A homophobic and corrupt little man (and an MP to boot) gets his comeuppence!!

Through Jae I learn that David Wilshire MP, the parliamentarian who demonstrated innovation in the methodology he used to fleece the public by passing parliamentary expenses through an entity of which he and his 'girl-friend' ('partner'/'fancy-woman'/'bidey-in'???) are the sole partners, is actually the homophobic bigot (and just look at his voting record on gay issues in the House of Commons if you feel like arguing the point!) who piloted the infamous 'Clause 28' through the House of Commons in the 1980s
Quite apart from the fact that this odious little thief is now being forced out of Parliament (who would vote for him any more?) it is pleasing that his past 'crimes' against the LGBT community are now receiving some sort of punishment, if only indirectly.

Good riddance, Wilshire!

(PS/ As one of the commenters to the last linked article has asked, I too wonder how many others of the MPs behind 'Clause 28' and other attempts to marginalise and discriminate against the LGBT community in the last 20 or so years remain in parliament? It would be interesting to have all their names listed.)

Labour government in process of collapse

Well, we can but hope so! Yesterday three Ministers decided they had had enough - Jacqui Smith (Home Secretary), Tom Watson (Cabinet Office Minister) and Beverley Hughes, (Children’s Minister) - and are leaving the Government. Rats and sinking ship come to mind!

Now this morning comes the news that Hazel Blears (Communities Secretary) has resigned from the Government and much more than the others she is 'putting the boot in', or perhaps as this Guardian article has it plunging a giant knife into the Prime Minister's back. And just one day before the European elections and local elections in England - too delicious!

I shall unfortunately have to miss Prime Minister's Questions 'live' today as I am shortly going out for lunch (it's my birthday today); however, once I've watched a recording of it late-afternoon or early-evening I shall no doubt have a few words to say on what is likely to be quite a turbulent half hour. Will he still be Prime Minister next week to take another PMQ session? We can but dream that an election will be called over the weekend once the likely full horror of the election results begins to sink in. Surely he cannot long continue with the whole government imploding around him?

"Serious risk of a suicide" in MP expenses scandal

I'm just listening to Nadine Dorries MP (Conservative) on the 'Today' programme whining on about the 'terror in the eyes' of some people around Westminster because of the 'McCarthy-ite witch-hunt' being mounted currently by the Telegraph.

Does this imply that her name may be coming out soon and she's getting a pre-emptive rebuttal in? She's spinning the story that grown MPs were, on induction into the 'club' (i.e. Parliament), given the 'nod and wink' by the fees office that ACAs were not expenses, but 'allowances' and the job of the fees office was to help MPs 'get them out' (the maximum amount of expenses claimable). If this scenario is true, and I accept it may be, this does not mitigate the personal liability of those who 'milked' the system for all it is worth. Not all MPs chose to go down this route. Frankly her story sounds like she wants to portray perhaps herself and some others as 'new boys and girls' being 'shown the ropes' by the 'old lags'.

However honest an MP may have been before his/her election, any that succumbed to this "don't rock the boat" mentality deserve all they get if their own moral compasses didn't give them guidance as to what was right and what was wrong. I know that in the organisation I worked for it was well-known that some of my colleagues exploited expenses claims, whereas others hardly claimed anything; I was certainly very much one of the latter. I recall also on a few occasions when I was on courses/seminars involving personnel from other very well-known companies that 'per diem' allowances were regarded by some as a simple way of boosting one's regular income by spending as little as possible and pocketing the bulk of such allowances, or using the old 'taxi bill' ruse. Sometimes the brazenness of the people who did this was quite surprising.

To summarise, whilst I certainly hope that this necessary clearing out of crooks and cheats from our public life does not result in a suicide I don't think that any of us need feel at all reticent in continuing to press hard for reform or be sorry in any way that the Telegraph is carrying on, at least for the present, with its daily exposures of the facts of what some of our MPs have been up to. There are some MPs in all political parties who have behaved honourably, whether they happen to have personal wealth or not. Let's not be fooled by the 'spin' designed to get the public to lay-off those quite numerous MPs who have been using every ruse their fertile imaginations could come up with to con the public purse out of money that cannot be justified when submitted to objective scrutiny.

Is a firestorm about to engulf Britain's parliamentary democracy?

I speak of course of the MP expenses controversy. I've written about it only once so far, last week when the main focus of the Telegraph's revelations was on the governing Labour Party.

Last Sunday the focus shifted to the main opposition Conservative Party, although the LibDems and a few other political parties received 'honourable' mentions too. What struck me about most of the Conservative cases was their sheer pettiness - relatively small amounts in many cases (not all) with the claimant MPs in many of those cases being extremely wealthy people. Yes, it did cause a little mirth in the media when their expenses faux pas included claims for tennis court repairs or to clear something so aristocratic as a moat, but these are no more really meriting of mirth than is a claim for a very costly television or home cinema system. One of the biggest 'try-ons' I heard about just yesterday (or perhaps the day before) concerned the former 'Father of the House' Labour MP Tom Dalziel (he of the 'West Lothian Question' fame) who claimed GBP18,000 if you please(!) for bookcases to hold his copies of Hansard (so we are told), just a few weeks before he was due to step down as an MP upon his retirement; it's that last detail that astounds me. Having visited his home as a member of a bus tour a few years ago, I must say I can't think where he would have fitted these bookcases in what is a rather cramped home, albeit the home of a minor aristocrat in a very grand setting - it seems to me it was obviously just an attempt to get us to pay for the upkeep of his 'stately home', just like Hogg the moat-repair merchant! An honourable mention must also go to Andrew Mackay and Julie Kirkbride, a couple (or should that be a 'brace') of Conservative MPs who each claimed one of their two homes as a 'second home' (not the same one of course!) so they were able to claim for both their homes on MPs expenses. If that's not actual fraud, it must surely come pretty close to it as it certainly seems to me to bend the spirit of the rules beyond breaking point, if not necessarily the letter of the rules; I'm not an expert.

Anyway in the last week things have moved on rapidly - now I read (again in the valiant Telegraph) that the police are setting up a special panel to look at whether criminal prosescutions should follow; I'm sure that in a number of cases they should.

Although the 'Dear Leader' seems finally to be waking up to the seriousness of the situation (politically and socially), it is the leader of the Conservative Party who is still taking the lead - basically it is he who is behaving much more like a Prime Minister than the actual Prime Minister. It is a clear demonstration of the differences in the personal qualities of the two men.

Finally Speaker Michael Martin - now here is a man there is really no excuse for. He has to go voluntarily, or be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Speaker's chair (by tradtion Speakers-elect are dragged toward the chair).

Now I move on to more pleasurable matters - the Eurovision Song Contest will start in 20 minutes or so! Please forgive my haste ...

Expense fiddling and the little tricks MPs play

It's been most amusing reading the revelations appearing in the Telegraph these past few days about how our MPs spend our money, supposedly on 'our behalf'. MPs fought tooth and nail to keep details of their expenses secret and it wasn't until the Speaker [of the House of Commons] lost a court case that MPs realised the game was up. The details are due to be published officially in a couple of months time (safely after the European elections and when Parliament is in recess for the summer, of course) and there have been rumours for weeks that 'unredacted' (i.e. complete and 'uncensored') lists were being hawked around the press. Whatever. A few days ago the Telegraph newspaper published details of expenses claims of senior Cabinet members although it has refused to discuss how it came by the lists. Although there has been much huffing and puffing today from government ministers, there have been no allegations that any of what the Telegraph has published is not in accordance with the actualité (as the late Alan Clark might have put it), even if there have been some claims that individual expenses have been 'misinterepreted'; well, they would say that, wouldn't they? This brief video sums up very wittily what has been going on (I'll observe only that the potential accusation of anti-semitism inherent in the soundtrack used has been noted and considered worthwhile to risk in the circumstances):



I have neither the time nor the inclination [any more] to write multiple posts daily on this matter; when I first began blogging 7 years ago I probably would have done so, but there are now so many bloggers writing copiously and well on this and other matters that I am content to leave the vast bulk of this necessary chronicling of events to others and instead content myself with occasional observations on some of these matters and on a few other more quirky topics that come to my attention, but that others mainly haven't bothered with or been aware of. This time I'll content myself with including below a list of links to various of the Telegraph's articles on MP expenses over the past few days; it is clear that some of the 'revelations' are much more serious (and evidence a level of corruption much deeper) than others and that a few of the facts so far revealed would seem to suggest that for the MPs concerned their political careers should, in any sane and just world, be over. So far the main spotlight has been turned on the Labour Party, with a few Conservative MPs and Sinn Fein MPs coming under scrutiny too, but I've no doubt that the Conservatives, LibDems and others will receive their due attention in coming days, or at least I certainly hope they do.

My Telegraph list of links:
(First published: 7 May 2009)
MPs' expenses: how Brown and his Cabinet exploit expenses system
(First published: 8 May 2009)
Expenses: How MP's expenses became a hot topic
MPs' expenses: how Gordon Brown and his Cabinet exploit expenses system
MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown forced to defend allowances system
Harriet Harman forced to defend MPs' expenses
MPs' expenses: Gordon Brown cleaning contract
Charles Clarke demands immediate publication of MPs' claims
MPs' expenses: 'lack of moral leadership' revealed by politicians
Gordon Brown blames expenses row on 'the system'
MPs' expenses: Commons authorities ask police to investigate leak
Gordon Brown refuses to defend Cabinet ministers over MPs' expenses
Tony McNulty could face police investigation over MPs' expenses
Barbara Follett: Millionaire MP's £25,000 expenses on security over safety fears
MPs' expenses: Four ministers who milked the system
MPs’ expenses: MPs condemn parliamentary move to call in police over leaked expenses
Phil Hope: How did he fit all this into one tiny flat?
MPs expenses: The best of the begging letters
Immigration Minister claimed for women's clothing and panty liners
MPs’ expenses: Police consider whether to hunt source of leaks
(First published: 9 May 2009)
MPs’ expenses: Ministers have presided over 'scandals of shamelessness'
Harriet Harman: Deputy leader unable to claim second home cash
Gordon Brown: Cleaning cash for brother was legitimate
MPs’ expenses: Few checks on the honourable members
MPs expenses: Questions and answers
MPs’ expenses: 'Publication is defining moment of sorry saga'
Keith Vaz: £75,000 for a flat 12 miles from home
Vera Baird: Solicitor General tried to claim cost of Christmas tree and decorations
MPs expenses: Michael Martin's four-year battle to keep the details secret
Ben Bradshaw: Mortgage bill paid on home part-owned by boyfriend (* - see at end)
Margaret Moran: Second home 'flip' paid £22,500 dry rot bill: MPs' expenses
Barry Gardiner: £198,500 profit from a flat renovated with MPs' expenses
Alex Salmond claimed £800 for food on MPs' expenses during recess
MPs' expenses: minister Kitty Ussher used allowances for £20,000 house make-over
MPs' expenses: Sinn Fein claimed £500,000 for second homes
John Reid claimed for a pouffe and a glittery loo seat on MPs' expenses
(First published: 10 May 2009)
Iain Wright and Tom Watson lavish £100,000 on shared central London flat on MPs' expenses
Kevin Brennan had £450 for television delivered to family home on MPs' expenses
MPs' expenses: Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, condemns 'culture of abuse'

A few comments:
- note how a very early reaction was for the 'Parliamentary authorities' to call in the police to try and find the 'leaks', so outraged were they that a light had been shone on their corrupt 'shenanigans'
- quickly followed by a rather less knee-jerk reaction when some MPs realise that the public reaction is fury, mingled with derisive laughter, at their initial squeals condemning the Telegraph;
- the 'Dear leader' quickly tries to distance himself from the goings-on amongst his 'underlings'. True leadership indeed!
- the bald-faced effrontery of some of the claims and attempts to justify them stretches credulity way beyond reasonable limits;

(*) - there have been some comments in the media today that this story may reflect some kind of 'homophobic' prejudice on the part of the Telegraph; my own view is that whilst the copy-writer has given the piece a title with somewhat unpleasant overtones in this respect no doubt for pithiness and to catch the eye, the way the article is written is not in any way 'homophobic'.

Wendy Alexander bites the dust

Wendy Alexander has, at long last, felt obliged to take the 'walk of shame' and resign as Leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament as a result of the crookery uncovered in how she funded her leadership campaign followed by her failure to comply with the relevant reporting requirements in a timely manner.

It is perfectly true also that there may be some truth in her assertions that this is all a gigantic plot by Labour's 'enemies' (i.e. the SNP) to exploit her difficulties for political purposes. However, there would be nothing for the SNP to latch onto if she had obeyed the law in the first place.

I have been reading over the past couple of days various blog comment to the effect that Wendy Alexander is not a 'crook' in the conventional sense because she was not making a personal gain by her actions (an example is referred to here). In a purely financial sense this is undoubtedly perfectly accurate, but this does not (in my opinion) address the real issue in any fundamental way. It is also a crude and mechanistic analysis to which I do not subscribe. Political influence is all about - well it's all about power, the power to decide how the country is governed, the power to help legislate the legal framework under which we all must live. That last bit is very important - 'the legal framework under which we all must live', and that includes politicians! Some politicians seem to think that their obvious good intentions should somehow justify them 'bending' the rules occasionally. Complete stuff and nonsense! If the laws of this country are good enough for everyone else, then they are good enough for our politicians - and that includes Wendy Alexander.

I believe I have written about Ms Alexander only twice before - last December when the irregularities surrounding her campaign funding came to light and I experessed my surprise that she had not already resigned, and about four years before that when her role in choosing the location of the new Scottish Parliament building was revealed. The point I make is that she is an ambitious politician (absolutely nothing wrong with that) who has actively sought influence over the governance of this country for many years and has succeeded in this aim, at least until May 2007 when the voting public collectively decided that her Party's influence should be curtailed, at least for a while. Her willingness to 'bend' the law is perhaps an indication that the voting public needs to consider very carefully whether she should be entrusted with real power ever again. Her protestations that her oversights (i.e. law-breaking) were unintentional may be true, but the sanction imposed upon her (a one day parliamentary ban) is mild compared to what would probably have been visited upon any ordinary citizen who had inadvertantly broken the law. She has belatedly done the right thing by resigning and should be grateful her actions have been treated so leniently. Above all she should quit moaning! A period of silence from her is profoundly to be hoped for.

That's what they're calling it now, is it?

(Please see UPDATE at end)

Conservative MEP Giles Chichester has admitted to a "technical breach" of the rules on MEPs' expenses.

Guido and Mr Eugenides use more approrpriate words: corruption and crooks. Guido also has the goods on another Conservative MEP by the name of Den Dover, a litigious fellow by all accounts; Guido has a little additional fun at this gentleman's expense by slightly altering his name to 'Ben Dover'.

ConservativeHome reports that David Cameron has given these 'honourable gentlemen' 48 hours to explain themselves.

Curiously enough there is very little noise about this from either Labour or the LibDems. I wonder why?

UPDATE: (Thursday 5JUN08 16.20 BST) Giles Chichester MEP is set to resign as leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, whilst still insisting it was merely a 'technical breach'! However, according to the report 'European Parliament officials have confirmed he may have to pay some of the cash back'; all well and good, but I'll believe it when I see it! By the by, Guido has a quote from Labour MEP Richard Corbett: "I suppose I should be jumping up and down with glee but I'm afraid we all get tarnished with the same brush." - you see, they're all at it! Just how gullible do these crooks think we are?

Welsh ex-Councillor unwilling to stay weaned off public 'teat'

I thought this was some kind of April Fool's joke when I first read it, but it seems that eight local authorities in Wales took part in a Welsh Assembly Government scheme in 2004 to try and persuade (aka 'bribe') long-serving councillors not to stand at elections again, as a way of bringing in 'fresh blood' and 'fresh thinking'; payments of between £16,000 and £20,000 were made to Councillrs who applied for grants under the scheme. One of those who applied and received money was a Carmarthernshire councillor called Eunydd Thomas.

However now Mr Thomas has decided to stand for election again, citing pressure on him by his supporters who wanted him to. Amazingly a Welsh Assembly Government spokesman is quoted as saying:

"The assembly government made it clear when it launched the Past Service Award Scheme that only councillors retiring at the 2004 elections, and who had no intention of seeking public office at this level again, should apply for an award. "However, for legal reasons it was not possible to include in the regulations a provision which would prevent a recipient of an award from standing in a future election."

What that last sentence states, in terms, is that the Welsh Assembly Government embarked on a scheme to use public funds to achieve an objective (itself of dubious merit, in my view) in the knowledge that it did not have to legal power to enforce the terms of the scheme. Instead the scheme was to rely on the honesty and integrity of those applying for pay-outs under the scheme. I ask you! We're talking about 'politicians' here, even if they are of the relatively-lowly status of councillors! One might think that such people are, as a category, more honororable than people who stand for higher levels of government, being mostly amateurs known personally to many of the people who elect them. However, the truth is that they are just fallible human beings like the rest of us.

The real problem with this whole scheme is that it was ever dreamed up in the first place. The only criterion that matters about who should sit as a councillor, MP, MSP, AM, etc, is for the electorate to be able to choose from amongst those who wish to stand for election. I fail to see how it is within the remit of the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), or any other government, to try and 'pre-select' those who should stand, based on some notion of bringing in 'new blood' or fresh thinking'! I can certainly understand that the WAG's (in the circumstances a curiously apt abbreviation!) legal advisors advised it of the difficulty of barring persons who accepted pay-outs under the scheme - after all, they are not criminals or prisoners or otherwise barred from standing for election and any attempt to enforce such a ban would undoubtedly contravene the Human Rights Act. However, if this bizarre scheme was decided upon, I don't see why a clause could not have been added to the rules to provide that anyone who took a payment, but who then subsequently stood for a similar elected position, would have to pay the money back, possibly plus interest. No-one's legal rights to either be elected or to elect whom they choose would be affected, but the public purse would have been protected from being squandered ineffectively.

Hain under investigation by Met. Police - and resigns from Government

Peter Hain, Labour MP for Neath, who only a few days ago received a vote of utmost confidence from Neath Constituency Labour Party, is to be investigated by the Metropolitan Police in connection with apparently 'dodgy' donations he received to help fight the Labour Party deputy leadership contest recently.

Minutes after the announcement of the police investigation, he announced he is resigning from the government, where he held two Cabinet positions in charge of the Department for Work and Pensions and the Wales Office. The official story is that he is resigning in order to be able to fight to clear his name. Good luck to him!

Perhaps he will eventually be cleared. However, I just wonder if his resignation from the government will not be followed in due time by his resignation as an MP and his return to a well-deserved obscurity - hopefully not on the public pay-roll, although I imagine that some sinecure will, whatever happens, be found for him.

This Labour government is not only serially incompetent, but the stench of graft hangs around it. Enough!

Jackie Baillie on Newsnight Scotland - blood pressure alert!!

I speak, of course, of the latest scandal that has engulfed Labour since just before the weekend - the illegal donations accepted by Wendy Alexander MSP for her campaign for the leadership of the Scottish Labour Party. I find it quite astonishing that she has not resigned already. Why is she not under investigation by the police?

Throughout today I have had to endure Labour toadies obfuscating, prevaricating and downright stone-walling in their so-called responses to straight-forward questions about the circumstances surrounding donations made by a gentleman called Paul Green, a non-resident of the United Kingdom (he apparently resides in Jersey). Acceptance of such donations for UK electoral purposes is illegal. No ifs or buts!

So I have just watched the surreal performance of Jackie Baillie MSP giving today's Labour Party line that the law-breaking by Wendy Alexander was 'unintentional' and that she is 'not dishonest'. The fact that Ms Alexander has broken the law, admitted doing so and has been shown to be a liar having denied that she knew Mr Green was not entitled to donate whereas she had prior to this written to him at his Jersey address thanking him for his donation. People standing for election are expected to know the law governing elections; when I stood (unsuccessfuly) for election as a local councillor some years ago all of us in our group of candidates were given guidance as to what we had to do to comply with electoral law and I imagine that similar procedures are followed by all the major political parties (and if not they should be); possibly some of the very small parties or independent candidates may not have the resources to know all the finer detail, but the rules governing donations are a pretty basic part of electoral law and there is no excuse for any candidate seemingly wilfully remaining ignorant of them. The explanations offered by a large political organisation such as Labour over the past couple of weeks simply will not wash!

As I wrote here, Labour people really do seem to think that laws don't apply to them. They do and their protestations of ignorance of the law are irrelevant; it is laughable, too, for the Labour Party and its apparatchiks to claim ignorance of this particular law, or 'good intentions' in both the David Abrahams and the Paul Green donations scandals, because the illegality of these donations arises out of legislation pushed through Parliament just a few years ago by this self-same Labour government. Don't these clowns take the trouble to inform themselves of the content of the legislation they champion?

As for the nonsense also being peddled today and for the past few days by these brazen crooks that the 'problem' is one for all political parties to solve and that the 'solution' is to have some kind of tax-payer funding of political parties - no! no! no! The solution is for politicians, of all political parties, to obey the law! The should also pass legislation limiting both the amount of any individual donation to a political party (the suggestion is that this be £50,000-, and it should certainly be no higher) and the amount that a political party may spend on campaigning for election.

Until the political parties get it into their heads that we DO NOT owe them a living and that they are expected to abide by the laws that they themselves have passed over the years then I will continue to treat them with considerable suspicion. They are merely our paid servants, not our masters. Neither they nor we should ever forget this.

PS/ So it's not just Harriet Harman and Wendy Alexander, now we learn it's Peter Hain too! These serial law-breakers make it increasingly unlikely that the explanations that it has all been an unfortunate 'oversight' can retain any credibility. It's almost as if there has been a deliberate strategy by the ruling political party to flout the law, the arrogance of power having made them think they can forever get away with illegality; it's yet to be shown they are wrong, unfortunately.

Labour general secretary resigns over donations scandal

Labour general secretary Peter Watt has resigned in the wake of the 'proxy donations' scandal. He admitted he was aware of the arrangements used by David Abrahams to 'launder' money into the Labour Party under the names of others.

Now we learn that David Abrahams also uses the name 'David Martin', specially when planning applications are being applied for. The whole affair begins to stink to high heaven. Read a little more about this enigmatic character here.

Listening to the Labour stooge on the 'Today' programme this morning (a woman - I don't recall her name, I'm afraid) say how 'shocked' she was by the revelations of their law-breaking was quite funny. She insisted they thought they had a system in place to vet thoroughly all donations - checking that the person donating actually lived at the address given and appeared on the electoral register. The fact that the donor lived in a type of property and in an area of a city where the ability of the resident to provide regular donations of the level and frequency of those ostensibly given by Ray Ruddick ("I can't stand Labour - I can't stand any politicians") and Janet Kidd was unlikely, unless they had other sources of funds. I'd have thought that significant, regular donations from such sources perhaps required some further clarification just to be sure that the money was 'clean' and not just 'laundered' (quite a good joke -eh?!) as it turns out to be, by someone who claims to be a 'very private person', but uses another name to apply for planning permissions where Labour Party people have a say in granting permissions or not. The truth is that the Labour Party's so-called system of checking the source of large donations it receives is so full of holes as to be hardly worth the name! I think the whole reason for this lackadaisical attitude to compliance with laws they have enacted themselves is ideological - any socialists I have ever met seem to beleive the 'justice' of their cause is so obvious to any person of good will that any possibility of cheating by one of their members is so unthinkable to them that they do not actually do any proper checking at all. For example in the organisation I worked for I had to certify, in writing, on a regular basis that certain things had been done or had happened as a normal routine part of my professional activity. Fair enough. What if I hadn't actually done what I'd said I'd done, though? Simple - every so often there were both internal audits and external audits of our activities in great detail; it is fair to say that the internal audits were a great deal more 'forensic' than the external audits, because the consequences of things being discovered later in an external audit would be extremely serious for the organisation itself as either laws might have been broken or shareholders deceived. No system is ever absolutely foofproof, but it needs to be sufficiently robust so that more than a casual scrutiny does not reveal it to be completely illusory. Labour's problem is that it seems to 'assume' its people act honestly, openly and conscientiously, but does not actually do any checking to see that this is the case, nor (it seems) are the people who act on its behalf required to certify, in writing, that they have carried out its own internal rules.

PS/ In an amusing aside I note that the visitor stats for my post on this matter yesterday show I received a visit from someone using the Electoral Commission server - let's hope their in-depth investigation of this sleaze goes a good deal further than looking at what random bloggers are writing. Can I suggest an independent audit of the Labour Party's accounts? Maybe if I'm visited by the Electoral Commission again they'll see this comment and follow it up, or am I being naive and over-optimistic?

"We're Labour - the law is for others"

Yet another case of the Labour Party and its supporters blatantly breaking the law. I heard the good David Abrahams waffling on the radio this morning, later repeated on BBC News 24, that he wanted to keep his identity secret to avoid the press hounding him and he didn't carry a 'rule book' around with him - fair enough, but the law is the law, even for a Labour supporter. It is no defence to claim ignorance of the law. We still don't know whether anyone within the Labour Party, locally or nationally, deliberately encouraged Mr Abrahams to provide his donations in this manner.

Incidentally, how easy would it have been for the two supposed donors (one his secretary and the other a 'friend and colleague' of the secretary) to say no to Mr Abrahams, had they wished to do so, and not suffer repercussions in their employment or work prospects? Sounds like undue influence to me. The reports I saw yesterday indicated that one of the donors, described as a 'jobbing builder', hated the Labour Party, indeed all politicians, and would never give money to it - if true this sounds as if his name has been used without his agreement. How will the Labour Party squirm out of that one?

The Labour Party begins to sound more and more like the late Mrs Leona Helmsley, a property tycoon in New York who thought taxes were for the 'little people'. I thought it was the 'little people' that the Labour Party was set up to support, but like a lot of what socialists believe in, this is just another example of their self-serving habits of deception and misinformation.

Cash for honours - no charges to be brought

Nothing to see here. Move along now. All very convenient. Perhaps a little too convenient?

This is not news! Bribery to get contracts is as old as time!

Yet another 'splash' story carried by the BBC about corruption when getting contracts abroad, spearheaded naturally enough by Labour and LibDem MPs.

Whilst I agree that bribery and corruption is 'wrong', I'm not a fool and I've seen enough in my own life to tell me it is very common. Who amongst us has not felt obliged to give a generous 'tip' to some rascal in order to 'protect' our car when parked in the street? Perhaps not common in the UK, but I can assure you I've done it often in certain places I lived. Or if you are in New York and want a restaurant meal to be served decently and not spat onto then you are obliged to give 17 or 20 percent as a tip if you ever plan to visit the same restaurant again, or if you don't want to have insults hurled at you as you leave. Different in scale, certainly, from the 'bungs' being reported, but there is little difference morally so far as I can see. I have personally had to hand over a large US dollar bill just to ensure I got through a security check at the airport without being beaten up or worse in a country where the government had recently been overthrown in a coup.

I do think some do-gooder holier-than-thou Labour and LibDem MPs really do need to grow up! Do they want jobs in the UK or do they want to drive all successful companies out of business or abroad?

Freedom of Information Act and MP's self-voted exemption

A petition to the Prime Minister seeking an overturn of the exemption MPs have voted themselves to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act has been launched. The petition is in the following terms:

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to implement a full Freedom of Information Act. There is no justification in Government business being executed in a shroud of secrecy. The Government works in our name, therefore access to ALL business should be free and immediate.'

If you are a British Citizen or resident in the UK I urge you to consider adding your name to this worthwhile initiative. To view the petition and add your signature please visit the 10 Downing Street website here.

(thru Justin at Chicken Yoghurt)

Shoddy attempts to smear 'Cash for Honours' whistleblower MacNeil!

Look, I am no supporter of the SNP (I think we knew that - Ed.), but this exposé by the Sunday Mail (Sunday stablemate of Labour-leaning rag the Daily Record) is just contemptible. It shows how desperate Labour supporters are becoming about their Party's prospects in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, not to mention the local government elections in Scotland and much of England, that they have to scrape the barrel with this kind of nonsense.

Mr MacNeil has apparently issued an apology to his family for the hurt and embarrassment he has caused them. Fair enough, Angus MacNeil is married and he has a child born around the time the incident took place. He was stupid. So were the two young women. I've been stupid too, in my time - as have, I expect, the reporters who wrote this story, not to mention politicians from more or less every political party you could name. However, no law has been broken, however much the Sunday Mail tries to insinuate this by using such charged words as 'teen girls' and 'teenage school-leavers'; the fact is both were willing participants in this escapade and all three say they now regret it; it is not at all clear, though, how the Sunday Mail got a hold of this story.

In any case I, for one, do not think any less of Angus MacNeil; whatever his personal failings (which are no concern of mine at least in this instance), and whatever his political beliefs as a supporter of the SNP's policies, he has performed a valuable public service in drawing attention to what is a real scandal - the selling of honours for cash. The Labour Party need not think it can divert voters away from the main issue by this attempt at 'proxy' smearing through a tame newspaper - and the main issue is their sleaze and their incompetence.

'Cash for Honours' scandal. Drip. Drip. Drip.

More information drips out of the steaming cesspit that is 10 Downing Street. Through Guido (who had it from Iain Dale) I learned that Ruth Turner reportedly began her famous memo with the words: "Oh F**k, Levy Has Asked Me To Lie For Him" (my rules against the use of profanity in this blog oblige me to disguise slightly the word that Ms Turner is said to have used - sorry).

Oh dear, what a sad country to be a citizen of. Perhaps I will feel a little less soiled [*] when this rotten crowd of sleazebags is driven out of office - which I hope will be sooner rather than later.

The BBC report on the latest developments is here.

[*] I know I probably come across as a stereotypical 'maiden aunt' with my funny rules on profanity, etc., but I don't care. I am sure many people (indeed I know many people) regard me as a wart on the face of humanity because I am unashamedly a gay man, but the filth I read earlier today in links back through the blogger profile of a person who had written a rebuttal of a comment I had made in another blog confirms me in my belief that seeming pride in use of shocking language for 'effect' is not something I have any desire to emulate, however provoked I may feel on occasion; when such language is used by someone who professes to be a 'Christian' as it was in that other blog comment it robs the counter-arguments of any validity in my view, not that the lack of such profanity would have materially affected my view, if I'm honest.

'Cash for Honours' - Guardian reveals substance of Ruth Turner email

A High Court judge has rejected a request by the Police and the Attorney General for an injunction to prevent publication of an article by the Guardian newspaper in which it reveals what are allegedly additional details of what was written in the email sent by Blair aide Ruth Turner to Downing Street Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell. The Police and Attorney General apparently tried to persuade the judge that publication might jeopardise their investigation. It seems that the Guardian's first print-run was already in process of distribution and the judge may have felt obliged to accept claims by the newspaper's Editor that it would be nigh on impossible to recall all issues so an injunction would be pointless (*).

The Guardian article reveals that the email concerned afforts by Labour Chief Fundraiser, Lord Levy, to 'shape' the evidence which Ruth Turner would give to the Police. Another document (whose existence, so far as I am aware, has never been revealed before) is an account of a meeting between Ms Turner and Lord Levy which Ms Turner has given to her lawyers and been passed to the Police. Police efforts have in recent months apparently concentrated in trying to piece together the evidence provided by this legal document and by the email sent to Jonathan Powell. The Guardian apparently has no information concerning in what way the evidence to be given by Ruth Turner was to be modified, nor whether such changes were to be 'significant'. The Guardian article also casts doubt on the existence of the infamous email which the BBC alleges was sent.

My interim conclusion, at this stage of the proceedings, has to be along the lines of:
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
(Sir Walter Scott to the rescue)

(*) But it wouldn't have prevented a possible future prosecution of the Guardian and its Editor for potentially jeopardising the case against certain of the Labour Party's leading lights and lesser minions. I am forced to point out that the Guardian is, traditionally, a left-leaning newspaper, although I would accept it has probably in this instance been motivated more by journalistic enthusiasm than by a desire to contaminate evidence, but this enthusiasm may nevertheless have affected its judgement about what was the right thing to do in this case.

This post updates my most recent article here.

'Cash for Honours' - email sent by Ruth Turner to Jonathan Powell

(Please see new UPDATE at end)

The truth about the infamous email trickles out slowly; the BBC has had the injunction taken out against it last Friday amended so that it may now reveal that the email was sent by Tony Blair's Downing Street aide Ruth Turner (arrested some time ago) to Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell (believed to have been interviewed twice by police, the second time under caution) and concerned Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy (also arrested quite some time ago and then arrested for a second time more recently). We are not yet permitted to know the content of the email, but I am well aware that 'Yates of the Yard' is trying (no doubt against the concerted efforts of 'certain parties') to maintain the integrity of the the evidence he and his team are gathering so that any judgement by the CPS about possible prosecutions (and convictions - delicious prospect!) is not jeopardised. It may be too early to celebrate, but it looks increasingly possible that this corrupt government is going to be 'banged to rights'. Champagne on ice ...

This updates my most recent post on the subject here.

UPDATE: (Tuesday 06MAR07 10.25 RST) The Guardian has revealed further details of the substance of the alleged email sent by Ruth Turner to Jonathan Powell.

'Cash for Honours' injunction based on internal Downing Street e-mail

(Please see UPDATES at end end)

It seems that the evidence which the police wished to protect, by asking the Attorney General to grant an injunction against the BBC, relates to an internal e-mail between what is described here as "two members of Tony Blair's inner circle".

No indication - yet - of who the sender and receiver of said e-mail are, or what it contained.

This updates my earlier post here.

UPDATE: (Sunday 04MAR07 08.83 RST) Guido Fawkes has a detailed analysis of what he thinks might be going on with the news (i.e. 'leak') of the existence of this e-mail. Is the end-game fast being approached? If so I hope whoever is led out of 10 Downing Street (as seems increasingly likely to be a strong possibility - how's that for pussyfooting around what I'm trying to say - lol) will be required to leave by the front door, not sneaked out the back 'passage' [Now, now, keep it clean! - Ed.).

2nd UPDATE: (Monday 05MAR07 18.50 RST) The email was sent by Blair aide Ruth Turner to Chief of Staff and Blair confidant Jonathan Powell and concerned Labour chief fundraiser Lord Levy.