Ruth Turner is to be charged by the police in relation to an email linked to the cash-for-honours inquiry. Earlier this evening, Iain Dale's Diary exclusively posted that there was a rumour that a injunction had been sought against the BBC preventing them from broadcasting this story. However, he then claims an exclusive which featured on the BBC Ten O' Clock News. Meanwhile, Guido merely posted a picture of a smoking gun, as though that gives anyone any information at all.
The Attorney General, the corrupt Lord Goldsmith, sought the injunction in the public interest. However, too frequently the government claims that it is acting in the public interest when in reality it is seeking to protect its own interest from political embarrassment. Had Lord Goldsmith not lost his integrity over the changed legal advice in relation to the Iraq war, I might of believed him. This reminds me of the attempt by Margaret Thatcher to ban Spycatcher.
Update: It is interesting to note that Iain Dale has removed the Ruth Turner label in his post, whereas Guido has added other names in addition to Ruth Turner. It is doubtful that Israel would have extradited Lord Levy, the subject of the email, if he had stayed there during his recent trip. What amazes me is that with so many lawyers involved, how did they manage not to notice that perverting the course of justice is a crime? Like a house of cards, pull one out and the others are likely to fall. I would have preferred it if the card had been an Ace, or a King, as opposed to a Queen.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
8 comments:
Thanks for this!
Just because Lord Goldsmith did something you disapprove of or changed his mind, doesn't mean he doesn't have integrity.
IMHO the people of Britain should have the power, via their elected leader, to go to war against whoever they want. If they don't like what their elected representative do, they can always vote for alternatives.
You may not like Blair/Goldsmith's opinions but as a supporter of prison reform you shouldn't be advocating locking people up for opinions you don't like.
That said, great post on the cash for honours enquiry. Locking up Blair for stealing the last election by corruption (he would be out of power already without the extra votes that he thus bought) is something that any supporter of democracy should welcome.
Peter H: My pleasure.
Scary Biscuit: I believe that Lord Goldsmith will have integrity in other aspects. However, I don't believe either he, nor Tony Blair, Lord Levy and Lord Falconer did in this affair, nor over Iraq.
Of course the public have the power, through their elected representatives to go to war, when it is a just war. Iraq cannot be justified.
I am not advocating that they should be locked up. And, it is not their opinions that I don't like. Rather, it is the conduct of abusing public power. I would be content with their resignations. But, they decided to stay and fight it out.
What I am saying is that they knew they were doing wrong, and that is a misfeasance in public office. I suspect a judicial review would have established this but nobody has made such an application to the High Court.
Congratulations on being the only blog in the entire world to report this story (as at 1am). Well done - the only defender of freedom of speech - Guido, Dale etc. suck
Ruth Kelly's sins of Catholicism may merit a charge, but it's acutally Ruth Turner - fantasy prison-babe-to-be that makes all those funny series about women's prisons and their sometimes hot inmates suddenly seem plausible - who is being charged.
RK would have problems smuggling her barbed wire underwear and hair shirts into clink anyway.
Sorry for being pedantic. Oh, the Latvian hk could have problems with the dog business. I think that's still illegal (technically) though rumoured to be quite widely practiced.
anonymous: I think that both Guido and Iain are more Establishment orientated than I am. In addition, they fear legal repercussions. I have not been served with a gagging order, and am not part of the mainstream media. I won a case to give prisoners access to the media. I don't see the point of self-imposed censorship as it is giving up the freedom enjoyed by those not in prison.
You appear to be mixing up your "Ruths" in this story.
peter from putney: Thank's mate, typo now corrected.
Post a Comment