The Return of the Vampire of Finance

by **madeupname452** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:22 pm

<a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1753195,00.html">politics.guardian.co.uk/f...95,00.html</a> Last Friday the prime minister's former communications director, Alastair Campbell, pre-emptively dismissed the police investigation into the "loans-for-honours" affair as a "passing political hoo-ha". He also dismissed the MP who made the complaint, Scottish Nationalist Angus McNeil, as a "political opportunist". Today Mr McNeil said he was glad action was being taken. "At the moment there's a nod and a wink going on and this has been happening for quite a while and I'm glad Scotland Yard are acting the way they are," he told Sky News. ... A separate Electoral Commission investigation has been put on hold while the Met Police investigation is underway. The arrest by the specialist crime directorate appears to undermine Labour's claim, unveiled in a secret briefing obtained by Guardian Unlimited last week, that "nothing will flow" from the police investigation. The investigation is being led by the Met's deputy assistant commissioner, John Yates, who has said he is prepared to widen the investigation to consider more general allegations of corruption.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:49 pm

Funny you should post that, 452. I'd just read it myself. Message: This is what will happen to anybody that opens their mouth. Angus McNeill is an idiot. Blair, Levy and Carter were the ones who knew. Yates won't go near that. He now has his scapegoat. A scapegoat that knew what was going on. But cannot prove a thing. If McNeill and Elfyn Llwyd think that putting this poor guy behind bars will "clean up politics" they are even more stupid than I thought. If Yates is serious he will go straight for the loan agreements. Why is he even bothering with this little guy? Added on edit "Mr Smith resigned in January" "At the time, he told the Guardian: "I have been shattered by this experience. I was naive. I shouldn't have said what I did. I'm desperately sorry." "A separate Electoral Commission investigation has been put on hold while the Met Police investigation is underway" Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 4/13/06 2:15 pm

by **antiaristo** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:09 pm

Elfyn Llwyd is another insider. He is playing his assigned role. Which suggests that Angus McNeill is not an idiot, but a traitor. <div style="text-align:center">C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Spain 23 January 2004</div> Elfyn Llwyd MP Bob Marshall Andrews QC MP Douglas Hogg QC MP Lembit Opik MP Alan Simpson MP Gentlemen, An all-party group on war and the royal prerogative, at last. Well done. But don’t you think it remarkable that a “sovereign” parliament has taken so little interest up to now in this power to declare war? As things stand both the United Nations veto and the nuclear bomb are “in the hands of the prime minister”. But given that he has sworn to obey the Queen at all times, that those powers are personal to the Sovereign, and that he was ultra-vires throughout the first three years of his mandate, it is quite obvious who is really in control. A 77-year-old lunatic with a profound distaste for humanity. So it is not at all surprising that the United Kingdom is throwing its weight around in the world, spewing out depleted uranium to all corners, decimating blameless and defenceless peoples. This is what monarchs do when the people are weak. The question is whether or not parliament can impose the will of the people over the Freemasons, and stop all this madness. All you have to do is to repeal the Treason Felony Act of 1848. Follow the Law Lords’ advice and get rid of this obscenity, which makes a mockery of each and every one of the articles contained in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. The “royal prerogative” is nothing more than Disraeli’s clever misnomer for the Treason Felony Act. What parliament giveth, parliament can taketh away Repeal this crappy law and parliament will recover its sovereignty, its power to declare war, its ability to hold the Executive to account, and its self-respect. And do it now, before they have the chance to create another queen. <div style="text-align:center">Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA</div> cc Dr Tony Wright MP, Chairman Public Accounts Select Committee. enc Cleary to Annan 26 August 2002 Cleary to Mrs Kelly 20 August 2003 Cleary to Stevens 12 January 2004 Cleary to Windsor 15 January 2004 Cleary to Falconer 18 June 2003 Falconer to Cleary 1 July 2003

by **antiaristo** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 12:58 pm

Well, they've got Mr Big. You can see he is the brains behind the operation. The man is a headmaster, at an ordinary school. He deals with ordinary people like students and teachers and mums and dads every day. He is due to retire this year. He got "stung" by Rupert Murdoch in January. "At the time, he told the Guardian: "I have been shattered by this experience. I was naive. I shouldn't have said what I did. I'm desperately sorry." This has been plastered all over the British newspapers today. On Google News UK it is the second ranking UK story. This is the sum and total effort of Yates of the Yard. Yates and his "elite team" have so far managed to read a three-month old newpaper. Have they spoken to Tony? No. Have they spoken to Lord Levy yet? No. Have they spoken to the two party treasurers, and had sight of the loan agreements yet? No. Have they determined for themselves the true nature of the 13.95 million pounds raised secretly from wealthy supporters, some of whom were put forward for peerages (Lordships and legislators)? Somehow, I doubt it. Yates has been given exclusive jurisdiction over this whole matter. And this is the sum and total of his achievements. Des Smith. You might as well call him Barry George. This investigation is following the exact same parameters as the search for the killer of Jill Dando. They are looking everywhere EXEPT where the evidence is known to exist. With Jill Dando, the killer they were protecting was Jeffrey Archer. With this Yates investigation, the crook they are protecting is Tony Blair. One Conservative politician, one New Labour politician. Queen Elizabeth and her transcendental protection racket.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:11 am

Now I see why they have gone after poor old Des Smith. They are trying to take the focus away from secret funding of the Labour Party, which is illegal, and put it onto private funding of schools, which is not illegal. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>No 10 admits link between school donors and peerages Blair wanted greater political support in House of Lords for his controversial education policy Gaby Hinsliff, Ned Temko and Anushka Asthana Sunday April 16, 2006 The Observer Two donors to Tony Blair's flagship education policy project were nominated for peerages because of their support for academy schools, Downing Street admitted yesterday for the first time. In what will be seen as a clear link between peerages and donations, Number 10's 'citations' explaining the case for putting Sir David Garrard and Barry Townsley in the House of Lords 'prominently' featured their role in helping these inner city schools. Downing Street sources said the Prime Minister wanted their political support in the Lords for the controversial policy. The sources added that Blair felt that anyone who gave their time, commitment and money to establish an academy - to help children in previously failing schools - 'had a strong claim to be considered for an honour'. Garrard gave £2.4m for an academy in Bexley, south London. Townsley gave £1.5m for another in west London. Both men's nominations were blocked earlier this year by the independent body that vets honours nominations. A senior Downing Street source said: 'People are saying: "Is it the case that people like Garrard and Townsley had the fact that they had worked with some academies as part of their citation?"The answer is very much, "Yes it was". 'What we wanted was people with expertise in academies as working peers, taking the Labour whip, who could actively contribute with a massive amount of knowledge to the debate on education in the House of Lords.' Peers will soon legislate on controversial school reforms closely modelled on the academies. Both men had other claims to elevation, such as charitable work, but their academy involvement was 'certainly a prominent element' in the citations signed off by Blair, a Downing Street source said. He insisted the Prime Minister was entitled to select as political working peers those he wanted on Labour's side in such votes. Aides insist the row is based on suggestions Number 10 was trying to ennoble donors secretly when in fact the academy link was openly in the citations, adding that this would not stop academy sponsors being nominated for the Lords in future. But in an escalation of political pressure over 'cash for honours' allegations, the former anti-sleaze MP Martin Bell called on Blair to suspend all nominations to the Lords until the controversy was cleared up. Bell said in a letter to Downing Street: 'I was elected in the 1997 because of public revulsion against the corruption afflicting the previous Conservative administration. What is happening now is substantially worse.' Last night, newly published extracts of a tape-recorded conversation between a Sunday Times reporter and headteacher Des Smith - a former academies adviser caught in a sting saying sponsors could expect honours - said Smith had cited Blair's ally David Miliband as worth approaching for 'a knighthood.' But the newspaper added that the cabinet minister was confident he could show 'he has never nominated anyone connected to city academies' for an honour. After Smith was arrested, questioned and bailed by police last week, the 'peerages for sale' row switched from people who secretly lent money to Labour - as both Garrard and Townsley did - to those making donations to to academy schools. Downing Street's acknowledgment yesterday that the academy donors were put forward for peerages partly because of their school roles drew criticism from a leading Liberal Democrat MP. 'It does point to a potential link,' said Norman Lamb, the chief of staff to party leader Sir Menzies Campbell. 'We shouldn't get to the point where genuine charitable good works should be a barrier to advancement. But we end up with an appearance that people get preferment as a result of paying a certain sum for a Labour government objective,' Lamb said.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1754881,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/p...81,00.html</a> What was secret was the illegal funding of the Labour Party campaign in the General Election. Barry Townsley gave a million pounds. Sir David Garrard gave 2.3 million pounds. We have been told these were "commercial loans". But the burden of proof is on Blair to prove this money was loaned commercially. All he has to do is to produce the signed and dated loan agrrements. But he cannot do it. Why not? Anyway, I used to have some repect for Norman Lamb MP, of the Liberal Democrats. Why is he trying to confuse the public and get Blair off the hook? "Donations" can mean two things. Donations to schools, which is perfectly legal. Donations to political parties, which are illegal UNLESS DECLARED. Why are the Liberal Democrats trying to conflate the two? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 4/16/06 7:14 am

by **antiaristo** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:06 am

Brian Paddick made a mistake. He believed the truth was important. So he told the investigators (the IIPC) what happened on the afternoon of July 22. The day they shot Jean Charles de Menezes. That Scotland Yard had made contact with John Yates at the cricket international - the Test Match. And told him they had shot the wrong man. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Shooting inquiry witness on a collision course · Senior officer's move seen as punishment for 'leak' · Claims and rumours leave poisonous mood at Met Vikram Dodd Tuesday April 18, 2006 The Guardian Ever since the shooting dead of an innocent man who was mistaken for a terrorist, Brian Paddick has been on a collision course with the leadership of his own force. Soon after the police killing of Jean Charles de Menezes on July 22 2005, persistent allegations surfaced from within the Metropolitan police that senior officers feared within hours that the wrong man had been killed. Within police circles, the name of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick kept coming up as someone who might have information challenging the assertion by his boss, Sir Ian Blair, that the force was unaware for 24 hours of its fatal blunder. Investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission interviewed a series of senior officers, including Mr Paddick, about what they knew, and when. Some inside the force see the decision by Met bosses to try and move Mr Paddick from his job in territorial policing as punishment for his testimony to the investigation. One senior officer said: "This is retaliation for his statement to the IPCC." Other senior colleagues will dismiss any linkage. Another possibility is that any move from his post could be linked to an allegation that Mr Paddick leaked information to a BBC journalist concerning the shooting at Stockwell tube station of Mr De Menezes. The alleged conversation was overheard by somebody else in the room, and now the Metropolitan police authority is considering what to do. Mr Paddick is understood to deny the allegation. Mr Paddick is understood to be unhappy at the proposals to move him from his job and some in the force characterise it as a clear signal that he is unlikely to advance any further. The IPCC is investigating Sir Ian's role in the aftermath of the shooting after the De Menezes family alleged the commissioner and his force put out false information. Mr Paddick told investigators in a sworn witness statement that hours after the shooting staff in Sir Ian's office suspected an innocent man had been killed. When the allegation first surfaced it was rubbished by the force, leading Mr Paddick to threaten to sue his own force for libel. Officers who give information to the IPCC may gain protection from any reprisal from laws designed to protect whistleblowers. The Guardian understands several sources have told the inquiry of fears among senior officers that the wrong man had been shot. Other senior officers remain convinced Sir Ian's statements are accurate and that he will be exonerated. Over the weekend a second senior officer was named as having told the IPCC that planning was under way within hours to cope with the fallout of having killed an innocent man. Assistant Commissioner Robert Beckley of Hertfordshire police was visiting the Yard on July 22, in his role as a counterterrorism expert with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The mood among senior officers at Scotland Yard has been poisonous at times in recent months. Last week Sir Ian Blair sent an internal message to staff condemning negative leaks about the force. It has been leaked to the Guardian. In the message Sir Ian, who has faced a firestorm of criticism since becoming commissioner last year, said the press coverage about him and the force was "distracting" and added: "I will have no truck with those colleagues, senior or junior, who choose to brief negatively. The reason for my concern is not just personal, it's distracting you from your jobs and your excellent achievement." Mr Paddick was the face of the force at press conferences immediately after the July 7 terror attacks on London. He became a hate figure for the right after running a pilot scheme in south London where people caught with small amounts of cannabis were cautioned rather than arrested, to give police time to tackle more dangerous drugs. He is also an openly gay officer with the highest profile in a service that has been plagued by homophobia. Gareth Peirce, solicitor for the De Menezes family, said of the latest developments: "What does it convey in terms of the family being able to arrive at the truth. It creates a picture of incompetence, lack of professionalism and lack of coherence at every level within the Met." An IPCC spokeswoman said its investigation was expected to have been concluded by next month. A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "Discussions regarding senior officer postings are always ongoing between the director of human resources and the officers themselves." Career controversy 1976 Joins the Metropolitan police 2001 Appointed borough commander in Lambeth, south London. Pioneers pilot scheme whereby those caught with small amounts of cannabis are cautioned instead of being arrested. The aim is to free up police time to concentrate on class A drugs 2001 Attracts controversy after going on to an anarchist website and saying how he finds anarchism attractive. Tabloids dub him "Commander Crackpot" 2002 A former partner claims he smoked cannabis in front of Paddick. An investigation clears the officer, but not before he is moved from Lambeth to a desk job. Paddick successfully sues Associated Newspapers for damages for libel over the allegations. Lambeth residents campaign for Paddick's return 2003 Becomes acting deputy assistant commissioner, responsible for territorial policing; later gains the promotion full-time July 2005 Is the public face of the Met as terrorists attack London, fronting several press conferences March 2006 Named as making statement to IPCC that questions claims by his boss, Sir Ian Blair, about the Stockwell shooting April 2006 Told he will be moved from his job<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/menezes/story/0,,1755748,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/meneze...48,00.html</a>

by **antiaristo** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:32 pm

This is all VERY cosy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Times Online April 24, 2006 Labour and Tories paid their election gurus £1 million By Philippe Naughton An American election strategist recommended by Bill Clinton cost the Labour Party more than half a million pounds during the last election campaign, while the Tories spent £62,000 on taxis and more than £3,000 on Michael Howard's make-up. Detailed expenses unveiled today for the first time by the Electoral Commission showed why both Labour and the Conservatives were pressing their supporters to dig deep to pay for last year's general election campaign - no expense was spared in the battle for the heart and minds of voters. Labour spent almost £17,939,617 on its push for a third straight election win, including more than £2 million on "overheads and general administration" and a similar amount on transport. The Conservatives, eager to avoid an electoral wipe-out, spent £17,852,240 - including more than £8 million on advertising and £4.5 million on "unsolicted material for electors". But the devil, as ever, is in the detail, such as Labour's payment of £530,000 to Mark Penn, the former Clinton strategist, or Alastair Campbell's decision to charge Labour £40,000, plus VAT, for his services during the campaign. Another Labour consultant, the market research guru Philip Gould, earned £143,000, while the Tories received bills totalling £441,000 from Lynton Crosbie, the Australian strategist behind the party's much-derided 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?' campaign that focused on so-called "dog whistle" issues. The Liberal Democrats also spent heavily en route to their best showing for 60 years, splashing out £4.3 million on the campaign. The party spent more than £5,000 on clothing for its then leader, Charles Kennedy. Mr Kennedy also spent more than £2,000 on make-up. The Commission released the detailed expenses as part of a drive to increase transparency in party political expenditure in the wake of the cash-for-peerages scandal currently under investigation by Scotland Yard. Labour backbenchers reacted angrily last week to a report in The Times that Labour had been charged £7,700 to pay for Cherie Blair's hairdos during the month-long campaign, which cost £275 a day. But grooming seems to have been a Conservative priority too: Mr Howard's make-up bills totalled £3,638 and his wife, Sandra, a former model, even charged £65 for a hairdo before the wedding of the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles. Another heavy cost for Labour was John Prescott's "battle bus", in which the Deputy Prime Minister connected with voters during the campaign - although not quite as literally as in the run-up to the 2001 election. The expenses reveal that Mr Prescott's campaign coach cost at least £139,000, including £3,172 on rebranding it as the "Prescott Express". Labour also spent £299 on Star Trek suits, as part of a stunt against the Tory John Redwood, who is known as "Vulcan", while the Conservatives spent £3,500 on two groundhog suits worn by their campaigners outside Labour headquarters in an attempt to portray Labour as stuck in the past.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2150008,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...08,00.html</a> From upthread <blockquote>Quote:<hr>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."<hr></blockquote> Very cozy, Matt. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 5/3/06 2:46 am

by **antiaristo** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Police to question top donors in loans-for-peerages inquiry By Rajeev Syal, Simon de Bruxelles and Andrew Pierce POLICE investigating “loans for peerages” allegations have spoken to two of Labour’s biggest donors, The Times has been told. The disclosure came as Scotland Yard confirmed that it will also examine claims that a senior Labour politician tried to “bribe” a rebel party member with the offer of a peerage. Chai Patel, the founder of the Priory clinic, and Sir David Garrard, a property developer, were contacted by detectives this week. Formal interviews are due to take place next week. The businessmen, whose peerage nominations were blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, spoke to officers from the Specialist Crime Directorate. Other rich benefactors who loaned the Labour Party a total of £14 million, triggering the first police investigation in more than 70 years into whether peerages were being sold, will be contacted soon. It is understood that Sir Gulam Noon, the curry magnate, whose nomination for a peerage was rejected, is expected to speak to detectives within ten days. A senior legal source said: “Dr Patel and Sir David were the first two contacted because police are eager to get on with the inquiry. Others will follow. Detectives want to push on and decide whether there is a case to answer. The quicker they move, the quicker the parliamentary inquiries can get under way.” SNIP The police investigations have postponed two parliamentary investigations into the peerages controversy. Lord Levy, the Prime Minister’s personal fundraiser, has been barred from giving evidence to the Public Administration Committee because the police want to interview him first. The televised hearing was set for Tuesday. The Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is running a separate hearing into party political funding, has also postponed some hearings after taking advice from Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service. Commander John Yates, the head of the specialist unit at Scotland Yard that is leading the first inquiry, will meet members of the two committees next month to update them on the progress of his inquiry. A senior Whitehall official said: “So far there has been close co-operation between police and the committee. There is a mutual respect<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2157008,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...08,00.html</a> It's quit comic really. On the basis of the facts presented, Yates of the Yard has yet to allow his "elite team" to interview anybody. Never mind the breathless prose, all about moving fast. The truth is they have done fuck-all. The police opened their investigation on 21 March Dr Chai Patel was due to give evidence to PASC on March 28 On the night of 27 March PASC suspended its hearings On April 5 the Electoral Commission was setting meetings with the party treasureres On April 6 the Commission postponed its investigation. The Constitutional Affairs Committee has suspended hearings "on the advice of the Scotland Tard and the CPS". So Yates has his exclusive jurisdiction. Three other bodies with oversight responsibilities have been shut out. His investigation has been under way for forty days. His good faith is in doubt. And he is yet to talk to anybody actually involved in the matter.

by **antiaristo** » Wed May 03, 2006 4:44 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>More interviews in honours probe Press Association Tuesday May 2, 2006 10:18 PM Detectives investigating the so-called "cash-for-honours" affair have questioned a number of people under caution. Scotland Yard said all the interviews had been arranged by appointment and that none of those involved had been arrested. No details were being released about the people who had been questioned, however Downing Street said Prime Minister Tony Blair was not among them. Detectives on the inquiry team have already arrested and questioned Des Smith, a former Government adviser who helped recruit business backers for Mr Blair's flagship city academies. Mr Smith had been recorded by an undercover reporter suggesting that academy sponsors could be rewarded with knighthoods or peerages. He has strongly denied any wrongdoing. It was disclosed last week that police are due to meet members of a Commons committee planning their own investigation into the affair to discuss whether they can press ahead with their public hearings. The Public Administration Committee agreed in March to suspend its planned evidence sessions after the head of the Scotland Yard inquiry, Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, warned that could prejudice any future criminal proceedings. The committee is now due meet police and lawyers from the Crown Prosecution Service again on May 15 to discuss whether there is any realistic prospect of charges being brought. If the committee does go ahead with the hearings, the first witness will be Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell, who will give evidence on Tuesday May 16. He will be followed a week later by Mr Blair's personal fund raiser Lord Levy, who reportedly recruited wealthy businessmen to secretly lend the Labour Party millions of pounds to bankroll its general election campaign. The committee also wants to take evidence from some of the supporters who lent money to the party and were subsequently nominated for peerages, including Sir David Garrard and Chai Patel.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5794916,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...16,00.html</a> "a number of people" That would be two people: Garrard and Patel. Someone needs to light a fire under Yates's arse.

by **antiaristo** » Wed May 03, 2006 6:33 pm

This is the sort of thing a parliament is supposed to do. You know - keep 'em honest. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Handling of McKie case 'criminal'  Ms McKie spent years fighting for justice Failure to address errors in the Shirley McKie fingerprint case amounted to "criminal action", according to papers made public by a politician. Statements made by senior police officers on the misidentification of Ms McKie's print have been released by Liberal Democrat MSP Mike Pringle. One of the officers says "institutional arrogance" in the fingerprint service led to a criminal course of action. Ms McKie, a former detective, was cleared and won £750,000 compensation. Mr Pringle said the documents came to him in a brown envelope and he was releasing them in the public interest. Ms McKie, from Troon, in Ayrshire, was cleared of lying on oath in 1999 after insisting that a fingerprint found at a murder scene in Kilmarnock was not hers. David Asbury was jailed for the murder and freed after judges accepted that fingerprint evidence against him was unreliable. The three papers comprise a previously unpublished 58-page report written by the then deputy chief constable of Tayside Police, James MacKay and a precognition statement made by him. The third is a precognition statement by Detective Chief Superintendent Scott Robertson. They were asked in June 2000 to investigate how Ms McKie's print was wrongly identified right at the beginning of the case in 1997. 'Dire consequences' The MacKay report gives a detailed account of how the misidentification of her fingerprint occurred. Mr MacKay said "institutional arrogance" in the fingerprint service had led to a criminal course of action. The report also states: "Clearly the errors were capable of admission at various stages in the process with minimal impact on those making them. "The police service has a culture of openness, honesty and integrity and in such situations, while I believe there would have been frustration by management, there would have been no recriminations in a mistake being made. "It is the obdurate and arrogant stance which prevailed through the chain of events contributing in the conviction of David Asbury and the prosecution of Shirley McKie which transferred both misidentifications from an error status to a criminal action with dire consequences." Now that they are in the public domain it would be only right for the committee to consider them and learn from what happened Mike Pringle Lib Dem MSP In a precognition statement, Mr MacKay said he was "disappointed and rather surprised" there was no prosecution of staff at the Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO). Ministers have continually blamed events in the case on "an honest mistake". Mr Pringle said the justice committee should now be able to consider the reports as part of its inquiry into the running of the SCRO and Scottish Fingerprint Service (SFS). He said: "I think now that they are in the public domain it would be only right for the committee to consider them and learn from what happened, so that we can repair the damage that has been done both in Scotland and to our international reputation."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4967160.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4967160.stm</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>While Republicans spent the past four decades building a vast network of small-dollar donors to fund their operations, Democrats tossed aside their base and fed off million-dollar-plus donations. The disconnect was stark, and ultimately destructive. Clinton's third way failed miserably. It killed off the Jesse Jackson wing of the Democratic Party and, despite its undivided control of the party apparatus, delivered nothing. Nothing, that is, except the loss of Congress, the perpetuation of the muddled Democratic "message," a demoralized and moribund party base, and electoral defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Those failures led the netroots to support Dean in the last presidential race. We didn't back him because he was the most "liberal" candidate. In fact, we supported him despite his moderate, pro-gun, pro-balanced-budget record, because he offered the two things we craved most: outsider credentials and leadership. And therein lie Hillary Clinton's biggest problems. She epitomizes the "insider" label of the early crowd of 2008 Democratic contenders. She's part of the Clinton machine that decimated the national Democratic Party. And she remains surrounded by many of the old consultants who counsel meekness and caution. James Carville, the famed longtime adviser to the Clintons, told Newsweek last week, "The American people are going to be ready for an era of realism. They've seen the consequences of having too many 'big ideas.' " Meanwhile, pollster Mark Penn, a brilliant numbers guy, has counseled the Hillary team to ignore the party's netroots activists as "irrelevant." (After all, didn't Dean lose?) Little surprise that in late March, the Daily Kos's bimonthly presidential straw poll delivered bleak results for Clinton, with just 2 percent of respondents making her their top choice for 2008. At a time when rank-and-file Democrats are using technology to become increasingly engaged and active in their party, when they are demanding that their leaders stand for something and develop big ideas, Clinton's closest advisers are headed in the opposite direction.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501717.html">www.washingtonpost.com/wp...01717.html</a> Three people were "in on" the illegal millionaire funding. Mister Royal Prerogative, Tony Blair; Lord Cashpoint, Michael Levy; and Mister General Secretary Matt Carter. More than half a million pounds were spent on Mark Penn, "a brilliant numbers guy", whose advice presumably is "to ignore the party's netroots activists as "irrelevant."". Did Carter sign the cheques? A few months later he resigns, and starts working for Mark Penn. Presumably that half million pounds is available to fund the enterprise over which Carter now presides as Managing Director. Am I the only person that can see what was going on? This was published by the Guardian yesterday <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Politics was the big loser Matt Carter May 05 06, 04:02pm: Labour must not just focus on how to increase trust in the party, but also on reconnecting political institutions with the people. Comments (<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/index.html">commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/index.html</a> Why is the Guardian publishing this man, who has nothing to do with the Labour Party? I can but speculate that it is for the same reason that the Guardian has disabled my own "post a comment" button. And for the same reason that my comment on Michael White's blog was removed, and further comments closed.

by **Byrne** » Sat May 06, 2006 11:24 pm

Anti, Just a bump to say thanks for keeping this forum abreast of these nefarious activities. I appreciate your posts. PS on a completely unrelated point- Watch how long before <a href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/natalie_hanman/2006/05/corporate_counterculture.html" target="top">this (Guardian comment) thread</a> is further thwarted

by **antiaristo** » Sun May 14, 2006 8:09 am

This has all gone very quiet. But there is now enough evidence that John Yates and his "elite team" are burying this scandal. While parliament looks the other way. The House of Commons, and Dr Tony Wright in particular, are piss poor democrats, and the coppers know it. It's all one big game, a good laugh on the suckers. What this Independent story tells us is that during the last two weeks, in the face of an "impatient" Public Administration Select Committee, the police have managed to conduct TWO interviews, and make appointments for two more. That is the sum and total of their achievements since March 21. Just under eight weeks. It also tells us they are moving the goalposts (no surprise there). The exception is no longer "commercial loans" but loans made at "commercial rates". What's the difference? A "commercial loan" is an arms-length agreement in which all the terms are committed to paper and signed by the two parties. For every commercial loan there is a written loan agreement. A loan made at "commercial rates" needs no such written record, and can be purely a spoken agreement. It's the sort of arrangement made within the family all the time: but who would call such a family debt a "commercial loan"? I'd bet a pound to a penny that no written agreements exist. The whole intention was that this illegal funding would be quietly forgotten with the passage of time, so who wants embarassing documentation lying around? Certainly not Labour politicians. And certainly not wealthy donors, whose names were on the way for honours. Just to summarise the facts. The law is that any political donation of more than five thousand pounds must be disclosed. But the Labour Party financed its General Election campaign with donations averaging about a million pounds from about fourteen donors. Nothing illegal about that, providing they were disclosed. But they were secret. When the truth emerged the Blair line was that he'd done nothing wrong, because the money was not "donated", but "commercial loans". If that were true Blair would have loan agreements to prove his innocence. In other words the onus is on the Labour Party to prove the money was not donated. And they cannot. That's why this affair is being spun out. That's why the goalposts are being moved. One law for the politicians (no politician is ever guilty). One law for the rest of us (you are guilty because you might do something in the future). And our media says nothing, except for carefully planted stories. Think a D-Notice (Decree Notice) is in force? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Police interview Labour donors under caution By Marie Woolf, Political Editor Published: 14 May 2006 Millionaire Labour donors at the centre of the "cash for honours" affair have been interviewed under caution by the police, The Independent on Sunday has learnt. One source close to the inquiry said the donors had been "fully co-operative" with police, but added the interviews were "not a fireside chat". There is no suggestion that the donors have done anything wrong, but their testimony will increase pressure on Tony Blair and the Labour Party, which is being investigated under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act. Scotland Yard is following uprevelations in The Independent on Sunday that businessmen nominated for honours by Mr Blair gave secret loans to Labour. The entrepreneur Sir Gulam Noon told the IoS that he was among those to have spoken to detectives. "We had a talk. It's no problem at all. There is nothing to worry about," he said. Dr Chai Patel is also understood to have spoken to detectives last week and been fully co-operative, according to sources. Sir David Garrard, a millionaire property developer, and the stockbroker Barry Townsley, who were nominated for peerages and made loans to Labour, are said by those close to the inquiry to have been in contact with detectives. All the Labour donors are believed to have been informed that their testimony could be used in evidence in the ongoing criminal inquiry. Opposition politicians believe the testimony will put further pressure on Mr Blair. Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, a senior Liberal Democrat peer, said last night: "The police are clearly digging and digging deep. Their inquiries must end at Downing Street." Sir Gus O'Donnell, the head of the home civil service, is called to give evidence this week to the MPs' "cash for honours" inquiry. Lord Levy, the Prime Minister's fund-raiser, is also due to give evidence, but this could be delayed because police are also expected to interview him. Donations of more than £5,000 must be declared, but loans at "commercial rates" do not have to be registered publicly. Detectives are believed to be finding out whether loans were made at commercial rates.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article447817.ece">news.independent.co.uk/uk...447817.ece</a>

by **antiaristo** » Sun May 14, 2006 6:14 pm

You can see the prestige of the UK parliament. They have issued a report supporting the intelligence services (and by implication, the Executive). Everything was done in secret. They did not even know that MI5 had a videotape of Khan. <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2179602,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...02,00.html</a> So far as I can see, the only contempt greater than that of the Crown for parliament is the contempt of parliament for the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For there exists an island of democracy in the United Kingdom, where the Windsors are put in their rightful place. That island is known as Scotland. Here is the proof <blockquote>Quote:<hr>McKie inquiry vows to put Scottish justice in the dock Minister and Lord Advocate to give evidence Challenge to expert ‘gag’ Witnesses may be under oath By Liam McDougall, Home Affairs Editor SCOTLAND’S senior law officer, Colin Boyd, and justice ministers past and present are set to be grilled under oath by the parliamentary committee investigating the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal. A secret witness list compiled by the Justice 1 committee and leaked to the Sunday Herald reveals that as well as McKie and the four Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) experts who misidentified her print, Cathy Jamieson, the justice minister, and Jim Wallace, a former justice minister, will also be called to give evidence. In a signal that the committee is determined to have its inquiry taken seriously, it is also understood there is a growing feeling that all witnesses should be forced to take an oath before giving evidence. Such a move would be unprecedented and would open the door to the prosecution of individuals found to have lied to the committee. Only during the Lobbygate inquiry in 1999 – when Jack McConnell faced the parliament’s standards committee – has a Scottish minister been required to swear that they will tell the truth before answering questions from their parliamentary colleagues. Since it was set up last month, the inquiry has been dogged by accusations that it is a sop to ministers who have refused to grant a full judicial investigation into the affair. Its limited timescale has also drawn criticism that it cannot hope to tease out the truth. But the leaked paper reveals that the inquiry timetable will be extended beyond its original June deadline, and it will continue hearing evidence on the scandal into September. It was in February that the debacle hit the headlines when McKie, a former policewoman wrongly accused of leaving her thumbprint at a crime scene, was given a £750,000 settlement minutes before her court case against the Scottish Executive was to be heard. First Minister Jack McConnell subsequently claimed that experts who had identified McKie’s print were guilty only of an “honest mistake”. However, a leaked report by James Mackay, the former deputy chief constable of Tayside Police, has alleged “criminality” and a “cover-up” on the part of the four SCRO experts. The SCRO experts insist that no mistake was made in the identification. The mettle of the committee will be put to the test over the witness John MacLeod, a forensic expert who wrote a secret report on the McKie print in 2004 for the Scottish Executive. Although cited to appear next month, the Executive has refused to make his report public and has said he will “not be in a position” to speak about the report because he has a confidentiality agreement. Under current rules, even if MacLeod gives evidence under oath, the justice committee is powerless to make him talk about it. However, it is thought that members are prepared to go to the Court of Session to force the Executive to reveal the report, seen as crucial because it will show what ministers were told about the affair long before it was settled. The committee could also face down the Scottish Executive by using the courts to overturn the confidentiality agreement. MacLeod, who has so far remained silent on the issue, revealed to the Sunday Herald that he felt “gagged” by the Scottish Executive. “I would go and answer questions, but I am gagged at the moment,” he said. “There is just no point in me going, I don’t think, unless I can talk about the report. And I just can’t do that.” Last night, Iain McKie, Shirley’s father, revealed that he was writing to Pauline McNeill, the Labour convener of the Justice 1 committee, urging her to place every witness under oath. McNeill confirmed she was “considering” having witnesses put on oath before giving evidence, and using the Court of Session to recover documents, including the MacLeod report. “It looks to me that we will be exploring new territory in how we can use our powers,” she said. McNeill added: “The committee will be interested in hearing about facts – not opinion.”<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://ww1.sundayherald.com/55698">ww1.sundayherald.com/55698</a> Must be wonderful to live in a democracy. All that parliamentary scrutiny, for a single Scottish victim. While Westminster plays with its willie in a circle-jerk. Fuck you, Doctor Tony Wright.

by **antiaristo** » Tue May 16, 2006 9:45 am

This is all so transparent, and so predictable. Yates does nothing, and tries to stop anybody with the will from doing anything. He's interviewed TWO people, and made appointments with two others. He has NOT asked for or looked at the "loan agreements" (because they do not exist9. This is not bureaucratic torpor, nor incompetence. It is straightforward sabotage. He hasn't a leg to stand on. It's REALLY easy for anyone with a will to get to the bottom of this scandal. REALLY EASY. You just show the same commitment to democracy as is exhibeted by the Scottish Parliament. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Delay call Police have asked the MPs not to interview potentially key witnesses at the moment to avoid undermining their criminal investigation. The MPs will decide their response later on Tuesday. The man heading the police probe, Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, made the request at a private meeting in Westminster on Monday evening He told the MPs his inquiry had made "significant progress" and said he should know by September where it was heading. This is the second time the MPs have been asked to delay the parliamentary inquiry into the allegations. The committee wanted to interview some of the millionaire Labour lenders as well as Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, Lord Levy. But in March they agreed to postpone their inquiry. Mr Yates said the police had received a wide range of allegations since their inquiry began. But the investigation remained focused on whether peerages were offered in exchange for loans to political parties or sponsorship of the government's flagship city academies. "Significant progress has been made in the inquiry to date, although in many ways the investigation is still at a relatively early stage," said Mr Yates. A team of eight police officer is wading through a mass of documents. Mr Yates added: "We have already identified a number of issues that merit further detailed examination." The police have interviewed some people under caution and others as witnesses without caution.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/4773805.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_p...773805.stm</a> But look at how the Murdoch rag reports this tapdance. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Police argued that MPs should wait until [Levy] has been formally interviewed by detectives. MPs will decide whether to go ahead at another Committee meeting this morning. The clash has enraged Whitehall officials, who said that MPs could “cripple” the eight-week police investigation. “The question has to be asked whether this is an orchestrated move by MPs to protect their own, and avoid scrutiny. The police need time to put together the evidence. A few weeks is not enough,” one source said. “The police inquiry was launched because there is a case to answer. If they cannot ask questions to key figures such as Levy, it will be scuppered,” he said.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2182036,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...36,00.html</a> Time honoured Murdoch methodology. Serious charges by the ABUSERS against the ABUSED ("protecting their own"). Anonymous sources ("Whitehall sources"). Outright lies ("Hey" says Rupert "We didn't lie. We were quoting"). There is nothing stopping the police asking questions of Levy other than their own reluctance. HEY GUYS: LOOK AT HOW THEY DO IT IN SCOTLAND. THEY DON'T GENUFLECT TO THE POLICE, THEY INVESTIGATE THEM. THEY DON'T INDULGE IN GEISHA TEA CEREMONIES, THEY PUT WITNESSES ON OATH. IN PUBLIC. tHEY DON'T BURY DOCUMENTS: THEY USE THEIR POWERS TO BRING THEM TO LIGHT. IN SHORT, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE FROM THE OUTSET THAT THE POLICE ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW, AND THAT SOME COPPERS ARE BENT. JUST LIKE SOME POLITICIANS ARE BENT.

The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Man arrested in cash-for-honours inquiry

Omerta

Re: Elfyn Llwyd MP - Thespian

Yates of the Yard

The Spin and Misdirection Begins

A Whistleblower Pays the Price

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Murdoch Spinning Like a Top

Re: The Return of the Vampire of Finance

Memorandum to Dr Tony Wright

As Above, So Below

Re: Memorandum to Dr Tony Wright

Westminster Wanking

What a contrast: Scotland versus The Rest

Shit or Get Off the Potty

Who is online