The Return of the Vampire of Finance

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:56 am

I expect we will be hearing from all the Labour Party luminaries in the weeks ahead. About how they were misled, deceived, how they knew nothing, and had ALWAYS acted in good faith. It will all be lies, of course. They ALL knew, and looked the other way. All for a price, of course. For some, it was two Jaguars. For others, an elevation to the aristocracy. But they ALL knew. Perhaps they will try to lie to their Creator, when the time comes. This from the very week that Blair became leader of the Labour Party. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Meimia Fakenham Road Right Hon. Tony Blair MP Great Ryburgh House of Commons Fakenham London SW1A 0AA Norfolk NR21 7AG 25 July 1994 Dear Sir, “The board of MAI has given assurances to the board of Anglia that the rights of the management and employees of Anglia, including pension rights, will be fully safeguarded” This quote comes from the Offer Document, Listing Particulars and Shareholders Circular issued by MAI PLC in support of its agreed bid for Anglia Television Group plc announced 18 January and completed 3 May 1994. On 6 June 1994 I was forcibly prevented from attending my place of work by agents under the direct control of the Anglia Board and under the indirect control of the MAI Board. As a result the lockout was enforced by the police. It would appear as though contractual rights of access, personal private property and my right to earn my living – my only living – on agreed terms count for naught in the computations of an inhumane calculator. This event was preceded by two distinct attempts, each founded on deceit, to force me out of office while insulating the Boards of both MAI and Anglia. You will note that these are the parties to the pledge above my own words. First, a redundancy note was issued to me by a man claiming the office of Managing Director, even though he was not, nor had he ever been, a Director of the company. I don’t know about you, but I find a deceit executed through an impostor to be an ethically repugnant practice. It was also against Article 79B of the Company’s Articles of Association. But who’s got the dosh to follow that up, with our legal system? Then the artillery rolled in. Ashurst Morris Crisp to lay down the law on behalf of a righteously outraged client. Listen, little man. We know our rights and you’d better watch your step. The sheer indignation of their client shone through (especially annoying was my letter to yourself of 27 May 1994). I never knew a legal fiction felt such emotions. The “client” of course is a limited liability company, not a citizen. Worse, it receives a tax subsidy in this matter, while I get nothing. And the client is certainly not a Director! How could any Director, a party to the pledge cited above, risk that in his own name? All very interesting, no doubt, but what has that got to do with yourself? There is, I think, a public interest in this affair. Lord Clive Hollick is Managing Director of MAI and a Director of Anglia Television Group plc since 14 April 1994. Lord Hollick takes the Labour whip in the Lords – indeed is that relative rarity in modern times, a Labour appointed peer. Lord Hollick is a Legislator for life at the age of 49, courtesy of the Labour Party. It is in the interests of good governance that you have the maximum insight into the character and judgement of potential Ministers of the Crown. Ashurst Morris Crisp’s client cannot see how this sort of thing must compromise both leader and the Movement as a whole. Yourself, a man of Christianity and the Law. The Party, the child born of ceaseless endeavours of those who labour for their keep. Neither can associate. All in the expectation of saving perhaps fifty thousand pounds. By breeding I’m Irish working class, by instinct liberal. I wish you well in your victory and like all thinking members of the electorate will follow developments with interest. I will not further trouble your office. This message is my final act prior to handing over to my litigator to get proceedings for breach underway. Yours sincerely, John Cleary<hr></blockquote> In the near twelve years since I wrote I must have sent out many more than a thousand copies of this letter, in many more than a thousand different envelopes, to exactly those people who will now claim they were misled by Blair. Victims themselves, don't you see? And those associated with the Labour Party will know this is true, because they will know Katherine MacDonald.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 11:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr><div style="text-align:center">HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON SW1A 0AA</div> The Office of the Leader of The Opposition Mr J Cleary Meixia Fakenham Great Ryburgh Fakenham Norfolk NR21 7AG 30th July 1994 Dear Mr Cleary I am writing on behalf of the Right Hon Tony Blair MP to thank you for your recent letter. It is Parliamentary convention, however, that one Member of Parliament does not take up the case of another Member. I must therefore advise you to contact your own Member of Parliament in relation to this issue. <div style="text-align:center">Yours sincerely, Katherine McDonald Assistant to Mr Blair</div><hr></blockquote>

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:16 am

They are squealing like stuck pigs. Of COURSE there was no deal, explicit or implicit... Mr Blair is an HONEST man. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>11.15am -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Labour lender: there was no deal Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Tuesday March 21, 2006 One of Labour's 12 secret lenders today insisted there was no "explicit or implicit" deal to reward him with a peerage, as the Labour party's governing council met this morning to quiz the prime minister about the "loans for lordships" affair. Dr Chai Patel, who gave the party a £1.5m loan which he admits could have been turned into a donation, admitted however he wanted "to serve" in the upper chamber. Meanwhile, another of the 12 millionaire businessmen who lent money to the party, Sir Gulam Noon, today asked for his nomination for a peerage to be withdrawn. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Labour's national executive council is meeting this morning to receive a report from party treasurer and whistleblower Jack Dromey into the loans - which were only known to a small clique within Downing Street. Mr Blair is attending the meeting, which is expected to last until after lunch. Following a week of intense political pressure Labour last night finally published its "rich list" of 12 businessmen who bankrolled the party's election campaign with loans totalling almost £14m. The row was sparked by Mr Dromey's dramatic disclosure that he had only learned of the loans from media reports amid claims that Labour backers were being rewarded with peerages. It later emerged that the deputy PM, John Prescott, and the chancellor, Gordon Brown, had also been kept in the dark. Although not all 12 donors are speaking to the media, this morning Dr Patel spoke to the BBC and revealed that Lord Levy, Mr Blair's fundraiser, had asked him to make the £1.5m a loan rather than a donation, as had previously been agreed. But he insisted there was "absolutely" no suggestion that he would be rewarded with a peerage. "I was told that [a loan] would be the preferred way to do it. And the reasons that have now been articulated are that a loan is not disclosable." "It is always attractive if you want to give not always to have that necessarily disclosed." "At no time has there been either an implicit or explicit conversation about any form of reward associated with this." Dr Patel said he was upset by the suggestion of a link between loans and peerages and that people had ignored his record of public service. He added: "I feel very hurt. Where I have arrived is somewhere I wanted to be, which is to serve in public life. I see the second chamber as a legislative chamber, as a very serious place to be an unelected legislature. "A politician is a serious responsibility. I believe I could have made a difference. I happen to voluntarily contribute some of the money I have towards a party I happen to believe in. "Instead of having any acknowledgement for that, I have been dragged down into a two-dimensional person where I've somehow got money and I want to buy myself a bauble. That doesn't seem like a fair way to be treated." The issue of loans is highly controversial as - unlike donations - they do not have to declared under existing law, as long as a commercial rate of interest is charged. In response to the crisis. the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, yesterday announced plans to require all future loans to the parties to be declared publicly through an amendment to the electoral administration bill - which is currently going through parliament. Simultaneously, the Tory leader, David Cameron, issued his own proposals, calling for parties to be allowed to borrow only from commercial institutions like banks and for a £50,000 limit on donations. But the Conservatives' finances are also coming under the spotlight, after officials refused to reveal the identities of the wealthy supporters who lent them money to fight the election. The Tory party treasurer, Jonathan Marland, said last night that he saw no reason to follow Labour's example and publish the names of individual lenders. "Labour are in a very big hole, of course. We are not in the same hole," he told BBC2's Newsnight. "They are embroiled in a serious mess relating to promises they have given to people who have lent them money. "We are not in this mess because we are not in power. We don't have patronage to give and we are not in the same position." However, today the shadow attorney general, Dominic Grieve, contradicted that, calling on his own party to disclose its lenders. He told the Today programme: "I hope very much that my party will be in a position to do that. We clearly have a duty to our lenders. But, in my view, transparency is absolutely essential." Lord Soley, former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, said the row had been hugely damaging. "It has damaged our prime minister, it has damaged the party, it has damaged the government and it is very damaging to the political process.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1735985,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/f...85,00.html</a> Turn to William Rees-Mogg in The Times <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This dishonourable affair William Rees-Mogg Sleaze and deceit will hasten Blair's exit. Now expect a surprise general election in the autumn  IN BRITAIN, the Prime Minister is not above the law, particularly in awarding honours. The law of the sale of honours is largely contained in two statutes, the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, 1925 and the broader Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889. The 1925 Act concentrates on corrupt procurement. “Any person who accepts or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or another the grant of a dignity or title of honour is guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable on conviction to imprisonment for two years or a fine of £500 or both.” The 1925 Act was a response to the scandal of the Lloyd George peerages and the activities of his agent Maundy Gregory. The 1889 Act covers both the corrupt procurement and award of honours. “Every person who corruptly solicits any gift, loan, fee, reward or advantage . . . and every person who shall with the like object corruptly give, promise, or offer any gift, loan, fee, reward or advantage to any person . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.” The Act states that “advantage” “includes any office or dignity”. It is illegal either to offer money in return for an honour or to offer an honour in return for money. The penalty under the 1889 Act is also imprisonment for two years, or a fine of £500. In addition anyone convicted under the 1889 Act is “liable to be adjudged incapable or holding any public office for seven years”. On a second conviction, this disbarment is “forever”. Both of these Acts are still in force. Widespread allegations have been made that the Prime Minister has been selling peerages; in particular, four wealthy businessmen gave the Labour Party loans totalling £4.75 million. They were subsequently nominated for awards. All four have been blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. These nominations are suspicious: the question is whether the nominations and the loans were linked; would one have happened without the other? Every effort was made to conceal these transactions. The money was paid in the form of non-reportable loans to the Labour Party, not as reportable gifts. Senior Labour figures were not told about the loans, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the treasurer of the party. An even more scandalous allegation is that in one case an assurance that the candidate for an honour had no financial connection with the party was sent to the commission. This was not true. It was signed by the party chairman, who was gravely ill in hospital; he had not been told that the assurance might be misleading. The combination of concealment and apparent deceit cries out for inquiry.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-2094231,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...31,00.html</a> He's been found out, just like Matthew Parris said.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:38 pm

The thieves are starting to turn on one another. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>6pm update -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarke turns on Labour treasurer Oliver King and Matthew Tempest Tuesday March 21, 2006 Labour's troubles deepened seriously tonight after Charles Clarke publicly questioned the competence of Jack Dromey following the party treasurer's decision to talk about Tony Blair's role in the "cash for lordships" affair. The home secretary's attack on his party colleague came as Scotland Yard announced it was investigating three complaints that the Labour party had broken the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act by selling peerages. In a scathing putdown of Mr Dromey, Mr Clarke told a group of female journalists at lunchtime that the fact that the treasurer did not know about the £14m in loans to the party meant, "you have to wonder how well he was doing his work". "Any competent treasurer looks at the funds and finances of the organization they are treasurer of," Mr Clarke said adding that Mr Dromey's claim to have been kept in the dark by Downing Street, "raises serious questions about Jack's capacity as treasurer". However Mr Clarke said the idea that Mr Dromey's public outburst about being kept in the dark being part of a "clever plot" by Gordon Brown was "complete nonsense". Police to investigate The sign of internal Labour bitterness about came as a Scottish Nationalist MP, Angus MacNeil, revealed that he had asked the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, to investigate why every donor who had given Labour £1m had been nominated for a peerage or a knighthood. Ever since the 1925 act, brought in after the sale of peerages under the Lloyd George government, it has been a criminal offence to sell an honour. Scotland Yard said this afternoon that the Specialist Crime Directorate under the deputy assistant commissioner, John Yates, would investigate the three complaints received today.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1735985,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/f...85,00.html</a> I don't expect the police investigation to lead anywhere. It was John Yates behind the framing of Paul Burrell. It was John Yates who handled the De Menezes family. But the Clarke attack on Dromey is interesting. From upthread <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Downing Street conceded that the party's fundraising committee, set up by the then Labour chairman Charles Clarke in 2002, had not been told about the loans or their source since they were not deemed gifts. The committee had been set up following a gift from Richard Desmond, the owner of Express Newspapers.<hr></blockquote> I'm afraid corruption has become a way of life for the Labour Party, as it was for New Labour from the beginning, and they are throwing each other out of the lifeboat.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:49 pm

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. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Debt-pressed Labour to sell HQ By Christopher Adams and Miranda Green Published: March 21 2006 20:55 | Last updated: March 21 2006 20:55 Labour is to sell its plum Westminster headquarters and negotiate extensions to up to £14m of private loans in a desperate attempt to avoid a financial crisis. The party is understood to be close to agreeing to sell the lease on its Old Queen Street building, which it vacated last year, in a deal that could raise £6m or more. The move was discussed on Tuesday by ministers and officials on the ruling executive. It would go some way to easing the cost of servicing the party’s debt, which has swelled from the £12.1m recorded at the end of 2004. Officials at the meeting, attended by Tony Blair and ministers including Gordon Brown and John Prescott, said the prime minister took responsibility for the controversial decision to accept loans rather than donations and admitted to colleagues that it was a mistake not to have informed them. It also emerged that, in addition to the planned sale of Old Queen Street, at least one of the dozen businessmen who bankrolled last year’s election campaign has agreed to roll over a £1m loan that was due to be repaid next month. Barry Townsley, a City financier, whose loan was among the first to be made in April last year, has extended it to 2008. It is understood he did so at Labour’s request. His decision provides the party with breathing space as it begins what one official called a “structured” programme for repaying its debts. An accountant at one big auditing firm called the party’s financial position a “busted flush”. Rod Aldridge, executive chairman of Capita, and Sir Christopher Evans, the biotechnology entrepreneur, have both said they expect their £1m loans to be repaid with interest. “Some private lenders will want their loans repaid,” admitted an insider who was at the meeting. “We received assurances that procedures were in place to cope with that debt.” The meeting was supposed to draw a line under the “loans for peerages” row. Jack Dromey, party treasurer, had complained he knew nothing of the decision to take loans. However, Charles Clarke, home secretary, stoked tension at the top of the party by venting his anger at Mr Dromey’s outburst last week. He told reporters at a Westminister lunch there were “serious questions” about Mr Dromey’s capacity to do the job of treasurer but stopped short of suggesting he should quit. “You have to wonder how well he was doing his work,” he said. Police confirmed they were dealing with three complaints against the Labour party – one of them under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 was made by Angus McNeil, a Scottish National party MP<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/fb18adba-b91b-11da-b57d-0000779e2340.html">news.ft.com/cms/s/fb18adb...e2340.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>the prime minister took responsibility for the controversial decision to accept loans rather than donations<hr></blockquote> Can anybody tell me what that means? Taking responsibilty? Blair and his wife own a mansion in London worth four million pounds. She just earned thirty thousand pounds for a half-hour speaking engagement. She is a QC, which means she can turn the full force of the law against anyone she does not like. He has a place waiting in the Lords, and will be brought into the Order of the Garter at some point in the future. So what does "taking responsibility" mean, Mr and Mrs Blair? And the rest of the middle class wankers that have suffocated the party of organised labour in the years since John Smith was murdered? Wankers like Tessa Jowell, Secretary of State for Vice, and at the service of Berlusconi and the American Mafia. She's OK. She's`protected by the "Sisterhood". The Sisterhood, that cares not a jot for ordinary hard-working women, as the Brotherhood cares not a jot for hard-working men. WHEN will people get it through their heads. What repressed women in the past was not men, but the ruling class. What represses men today is not women, but the ruling class. It's like slim says. Divide and rule.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Grilling for Levy in peerages probe Press Association Thursday March 23, 2006 7:23 PM Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal fund-raiser Lord Levy is to be subjected to a televised grilling by MPs investigating allegations that Labour offered peerages in return for financial support, it has emerged. His appearance before the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) will be the first time in almost a decade that the secretive former music mogul has spoken publicly about his role in filling Labour's election warchests. One of the 12 wealthy individuals who lent Labour £14 million for last year's General Election campaign has named Levy as the man who allegedly asked him to offer the money as a loan, which would not have to be disclosed to the Electoral Commission. Priory Clinics boss Dr Chai Patel, who lent Labour £1 million, is expected to reveal more details about the circumstances behind the loan when he gives evidence to PASC on March 28, five weeks ahead of Lord Levy's May 2 grilling. Appearing alongside Dr Patel will be property developer Sir David Garrard, who lent Labour £2.3 million. Both men were nominated for peerages by Tony Blair shortly after making their loans, but were blocked by an independent vetting commission. The cross-party PASC announced last week that it was extending its ongoing inquiry into ethics and standards to cover the question of whether the scrutiny of honours and peerages for political service is working. Lord Levy may also be called to give evidence to a separate inquiry into the funding of political parties, announced by the Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee. The committee has already summoned Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Electoral Commission chairman Sam Younger to give evidence and is expected to ask fundraisers from all the main parties to submit themselves for questioning. Its inquiry will look at the possibility of increasing taxpayer funding for political parties or imposing a cap on the size of donations. Earlier, a third donor, Rod Aldridge, announced he was stepping down as chairman of the outsourcing firm Capita, because of negative publicity surrounding his £1 million loan to Labour. "There have been suggestions that this loan has resulted in the group being awarded Government contracts," he said in a statement. "This is entirely spurious." Gordon Brown has distanced himself from the "honours-for-loans" allegations. Because of his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said he made a point of having no involvement in party fund-raising, which was the responsibility of the Prime Minister. And he made clear that he believes the whole system of declarations and codes of conduct put in place by Mr Blair to clean up politics after his election in 1997 is ripe for an overhaul.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5706402,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...02,00.html</a> And it's only two weeks ago that we were being told that Gordon Brown was "Co-Prime Minister". Now he knows nothing! Just a reminder. Selling honours is illegal. It carries a two-year prison sentence.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Chancellor caught in loans row By Andrew Pierce and Rajeev Syal Capita boss gets key role in Brown's pet project days after £1m Labour aid A BUSINESSMAN who secretly lent £1 million to the Labour Party was made chairman of one of Gordon Brown’s flagship projects just weeks after handing over the money, The Times has learnt. Rod Aldridge, who resigned yesterday as executive chairman of the technology company Capita, will launch the £150 million youth community service scheme with the Chancellor in May. The timing of his appointment links Mr Brown for the first time with the “loans-for-honours” affair that has engulfed the Prime Minister. However, when asked on the Radio 4 Today programme yesterday if he was aware of the loans, Mr Brown said: “I have got to have a very clear divide between my position as Chancellor dealing with business all the time and political donations. I have never involved myself at any time in this business of political donations.” Capita, founded by Mr Aldridge, has been awarded billions of pounds of public sector contracts since Labour came to power, raising the value of the company from £100 million to £2.9 billion. Mr Aldridge’s resignation came after a commercial backlash to the disclosure that he was one of the 12 businessmen who had made loans of £14 million to the Labour Party. Three of the lenders have had their nominations for peerages blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which was not told by Downing Street about the financial links. Mr Aldridge, who has not been nominated for an honour, handed over £1 million to the Labour Party at the end of October. Weeks later he was made head of the Chancellor’s youth community service scheme, which they will launch together with Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary. The Chancellor praised the scheme in his Budget on Wednesday. It will operate in direct competition to the Conservative leader David Cameron’s proposed national volunteer scheme for young people. The scheme is seen as a defining project in Mr Brown’s expected premiership. In a new twist on the controversy The Times has learnt that Lord Levy, the Prime Minister’s personal fundraiser, faces questioning within three weeks by detectives investigating the allegation of the sale of peerages by Labour. Detectives have already written to the party and to donors requesting documents and information. Senior officers said that they were moving as quickly as possible because of the “inevitable public interest”. The row left Mr Blair even more isolated when Jack Dromey, the Labour Party treasurer and close ally of the Chancellor, revealed that he had not been told about the loans. He demanded a full inquiry by the party’s National Executive Committee. Harriet Harman, the Constitutional Affairs Minister, who is married to Mr Dromey, was abruptly withdrawn by the Labour Party from the BBC One Question Time programme last night. Chris Grayling, the Tory transport spokesman, challenged Mr Brown’s version of events. He said: “Gordon Brown has said that he did not know about the loans issue and the financial links between Mr Aldridge and the Labour Party. “Yet it now appears that Mr Aldridge has been hired to run the Chancellor’s pet project and that his company is heavily involved with another of the Chancellor’s favourite schemes — the Child Trust Fund. It beggars belief that the Chancellor knew nothing about what was happening.” A spokesman for the Chancellor rejected any suggestion of impropriety. He said: “Gordon did not know anything about the loans. He has never even met Rod Aldridge.” The spokesman said that the appointment of Mr Aldridge to run the volunteering scheme — a part-time unpaid post — had been made through an open recruitment process with an independent panel which had not involved Mr Brown. In a statement Mr Aldridge, a regular fixture at Labour’s gala fundraising dinners, said that he was resigning to “ensure the group enjoys the highest possible standing and operates with total integrity”. Mr Aldridge, whose loan will be repaid with interest in October, added: “At present the group’s reputation is being questioned because of my personal decision to lend money to the Labour Party. This was entirely my own decision as an individual, made in good faith as a longstanding supporter of the party. “There have been suggestions that this loan has resulted in the group being awarded government contracts. This is entirely spurious.” The loan will be a feature of two separate parliamentary inquiries into party funding and links to donations and honours. Capita, which manages a range of public sector projects, secured in 2004 the £430 million contract to run one of the Chancellor’s pet projects, the Child Trust Fund. Mr Brown announced an extension to the scheme in the Budget. BALANCE SHEET Oct 2005 Aldridge makes £1 million loan to Labour Nov 2005 offered post of head of the Chancellor’s youth community scheme Dec 2005 Capita records £1.4 billion annual turnover, 53 per cent from public sector contracts March 23 Aldridge stands down as Capita <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-2101164-2,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/pri...-2,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:51 pm

A carefully framed piece. Especially the "English versus Scottish is the same as male versus female" meme? Now, who might want to propagate that? Why not a female English leader? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Goodbye Prescott, hello who? Mary Ann Sieghart Labour will need a new deputy when Gordon Brown takes over - but there is no clear front-runner THE TORIES have had one, the Lib Dems have had one, and now Labour MPs and members feel rather deprived. They might not get a leadership contest at all; and even if they do, Gordon Brown will win with a margin that would impress Kim Jong Il. So all the talk at Westminster now is of why there should at least be a proper contest for deputy leader. John Prescott does not have to stand down at the same time as Tony Blair. He has suggested to friends that he might stay on for the sake of continuity. But that would be a big mistake for the party, and it is likely that either Mr Brown or Mr Blair will prevail upon him to give someone else a turn. The current Deputy Prime Minister will have had ten years or so in the job. He will be more than 70 by the time of the next election: not much help to a party taking on the youth and freshness of David Cameron. And his ability to reach the parts of the party that Mr Blair doesn’t — the trade unions, old Labour, the working-class vote — will be of much less use to Mr Brown. The Chancellor himself is so well-known to voters that he could do with a fresher, younger face as a deputy. That is the main argument against Jack Straw, who in other respects could be rather good. Mr Straw is a real House of Commons man. He would relish the schmoozing of Labour MPs that Mr Brown detests. I have watched Mr Straw campaigning in three general elections in his constituency and can attest that he is also superb at grassroots politics. He would be good at re-energising the party in the country and bringing it closer to the voters. The Foreign Secretary is English, which is a sine qua non of the next deputy. John Reid and Alistair Darling are automatically ruled out, as Labour could not be led by two Scottish men. But many women are also arguing that the perfect complement to a Scottish man would be an English woman. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-6-2100773-6,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/pri...-6,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:31 am

It's a circle-jerk. Everyone is investigating everybody else! And we've John Stevens in reserve. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The ghost of Lloyd George's bagman should haunt all party treasurers Nick Cohen Sunday March 26, 2006 The Observer The potentially explosive consequences of the Metropolitan Police's decision to investigate the sale of peerages are passing many by. The political columnist of the Independent spoke for the Westminster village last week when he wrote: 'The loans-for-peerages imbroglio' may be distasteful, but 'it will probably have little effect on the date of Tony Blair's departure'. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's supporters argued that it was time to 'move on' and have a 'serious' debate about different sources of political financing, while lobby journalists assured me that Sir Ian Blair, the chief commissioner of the Met, would never dare take on Downing Street. 'Everyone does it,' said everyone in the know, so there is no reason to get excited. Maybe. But the cynical are just as likely as the politically naïve to miss what is going on under their noses. Those who assume the fix is always in can on occasion be flummoxed by events. Perhaps an overdue bout of flummoxing is on the way, for much of what is coming out of Westminster is close to disgraceful. No one bothers to deny that Britain is the only democracy in the developed world where seats in the legislature are for sale. Not for sale indirectly - there are many countries where you can't run for election without substantial resources behind you - but openly for sale like luxury cars on a showroom forecourt which any rich buyer can take away. They don't deny it because the corruption of parliament is undeniable. The correlation between the honours lists and those who give money to Labour and the Tories or Blair's pet projects is too strong. Westminster's insouciance is perhaps forgivable because Britain has no history of police investigations into dirty money in politics. It is impossible to imagine a similar scandal in the US or Europe because they have democratic second chambers. If they didn't and George W Bush or Silvio Berlusconi were selling places in their respective senates, then a special prosecutor in the case of the US, or independent prosecutors of the sort who have so embarrassed Tessa Jowell's abandoned husband in the case of Italy, would have got to work years ago. The novelty of the present situation is that the British police are taking political corruption seriously for the first time in living memory. Angus MacNeil, the Scottish Nationalist MP whose complaint began the inquiry, is certainly impressed. He met John Yates, the deputy assistant commissioner who is heading the investigation, last week and said he did not strike him as anyone's stooge. It seemed to MacNeil that the Met has grasped a basic point that has eluded many at Westminster: the sale of honours is a crime and has been since 1925. If the police aren't going to allow themselves to be nobbled, and I've no reason to think that they are, then New Labour may be in deep trouble. Honest officers who know the law and want to enforce it tend not to let off a burglar if he protests that 'everyone does it'. Nor are they impressed by cries that 'it is time to move on'. A crime is a crime and the question becomes whether detectives can get the evidence to make the charges stand up in court. The case of Maundy Gregory, the only other political operator to be convicted of selling honours, may help them with their inquiries. Gregory was a spy and blackmailer who worked as Lloyd George's bagman. He raised £150m at today's prices for his master and made a small fortune for himself. The 1925 act was meant to stop him, but it had no effect whatsoever. Gregory had too much dirt on how Lloyd George's Liberals and their Tory allies had sold peerages to profiteers from the First World War to be caught by new laws. The fate of Victor Grayson, a brave and flamboyant Labour politician, was a warning to those who wished to challenge him. Grayson threatened to expose Gregory in 1920 when he announced: 'This sale of honours is a national scandal. It can be traced right down to 10 Downing Street and to a monocled dandy with offices in Whitehall. I know this man and one day I will name him.' Grayson disappeared soon after that. He was last seen being taken into a house owned by Gregory. His body was never found, but most historians reasonably conclude that Gregory had him murdered. What did for Gregory in the end was that he tried to corrupt an honest man. He offered Lt-Cmdr EW Billyard-Leake a knighthood for £10,000. Unlike most of the spivs who bought honours from the Lloyd George government, Billyard-Leake had served with distinction in the war. He was disgusted and turned Gregory in. Perhaps I am the one who is being naïve, but if the modern equivalents of Billyard-Leake are out there, then New Labour may not be as in control of events as Westminster believes and the ghost of Victor Grayson may yet enjoy a belated vindication as it watches on from an unmarked grave.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1739936,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/p...36,00.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>'A senior police officer was called at the Lord's Test match and told: you have shot the shot the wrong guy' By Ben Leapman, Home Affairs Correspondent (Filed: 26/03/2006) A senior Scotland Yard officer was allegedly telephoned at the Ashes Test match at Lord's to be told that police had just shot dead an innocent man in the aftermath of the failed 21/7 terrorist bombings, according to documents seen by the Sunday Telegraph. Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates was said to have been told on Friday, July 22 - within hours of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in London - that the Brazilian man had no connection with terrorism. John Yates was on leave at the Ashes Test match If the account is true, it increases the pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the embattled Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who insists that he did not know until the following day - Saturday, July 23 - that the wrong man had been shot. At the centre of the row is the controversial officer Brian Paddick, also a deputy assistant commissioner at the Met. Internal force documents describe how Mr Paddick said to a broadcast journalist last month: "An officer of the same rank as me was rung off-duty at the cricket match and told, 'You have shot the wrong guy'." Now facing an investigation into alleged unauthorised disclosure of confidential information, Mr Paddick insists he was merely passing on a rumour, not stating fact. But the row over events following the de Menezes shooting, focusing on who knew what and when, threatens to tear Scotland Yard apart and undermine Sir Ian's leadership irreparably. He stands to lose his job if an inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission finds that he knew the same day that the wrong man had been killed. Yesterday, Scotland Yard confirmed that a senior officer had attended day two of the England v Australia match on Friday, July 22 and named him as Mr Yates, of the Met's specialist crime directorate. He was on leave, despite the terrorist emergency. Mr Yates, 48, is regarded as a rising star of Scotland Yard. His previous role on the Met's SCD6 team - dubbed the Celebrity Squad, for its investigations into the rich and famous - pitched him into high profile cases, including briefing the Royal Family on the prosecution of Paul Burrell, the former butler of Diana, Princess of Wales. A Met spokesman said that Mr Yates, who has visited the de Menezes family in Brazil, had testified to the IPCC that he was unaware on the Friday that the man shot at Stockwell had been innocent. However, the documents show that Mr Paddick still suspects that senior Met officers knew on Friday that the mistake had been made. Mr Paddick, 47, Britain's most senior openly gay police officer, sprang to prominence when, as borough commander for Lambeth, he pioneered a "softly-softly" approach to cannabis that became a blueprint for national policy. It marked him out as a rising star, but it also made him enemies. Now in charge of the Met's territorial policing division, he stood alongside Sir Ian after the July 7 bombings to appeal for calm. Two weeks later came the failed bombing attempt of July 21. Police marksmen hunting the failed bombers followed Mr de Menezes, 27, and shot him dead at about 10am on July 22. That afternoon at 4pm, Sir Ian told the media that the shooting was "directly linked" to the anti-terrorist operation. However, the following day at 5pm, Scotland Yard admitted that its officers had made a terrible mistake. After a complaint from the de Menezes family, the IPCC - already investigating the shooting - opened a separate inquiry into the commissioner's conduct. According to the documents, Mr Paddick was telephoned by a journalist on St Valentine's Day this year while on duty. Snippets of the conversation were overheard by a junior colleague who, fearing that rules had been broken, reported the matter to the Met's internal affairs division. During the conversation on his mobile phone, Mr Paddick let slip two key pieces of information that could land him, as well as his boss, in trouble. He revealed for the first time that he had recently made a statement to the IPCC's inquiry into the commissioner's conduct. And, without naming Mr Yates, he gave an account of the alleged call to the cricket match. It was not until March 16 that the public learnt that Mr Paddick had given evidence to the IPCC. The news emerged when the BBC home affairs correspondent, Margaret Gilmore, told viewers that an unnamed senior Met officer had told investigators that a member of staff in the commissioner's private office believed that the wrong man had been killed within six hours of the shooting. Later, it was suggested that Mr Paddick had given the IPCC the names of two senior officers who were said to have known on the day. Both are understood to have been called before the IPCC: one denied the charge while the other gave equivocal evidence. The response from Scotland Yard was swift and brutal: "We are satisfied that whatever the reasons for this suggestion being made, it is simply not true." The rebuttal was so damning that Mr Paddick went to his lawyers to discuss the possibility of suing his employer for libel. In a statement defending the charge of making an unauthorised disclosure, Mr Paddick does not claim he was misquoted but maintains his only mistake was in being too open with the journalist. He defends his decision to pass on the cricket match information by describing it as a "rumour", of which some in the media were already aware, in order to deflect the journalist away from the content of his statement to the IPCC. "I should perhaps have merely stated that I was unaware that any other senior officers knew on the Friday - but this was untrue." Scotland Yard said of the cricket allegation: "John Yates made a statement to the IPCC making it clear that he did not know an innocent person had been shot at Stockwell Tube station on that day."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4SS4CY3B1G0YPQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/03/26/nmenez26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/26/ixnewstop.html">www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...wstop.html</a> So Brian Paddick asserts it, John Yates denies it, and the third man "gave equivocal evidence". And John Yates is in charge of an investigation into the prime minister?

by **antiaristo** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:31 pm

I thought this interesting, from the Guardian blog. I'm not the only one who knows what is going on in Britain. However bad you feel the United States at this juncture, the British have it worse. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>EmperorofIceCream March 27, 2006 03:33 PM Richmond/usa My... such high high-sounding words, such impressive sentiments. And all from the mouth of a man who blatantly lied to Parliament, who led Britain to war on the basis of information barely creditable at the time and now utterly discredited. Such noble thoughts, uttered by a liar, a hypocrite, a deceitful fraud. And he wonders why there are some in the world who fear that the politicians of the West are opportunists who seek their own advantage at every turn. I am 46 years old and a subject of the British Crown (though that, thankfully, will shortly change when I become an American citizen - at which point I will burn my British passport and have nothing futher to do with that reprehensible little island on the skirts of Europe) and until the election that brought New Labour to power for a second term I had voted unfailingly in every general election held since I had gained the vote. The detestable betrayal of every principle formerly held dear by the Labour Party so disgusted and appalled me that I refused to participate in any election held from that date on because I would not so shame and diminish the sacrifice of those who fought, suffered and died to enfranchise me by legitimating the vile treachery of Blair and his partners in deceit. However, I take comfort from the fact that, once defeated, 'New Labour' will never again win another term. Blair will have his legacy, but I doubt it's one that he will take much pride in: the discrediting of Labour, and the memory of blood shed in the name of his lies. God rot him, and all his kind. [<hr></blockquote>

by **madeupname452** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:37 am

life for the subjects of QE2 <a href="http://money.guardian.co.uk/news_/story/0,,1741079,00.html">money.guardian.co.uk/news...79,00.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>An official government study into Britain's personal finances reveals a lost generation of 18- to 40-year-olds unable to cope with debts and soaring house prices, with alarmingly low levels of savings and little hope of building a decent pension. The study, by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Bristol University, published today, is the biggest of its kind undertaken in Britain. It paints a picture of a generational divide fuelled by higher education costs and the collapse of company pension schemes - with 42% of adults now with no pension and 70% with no meaningful savings. <hr></blockquote>

by **slimmouse** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:50 am

Last time I was in the USA was 2004. What blew my mind was the waiters, cleaners etc who should have been long retired, but simply couldnt afford to, principally due to healthcare costs. I wonder how many healthcare plans the mega rich could fund ? Sceneshifter was banned recently, and I can understand jeffs logic there. But his/her ( albeit ) repetetive diatribe did at least make me think

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:52 am

The myth of parliamentary sovereignty comes in useful on occasions, like when the Law Lords want an excuse not to consider the legality of the Treason Felony Act. But at other times it gets short shift, also when convenient. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Police halt Commons inquiry into Levy By Colin Brown Published: 28 March 2006 A Commons committee took the unprecedented step last night of postponing taking evidence from Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy and two millionaire backers of the party to allow the Metropolitan Police to carry out criminal investigations. Chai Patel, the head of the Priory rehab clinics and Sir David Garrard, former director of Minerva property development company, who gave loans to Labour before the election were both due to give evidence today to the Commons select committee on public administration. But the committee chairman, Labour MP Tony Wright said that after an appeal to the committee by deputy assistant commissioner John Yates of the Metropolitan Police special crime directorate, the MPs had agreed to postpone the hearing. Mr Yates asked the committee not to risk undermining the police investigation into allegations that the Prime Minister sold peerages for cash. Lord Levy could be a crucial witness, if any criminal case is made against Mr Blair or senior Labour officials. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Dr Patel or Sir David but the Met team were worried that evidence given could conflict with any criminal case.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article354079.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...354079.ece</a> Why should there be any conflict at all? Presumably they will say the same to the police as to the select committee. The difference, of course, is that the select committee takes evidence in public. The rest of us get to hear what the witness says, BEFORE the police have a chance to doctor the evidence. And there is no doubt that the police WILL doctor the evidence. John Yates was responsible for the lies told to Prince William about Paul Burrell. Burrell had been a replacement father to William. His biological father (Prince Charles) wanted William to press charges for theft. So John Yates sent in DI Maxine de Brunner to lie to the faces of William and Charles (who of course knew it was all lies) and to tell them that the police could PROVE Paul Burrell was a thief. William (reluctantly) pressed charges, and so ended his relationship with the only father he ever had. John Yates was also in charge of the Menezes case. We know that he has lied about that as well (see upthread) and is under investigation for his own actions. Now if I know all this, living in the Canary Islands, don't you think Doctor Tony Wright, Chairman of the PASC, knows it as well? Parliamentary sovereignty? They bend over for the Queen EVERY TIME. slim, we're going back to the age of the Robber Barons. Soon there will be no safety nets at all.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:54 pm

WOW! Wednesday front page! Is this a direct response to what I wrote yesterday? It certainly sounds as though something has stung this select committee. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Detectives to probe Tory loans as honours inquiry widens Rosie Cowan and David Hencke Wednesday March 29, 2006 The Guardian Scotland Yard will broaden its "loans for peerages" investigation to cover the Conservative party as well as Labour, the Guardian has learned. The Metropolitan police team, led by the deputy assistant commissioner John Yates, has already requested documents and emails from Downing Street, the Cabinet Office and the House of Lords Appointments Commission. But the range of the inquiry means that the Conservative party's loan arrangements will also have to be investigated. Tory sources admitted yesterday that the total amount raised by the party last year in loans was £24m, and it is understood the party's high command has privately asked the contributors to go public. Scotland Yard has refused to say which figures the detectives intend to interview as the inquiry unfolds, but it will not rule out speaking to Tony Blair. Westminster sources believe they will almost certainly speak to Lord Levy, the prime minister's chief fundraiser, and key players, such as the party chairman, Ian McCartney. The MPs who made the initial complaint about Labour and loans met Mr Yates and his team of six at Scotland Yard yesterday to discuss the inquiry and to hand over a dossier fleshing out concerns. After the meeting the Scottish Nationalist MP Angus MacNeil said: "The police are interested in crime. They are not interested in which party committed it ... After meeting people at Scotland Yard I would say anyone who has been involved in the selling of peerages should be shaking in their shoes." Mr MacNeil said he had been told the Tories would also be investigated. A letter from Scotland Yard to the Public Administration Committee, which is also investigating Labour's loans, revealed that the Met had not ruled out pursuing charges of corruption. "Whilst it may be too early for us to widen our investigation into the arena of corruption, I certainly have not ruled this out," wrote Mr Yates. "I have indicated to you that many of the individuals that you wished to hear evidence from may be the very people that could be central to our criminal inquiry, either as witnesses or suspects." Mr Yates has urged the committee to stall its inquiry. "My concerns were that your scrutiny could be viewed as an abuse of process in terms of fairness in any future potential criminal trial," the letter explains. "I have consulted closely with senior lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service about this matter. They share my concerns and are happy for them to be articulated in this letter." The Labour chairman of the committee, Tony Wright, insisted yesterday that his inquiry would continue regardless. "There is no question that we shall proceed with the inquiry," he said. "In fact we shall widen it and call more people and we are prepared to summon people if they decline to attend in future". The committee took legal advice from the Speaker's counsel, John Vaux, which showed that Parliament could decide to overrule the request from the Metropolitan Police unless arrests were imminent. Peter Grant Peterkin, the Sergeant at Arms, was also asked to arrest and bring any person before the committee who refused to cooperate with the investigation. Four Labour donors who were nominated for peerages and one Tory donor, Robert Edmiston, are to be summoned to appear. Lord Levy, Jonathan Marland, the Tory Party treasurer, and Lord Razzell, the Liberal Democrat treasurer, will also be asked to appear.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1741801,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/frontp...01,00.html</a> I don't trust the police. They have no duty to me or any member of the general public. Only to the Crown (ie the Windsor family). THAT IS THE LAW. That's why Yates's team behaved as they did during the Burrell affair. They were suborned by the Prince of Wales. But Parliament is different. Though their oath is to the Windsor family (Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors), they are appointed by the people. There is a conflict. Even more, there is a principle. This is the most powerful of the select committees. This could be a last chance for democracy. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 3/28/06 6:57 pm

by **slimmouse** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> WOW! Wednesday front page! Is this a direct response to what I wrote yesterday? It certainly sounds as though something has stung this select committee. <hr></blockquote> Ask them to extend the all party investigation back to 1990. Thats when it gets really interesting. That is what my recent channeling tells me. What have you done today to make you feel proud ?

The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

Katherine McDonald

Honest! There was no crime, guv.

Thieves Falling Out

The Destruction of the Labour Party

Another Vampire

Oops! Perhaps Gordon is Not so Clean?

BYE BYE TWO JAGS PRESCOTT

This is Getting Ridiculous

Another Refugee

Re: the other side of the coin...

Re: last time I was in the USA...

Protecting Vampires

Re: Protecting Vampires

Ask them to go back 10 more years.

Who is online