiracy and could not abort the prosecution. And the royal specimen bottle blew up in the royal face right in front of the servants. It’s not as though the Queen Mother hasn’t got form in this kind of thing. Remember Crawfie? Marion Crawford was encouraged by the Queen Mother to write The Little Princesses. That same Queen Mother then vilified poor Crawfie as a traitor and a betrayer of royal secrets for money. She taught Elizabeth and Margaret that the working class can never be trusted, and a rival for the girl’s affection was eliminated. And Margaret died a bitter woman. Paul Burrell was more of a father to William. If you give a boy his first pornography, you must be willing to answer his questions. William had to be taught that the working class can never be trusted, and must be turned against Paul Burrell, guilty or no. And she had plenty of other good reasons besides the “rape tape”. Not least the forthcoming inquest into the death of the Princess of Wales. I see Regina has already fixed the judge (brought in a ringer) and jury (drawn exclusively from Palace servants). But there was no way that she could avoid taking evidence from “Diana’s Rock”. Unless he were eliminated. Of note here is that the Burrells appear to be taking up a new life in a foreign jurisdiction and I wish them life and peace. As with Crawfie, the character assassination runs rife in old Blighty. All this will come as no surprise to the Prince of Wales or indeed to Prince William. Ask them to show you a copy of my letter to Prince William dated 4 January 2002. What Regina called “powers…of which we know nothing”, I called “the Shadow Sovereign”, and Adolph Hitler called “the most dangerous woman in Europe”. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. St James’s Palace has nothing to fear from your enquiry. But Clarence House certainly does. And strange to say, your master the Prince of Wales is moving over to Clarence House and taking over the “powers…of which we know nothing”. Oh, what a tangled web we weave! Please acknowledge receipt by return. Yours Sincerely, John Cleary BScMAMBA cc Prince William (c/o The Vice Chancellor of St Andrews University) Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury Chris Mullin MP, Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Charles Kennedy MP, Leader of the Opposition Sir John Stevens, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir David Calvert Smith, Director of Public Prosecutions<hr></blockquote>

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:20 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr><div style="text-align:center">{Large Prince of Wales Feathers}</div> <div style="text-align:center">ST JAMES'S PALACE LONDON SW1A 1BS</div> From The Private Secretary to HRH The Prince of Wales 21st November, 2002 Dear Mr Cleary, Thank you for your letter. You raise some fair questions and I would be interested to know the answers. One thing I do know is that neither junior nor senior police officers act on the orders of the Royal Family who had nothing to do with the investigation of the Burrell case or the way in which the trial was conducted. I am afraid much of what you say is untrue and unfair. <div style="text-align:center">Yours sincerely, Sir Michael Peat</div> John Cleary Esq. C Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Spain<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 3/29/06 6:24 am

by **blanc** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:02 pm

interesting reply anti, not usual f.off and die .

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:07 pm

blanc, That reply was not meant for me. It was for those I had copied in. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>not usual f.off and die .<hr></blockquote> Look here <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1741883,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/cartoo...83,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:41 pm

This from <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showEditScreen?topicID=3152.topic&index=22">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...c&index=22</a> March 17 6:28 pm (St Pat's!) The Labour Party spent 18 million pounds in winning the last General Election. Of that sum fourteen million came in the form of "commercial loans" from wealthy individuals. More than seventy-seven percent of the total! It all came via Lord Levy, fundraiser extraordinaire, and Mr Blair's personal Envoy to the Middle East. This is all about the Blair/Brown "party within a party" which controls the heaving hulk of the party of organised labour. This is illegal fundaraising, bribes, if you wish. But the British Media is pulling the same stunt used by Bush when he invented "illegal combatant". They are calling this money "commercial loans". They are trying to pretend this is the same as going to the local bank and securing an overdraft. It is no such thing. Just because a "loan" carries a notional rate of interest, that does not make it "commercial". Look at this <blockquote>Quote:<hr>However party officials said that they would not be revealing the sources of the loans as the money had been lent on the condition of confidentiality<hr></blockquote> What sort of "commercial loan" has to be kept a secret? A commercial loan is one where the lender is identified, where the obligations of the borrower are specified, where the term is identified, where the interest rate is specified, where any security is registered and where the default conditions are set out. Would a corporation get away with this secrecy? Not a chance. The courts would be on the directors like a dog in heat. The assets of a company belong to the shareholders, and shareholders have the right to know what the directors are up to IN THEIR NAME. Is it right that a political party should have lower standards of transparency than a commercial enterprise? The question answers itself. These cannot be taken as "commercial loans" on the basis of Tony Blair's say-so. He has form as a man of his word. They must be proven to be so. By the production of a loan agreement. But I don't think they can. Because they are not commercial loans. They are something else. The National Executive of the Labour Party is doing an excellent job in assisting Mr Blair to destroy the party of organised labour. The Labour Party 1906 - 2006. Rest in Peace. Now today, front page <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Tories warned: come clean on loans or face court action David Hencke and Rob Evans Thursday March 30, 2006 The Guardian The Conservative party will be forced to disclose details of all its loan contracts to the Electoral Commission, the independent watchdog, to prove that it has no "under the counter" deals with donors, it emerged last night. The commission is planning to use its powers for the first time under election law to make the party hand over the information. All parties will be given a second chance to disclose details of their loans to the commission in a letter to be sent out in the next few days. But if the Conservatives - known to have received up to £24m in loans - decline to supply the information again, the commission intends to take them to court. Commission officials say they want to see the contracts, which they will study to ensure that the loans were commercial. They are particularly interested in: · the interest rates, to check whether they were preferential compared with those offered by banks. · details of security offered by the party for the loans. · the repayment period for any of the loans to see if they are under normal commercial terms. · arrangements for the loans to be converted into donations. A senior commission official said last night: "If any of the loans do not comply with these conditions they will be ruled to be a donation and names of the donors will be released." The commission's tough stance will add to the pressure on the Tories, who are already facing investigation as part of Scotland Yard's "loans for peerages" inquiry, which is concentrating on four Labour donors nominated for peerages by Tony Blair.<hr></blockquote><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1742719,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/frontp...19,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>antiaristo Registered Member Posts: 1477 (3/21/06 5:49 pm) Reply | Edit The Destruction of the Labour Party -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is what happens when you try to appease a blackmailer like Tony Blair. The eventual damage, when it finally comes, is devastating. This is why my letter to Blair, and the reply, are important. The people that have brought the Labour Party to destruction KNEW what he was from the beginning. But they are ALL middle class. Except for "Two Jags" John Prescott, who is willingly the token village idiot. NONE of them give a shit about those who labour with their hands to make ends meet.<hr></blockquote> I expect the sophisticates line will now be "Yes, we knew he was a bit dodgy. But there is no point in being pure and out of power. Look at all the things we've done in office!" But that doesn't wash. Look at the actions of the NEC. The key figure in the Labour Party bureaucracy is the General Secretary. If you want an honest party, you want an honest General Secretary. If you have a "dodgy" leader like Blair, you need a strong and seasoned individual filling that key role. Someone with an independent mind and a sense of loyalty to the membership. Who did the NEC choose for this critical role? Matt Carter. Thirty-one years old. Never held a proper job in his life. An historian. A few months after the General Election he left to become "the managing director of the new London office of WPP-owned opinion researcher Penn, Schoen and Berland." THE HALL OF SHAME Current Members (As at October 2005) Mohammed Azam (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties) Louise Baldock (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties) Jeremy Beecham (Div. IV - Labour Councillors) Chair Ann Black (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties) Tony Blair MP (Leader) Hazel Blears MP (Government) Gordon Brown MP (Government) Michael Cashman MEP (Div. V - PLP/EPLP) Debbie Coulter (Div. I - Trade Unions) Jack Dromey (Treasurer) Angela Eagle MP (Div. V - PLP/ELP) Michael Griffiths (Div. I - Trade Unions) Vice-Chair Dianne Hayter (Div. II - Socialist Societies) Diana Holland (Div. I - Trade Unions) Jim Kennedy (Div. I - Trade Unions) Paddy Lillis (Div. I - Trade Unions) Joe Mann (Div. I - Trade Unions) Ian McCartney MP (Government and party chair) Sally Powell (Div. IV - Labour Councillors) John Prescott MP (Deputy Leader) Christine Shawcroft (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties) Dennis Skinner MP (Div. V - PLP/EPLP) Keith Sonnett (Div. I - Trade Unions) Cath Speight (Div. I - Trade Unions) Norma Stephenson (Div. I - Trade Unions) Gary Titley MEP (EPLP Leader) Mary Turner (Div. I - Trade Unions) David Ward (Div. I - Trade Unions) Peter Wheeler (Div. I - Trade Unions) Mel Whitter (Young Labour) Pete Willsman (Div. III - Constituency Labour Parties) Harriet Yeo (Div. I - Trade Unions)

by **antiaristo** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:27 am

Can you believe this? They are so keen to asset strip, they don't know when assets have already been stripped. Aaah! Those genius television executives! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>ITV headquarters holds shock for bid trio · Property's sale may mean takeover is not viable · Consortium offer based on making £150m of savings Dan Milmo, media business editor Friday March 31, 2006 The Guardian The private equity consortium circling ITV will not be able to sell off the broadcaster's Gray's Inn Road headquarters in central London because the building was sold eight years ago. The sale of ITV's base is reportedly a central plank of the bidders' savings plan if the takeover succeeds. The buyout trio of Apax Partners, Goldman Sachs and Blackstone has earmarked £150m in savings from the deal. The headquarters building is worth at least £112.5m, because it was bought for that sum by a Luxembourg-based company last year. One property expert speculated yesterday that the property could be worth up to £140m. The consortium declined to comment yesterday on whether the building's sale represented the bulk of its efficiency plan, and therefore an important part of the bid's complex financial structure.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1743785,00.html">media.guardian.co.uk/site...85,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:01 pm

Same old story. Machinations behind closed doors. Treason Felony Act <blockquote>Quote:<hr> 2pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Watchdog suspends loans inquiry Matthew Tempest and agencies Thursday April 6, 2006 The Electoral Commission has put its investigation into the main two parties' secret loans on hold, it announced today, while the police complete their investigation into the affair. The party watchdog had expressed doubts the original loans were made on commercial terms - effectively making them donations - but will now wait for the Met police to look into the affair. A grilling of two lenders by the public affairs select committee has already been postponed at the request of the police, who were originally drawn into the row after a complaint from the Scottish National party. In a statement, the commission said: "Following discussions with the Metropolitan police, the Electoral Commission has decided to suspend temporarily its enquiries into past loans to political parties pending the outcome of the related police investigation. "The commission is therefore postponing further discussions with the parties on this matter." It added that the commission would be "liaising closely" with police over the next few weeks. The Metropolitan police said that its investigations into claims of so-called cash for peerages was ongoing. After the shock revelation from the Labour party treasurer, Jack Dromey, that he had been unaware of around £13m worth of loans given to the party through Downing Street and Mr Blair's personal fundraiser Lord Levy, the Tories were forced to reveal that they too had borrowed around £21m, of which £5m had been paid back to retain their lenders' anonymity. The Electoral Commission asked party treasurers to confirm that the loans they had received were commercial loans and the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties had done so, but the commission has demanded further information on the terms of the loans. The commission was setting up a series of meetings with treasurers "to look further at this" when the decision to suspend the probe was taken, a commission spokeswoman said. The move was agreed by both the commission and the police. Explaining the decision, the spokeswoman said: "There's potential for the police investigation to overlap with areas we're looking at so it's better for the police to deal with it." The commission's probe would remain suspended as long as the police investigation was ongoing, she said. SNP MP Angus MacNeil, who made the initial complalint to the police, welcomed the move, saying it showed the police investigation was "intensifying". He added: "It just goes to show the game some political parties are playing is far more serious than the cosy carve-up they thought it was."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1748474,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/f...74,00.html</a> MacNeill is an idiot. Now ONLY the police are investigating. First parliament pulled out (no surprise there. Doctor Tony Wright IS a good friend of Matt Carter. They wrote a book together), now it is the electoral commission. Parliament and the Electoral Commission have a duty to THE PEOPLE. The police do not. Their ONLY duty is to the Crown, the Windsor family. THAT IS THE LAW. John Yates, the man in charge, has been suborned by the Windsors in the past. Most notably with the Paul Burrell prosecution, but also with the Menezes "inquiry". Meanwhile life will go on. Blair and Brown and Cameron and Campbell and Falconer and Martin and Strathclyde will carry on fucking over the English. Sure. What has nationality got to do with anything? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 4/6/06 10:04 am

by **antiaristo** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:42 pm

This has been tacked on to the front of the 2pm story above <blockquote>Quote:<hr>5.30pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internal memo reveals Labour 'confident' over loans inquiry Oliver King and David Hencke Thursday April 6, 2006 Leaked documents seen by Guardian Unlimited show the Labour party is "confident nothing will flow" from the police investigation into the "loans for lordships" affair, according to secret briefing papers drawn up for the prime minister and chancellor. Labour's confidence that the party's fundraisers will be cleared of breaking the 1925 Honours Act comes as the Metropolitan police appear to be intensifying their investigation into possible corruption to include allegations that both Labour and the Conservatives broke electoral law. Scotland Yard confirmed that both parties are under investigation for possibly breaking electoral law by keeping secret the £38m loans they received, including those from five people nominated for peerages by Tony Blair and the former Tory leader Michael Howard. John Yates, the Met's deputy assistant commissioner, has decided to extend the "loans for peerages" inquiry to see if offences were committed by the parties under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 for not disclosing the loans, particularly if they are not at genuine commercial rates, and that full details were not disclosed in the accounts. Labour's comment about the existing police investigation is contained in a guidance document entitled Top Lines, prepared by Labour officials for the Labour leadership attending yesterday's local election campaign launch, including Mr Blair, Gordon Brown and John Prescott. Leaked to journalists by the Brownite camp, the document was attached to the event schedule showing that ministers originally intended to allow questions on the subject. That decision was later overturned by Labour officials. If asked to respond to the Met investigation, the ministers were guided to say: "This looks to be a bit of opportunism on the part of those parties (SNP and Plaid Cymru) who complained on this. But of course the party is co-operating. We are confident that nothing will flow from that." In the end journalists were not allowed to ask any questions at the event, although Mr Blair did conduct television interviews afterwards. The document also reveals that Labour agreed with its lenders to pay back its loans "over a variety of periods from six months to several years". Labour is reported to be considering selling its expensive St James' Park HQ because of a cash shortage caused by a having to repay the loans it secured to fund the general election in 2005. Angus MacNeil, the Scottish Nationalist MP who made the initial complaint to the police, said Labour "have got a cheek" to complain of his "opportunism" given their own behaviour and warned their "complacency" could be dangerous. "I wouldn't put much store in their confidence," he said. "In fact I'm pleased because it suggests carelessness which will allow the police to find the evidence they need." The new police inquiry announced today means that the former registered treasurer of the Labour party, former general secretary Matt Carter, and the registered treasurer of the Tory party accounts, Gavin Barwell, are likely to be interviewed by detectives. The failure to disclose the loans has already led the Labour backbencher Bob Marshall-Andrews to warn that the party may have broken the law and to demand that Mr Blair holds an inquiry.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1748659,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/l...59,00.html</a> This proves that Angus MacNeill is an idiot <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"In fact I'm pleased because it suggests carelessness which will allow the police to find the evidence they need."<hr></blockquote> The police DO NOT need to find any evidence. The Labour Party must find the evidence to PROVE that these "loans" were made on commercial terms. Otherwise all we know is that money changed hands. A donation. Labour and Tories squeal "But it was a loan!" Prove it, sunshine. If you read the 2pm story it says <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Electoral Commission asked party treasurers to confirm that the loans they had received were commercial loans. The Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties did so, but the commission has demanded further information on the terms of the loans. The commission was setting up a series of meetings with treasurers "to look further at this" when the decision to suspend the probe was taken, a commission spokeswoman said.<hr></blockquote> Just like the SEC probe into Lloyds. Force majeured to death. Angus MacNeill is a fucking idiot.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:32 pm

Just a reminder. The Labour Party has already lied to the Appointments Commission. Ian McCartney certified that four men put forward for honours (Lordships and Knighthoods) had "no financial relationship with the Labour Party". Ian McCartney is Party Chairman. Appointed personally by Blair. (One of five "ministers" at the farcical campaign "launch" today) It turns out that those four had provided millions of pounds of secret funding. That same Labour Party has certified that those millions of secret funding were "commercial loans". The Electoral Commission wants to see the loan agreement. They were in the process of making appointments to meet the party treasurers when the probe was stopped. Somebody stepped in to prevent the Electoral Commission from doing its job. That somebody was Queen Elizabeth II. She invoked the Treason Felony Act against the Electoral Commission. She wants the investigation in the hands of Scotland Yard, and nobody else.

by **antiaristo** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:18 am

This looks very suspicious to me. Yates will look into the failure to tell Dromey. BUT WILL HE LOOK INTO THE "LOANS" THEMSELVES?? The Electoral Commission was arranging to see the loan agreements when its inquiry was frozen. Now the police seem to be avoiding looking at those agreements. If they truly existed all of this would be quite unnecessary. There would be no need to freeze out the Electoral Commission. It could all be settled in half an hour. But it is increasingly obvious that there are no formal contracts. And you cannot have a commercial loan without a contract. And it is obvious that Yates's role is to divert attention away from this obvious proof. That's why Her Majesty chose him. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Police investigate Blair 'secrecy' on £14m loans By Andrew Pierce SCOTLAND YARD’S investigation into the loans-for-peerages affair was widened yesterday to include the failure by Tony Blair to tell the Labour Party treasurer about the £14 million involved. The Times has learnt that the police inquiry has moved beyond investigating only whether the 1925 law banning the sale of honours was breached to take in the decision to keep Jack Dromey, the party treasurer, in the dark about the loans from 12 benefactors. Under the terms of the Political Parties, Election and Referendums Act passed in 2000, it is an offence punishable with up to one year in prison to knowingly give treasurers false information about donations. Under the same law it is a criminal offence to withhold information from treasurers about donations with intent to deceive. The only Labour Party figures who knew about the loans were the Prime Minister, Lord Levy, his personal fundraiser, and Matt Carter, who was general secretary of the party. All three will be interviewed by the Specialist Crime Directorate at Scotland Yard. Mr Dromey, who is married to the government minister Harriet Harman, last month publicly criticised the Prime Minister for not telling him about the loans. He said: “The Labour Party, its institutions, its democracy, needs to be respected, including by No 10. “I had no idea about the loans that were obtained in secret and that is absolutely wrong. Neither the chairman nor myself, the treasurer, knew anything about what was going on in respect of these loans.” The police will also look at the money received by the Conservative Party from overseas to see whether it was in breach of election law, which bars “donations by impermissible donors”. Donations from overseas are illegal and can also attract a prison sentence of up to one year, but loans are not. The Tories returned their money to the overseas lenders last week to avoid them being publicly identified. As part of their investigation, officers from the seven-strong Specialist Crime Directorate have already been to the Ceremonial Unit of the Cabinet Office, which draws up honours lists. They have written to both party treasurers to demand all documents and e-mails relating to the loan transactions. The intensifying police inquiry has led the Electoral Commission to suspend its own inquiry into the loans affair. In a statement, it said: “The Electoral Commission has decided to suspend temporarily its enquiries into past loans to political parties pending the outcome of the related police investigation.” It said that it would be “liaising” with police. The commission had asked party treasurers to confirm that the loans were commercial, which meant that they did not have to be declared. A spokeswoman said: “There is potential for the police investigation to overlap with areas we are looking at so it is better for the police to deal with it.” A Labour Party source said that there was a growing anxiety about the rapidly escalating inquiry. “The police are clearly taking this very seriously and so must we,” the source said. The police investigation began after complaints from Angus MacNeil, a Scottish Nationalist MP, about the possibility of peerages being sold in contravention of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. He said that the investigation was clearly intensifying. “It just goes to show the game some political parties are playing is far more serious than the cosy carve-up they thought it was.” <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2122444,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...44,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 4:59 pm

You need two things from the people to qulify as a serious political party. You need them to give you their votes, and you need them to give you their money (or time). Falconer explains that there is no need for parliamentary consent for war, for there are elections. How popular is New Labour, the Blair regime? At the General Election in May 2005 Blair's party took the votes of just 21 percent of the electorate. Just over one-in-five. At that election the Labour Party spent about eighteen million pounds. We have subsequently learned that donations`provided just about four millions. Just over one pound in every five (nice symetry there). The great majority, nearly fourteen million pounds, came in the form of illegal donations from the rich. Labour is bankrupt under this sect. The people have more sense than to give their money to Scottish Rite Freemasons. Now look at what they are doing to raise money. Just like the USA. Selling access to ministers. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Breakfast with Clarke prompts 'cash for access' row Matthew Tempest and Oliver King Friday April 7, 2006 Labour was tonight involved in another cash row, as a new business group was revealed to be offering access to cabinet ministers in return for donations to the Labour party. London in Business, an offshoot of the Labour party business liaison unit, is offering businesses the chance to have breakfasts and lunches with government ministers in return for subscriptions of thousands of pounds a year. Business people have so far been offered a chance to network with the home secretary, Charles Clarke, and the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, in return for between £2,000 and £3,500 a year. Mr Clarke's spokeswoman said that it was "absolutely ridiculous" to suggest that this was an example of "cash for access" and that it was "completely normal" practice. The chair of London in Business, Labour donor and property developer Kevin McGrath, said that businessmen paying to attend such events was entirely "normal" and that the first meeting had only raised "peanuts" for the party. But with an hour-and-three-quarters' access to government ministers - rather than merely Labour politicians - on offer, it has prompted accusations of "cash for access" from political rivals. Because the sums are below the £5,000 minimum, they do not need to be declared as a donation under electoral law.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1749425,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/f...25,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Blair drops Labour lenders in revised list of new peers By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor Published: 11 April 2006 Tony Blair has ended a damaging stand-off with a Lords sleaze watchdog by dropping four businessmen who lent Labour £3.5m from a list of 28 working peers in a humiliating climbdown over the "peerages for cash" scandal. The Prime Minister's list, officially published today, excludes his nominations for peerages for the Priory clinic head Chai Patel, the property developer Sir David Garrard; the so-called "Curry King" Sir Gulam Noon, and the stockbroker Barry Townsley. SNIP The debacle over the peerages, which has left Mr Blair looking damaged, led to the disclosure that £13.9m had been raised in loans for Labour's election campaign, which had not been declared. The scandal triggered an emergency package of reforms as Mr Blair fought to defuse the row. But it is understood the commission blocked some names because they had their personal fortunes overseas, and were not taxed in Britain. That led to calls for peerages to be banned in future for those using offshore tax havens. SNIP The Prime Minister is still facing the humiliating prospect of being interviewed by Scotland Yard over allegations that he breached anti-sleaze laws over "peerages for cash", which he denies. The new Lords list * Ulster Unionists: David Trimble, former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party; Eileen Paisley, wife of DUP leader the Rev Ian Paisley; Maurice Morrow, DUP chairman; Wallace Browne, DUP Lord Mayor of Belfast since last May. * Crossbencher: Colin Boyd, Scotland's Lord Advocate.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article357020.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...357020.ece</a> Sounds to me loke the police are doing nothing. No hurry when both the parliament and Electoral Commission have been shut down. Maybe John Yates is too busy eavesdropping on the Greeks? For those who are confused, this is what a protection racket looks like from the outside. And the Unionist list is interesting, especially when you remember that Sinn Fein Members are not even allowed to take up their places in the Commons. So what if they won election by thousands and thousands of votes? That's not what matters in the "mother of parliaments". Only absolute loyalty to the Windsor family matters. Added on edit Just to clarify for those that find the system confusing (don't be shy - it is intended that you should not understand, if I might paraphrase Albert Pike) The Lords is the equivalent of the Senate in the United States. These people have just been appointed as legislators for the United Kingdom, and to act as the national`parliament for England, Wales and Nothers Ireland (But not, of course, for Scotland) And they have been appointed for the rest of their lives. Just like the Queen. Just like it will be for Charles and Camilla. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 4/12/06 7:12 am

by **madeupname452** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:18 pm

<a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article357523.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...357523.ece</a> Ex-adviser held in honours probe PA Published: 13 April 2006 A former education adviser was today arrested by police investigating claims that honours have been "sold" by political parties, sources said. He was named as Des Smith, a headteacher in Dagenham, as the individual detained by the Specialist Crime Directorate this morning for an offence under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. Mr Smith sparked a sleaze row earlier this year when he suggested wealthy donors were offered honours in exchange for funding the Government's flagship city academy programme. The Scotland Yard inquiry was originally launched in response to a complaint by Scottish and Welsh nationalist MPs that Labour had broken the law outlawing the sale of honours such as peerages and knighthoods. It has since been widened to cover the activities of other parties. Mr Smith quit as a member of the governing council of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT), the body that helps recruit sponsors for academies, after comments made to an undercover reporter were published by the Sunday Times in January. He was an adviser to the Trust's chair Sir Cyril Taylor. Afterwards Mr Smith, who is head of All Saints Catholic School and Technology College, apologised for his comments and admitted he was naive. He told the reporter that large gifts to one or two of the schools might win an OBE, CBE or knighthood, while a peerage would be "a certainty" for giving to five. Up to eight academy sponsors who have made gifts since the controversial programme to establish 200 academies was launched in 2001 have been honoured under Labour. Academies are funded directly from Whitehall, bypassing local education authorities, and donors are given an input into their running in return for gifts usually amounting to about £2 million. The Sunday Times reported that Mr Smith told a journalist posing as a potential donor's PR assistant that "the Prime Minister's office would recommend someone like (the donor) for an OBE, a CBE or a knighthood"'. Asked if this would be just for getting involved in the academies, he responded: "'Yes ... they call them 'services to education'. I would say to Cyril's office that we've got to start writing to the Prime Minister's office." For a donation of £10 million, "you could go to the House of Lords"', he said. However, when confronted by the paper, Mr Smith responded that it was "not possible" to acquire an honour in return for donations. And Sir Cyril told the paper: "In no way is giving money to the academy linked to the award of an honour." Downing Street and the SSAT rejected the reports at the time as "nonsense". Number 10 would not comment on today's arrest, saying it was "a matter for the Metropolitan Police". Scottish National Party MP Angus MacNeil - who with Welsh nationalists, made the initial complaint that sparked the police probe - said he was glad action was being taken. "I am pleased to hear that the Metropolitan Police are having success. This arrest marks the beginning of the clean up of politics at Westminster. "Corruption has no place in politics in any advanced western democracy. "Whether it's loans or donations being offered, the prize should never be a seat in the legislative body. "I hope this investigation goes the whole way in cleaning up parliament." Plaid Cymru leader Elfyn Llwyd said: "Today's arrest not only shows the severity of the scandal and how seriously the Metropolitan Police are taking the issue, but also shows there must be evidence of wrongdoing. "Political parties must be open and transparent to ensure the public have faith in their actions. "There is no space for corruption or criminality in politics - no politician, political party or official can ignore the law, and those who draft legislation should know that better than anyone." The investigation is being led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates. It followed reports that the House of Lords Appointments Commission had blocked the appointment of four of Prime Minister Tony Blair's nominations for peerages - all wealthy businessmen who had made loans to Labour. Taking millions of pounds in loans to fund their election campaigns enabled both main parties to keep the cash off public lists of donations - a practice they have pledged to stop. None were on the list of new working life peers when it was published on Monday. One Tory nominee - who had loaned the party £2 million - also missed out on a seat in the upper house. Mr Yates has indicated he was prepared to widen the investigation to consider more general allegations of corruption. A number of other inquiries - by MPs and democracy watchdog the Electoral Commission - have been put on hold while the police investigate.

The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Re: Ask them to go back 10 more years.

Just a reminder

Sir Michael Peat reply

Sir Michael

Re: Sir Michael Peat reply

Cross Posting

The National Executive Committee of the Labour Party

Television Executive Genius

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Genius MP

Force Majeure

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Tests of Political Popularity

British "Investigations"

Government Adviser arrested in corruption investigation

Who is online