I am not claiming that Tony Blair, unlike David Lloyd George, personally profited from the sale of honours. Whereas Lloyd George put the money in his own pocket, Tony Blair gave the money to the Labour Party. Nevertheless, in my view, as Angus MacNeil MP, points out in his letter, it is still an offence under S.1(1) of the 1925 Act. Lord Levy was Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, he did not act upon his own authority, rather he operated for and on behalf of the Leader of the Labour Party, who is none other than Tony Blair. It cannot be argued by Tony Blair that he did not know what Lord Levy was up to. So, before we even start, there is a joint enterprise. Between them, they conspired, to commit several offences contrary to S.1(1) of the Act. In my view, it is irrelevant whether the money is called a loan or donation, because the money was obtained for the purpose of granting a honour for a reason other than upon merit. And, those who tried to buy or succeeded in buying such an honour are caught under S.1(2) of the Act.
This is not an attempt to perform a trial by media. The media have already reported the story. A MP contacted the police to investigate the media claims. The police have investigated this and other issues. However, the ball which Angus MacNeil MP started rolling has been stopped by Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General. Lord Goldsmith is a friend of Tony Blair's. This introduces the conflict of interest. If Lord Goldsmith's integrity had not already been compromised on, at least, two occasions already, the changed legal advice on the Iraq war, and the decision not to proceed on the BAE/Saudi Arms deal, there would not be such a problem. However, in English law even a perceived bias by a decision-maker means that that person should stand down. If Lord Goldsmith does not remove himself from this case, he must be removed from office.
The political football should be allowed to take its course.
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.
1 comment:
I don't really buy all this John. There are a set of people "eligible" for honours and life peerages through their achievements in industry, commerce, public service, voluntary sector, and as a sample ornery working people too. Plus there are a set of people who are wealthy enough to donate to political causes that they support. These two groups overlap quite a bit as achievements bring disposible income. The Honours system is of course utterly corrupt and ridiculous. It has been since time. But all the parties have gobby second hand car salesmen with Levy, Ancram and Rennard in the frame for something or other. And their keen to please field sales teams buttering up customers with every trick in the book. But as you say none of them or their respective leaders is pocketing the cash and e.g. Michael Brown won't be getting a peerage and isn't in it for the influence. My view is that this has been a monumental waste of police time and our money. Blair and Levy (and Cameron and Rennard) could and should have stopped it of course by saying" "We acknowledge that there have been some ill-judged sales pitches here and there within all our parties campaign procurement teams. Pin down the rules better and we'll all try harder in future."
Or they could have even barred the rich from peerages and honours. But they didn't. It's a drag and Angus MacNeil is a bit of a scumbag really isn't he?
And a crap MP with poor turn out and letter answering stats as well as terrible judgement when it comes to personal behaviour, drunkeness, exploitation and family values.
He was a primary school teacher at the time.
Post a Comment