39
False statements: offence
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he knowingly or recklessly makes a statement to the Commission which is false in any material particular, and
(b)
the statement is made, or purports to be made, on behalf of a party for any purpose of this Part of this Act.
Twice in her statement to the media Harriet Harman claimed that she had accepted the dodgy donation "in good faith". Under normal circumstances acting in good faith negates having acted in bad faith. However, the charge is not that Harriet Harman acted in bad faith. Rather, it is that she acted recklessly. Gordon Brown and Hilary Benn have avoided this charge by not accepting a donation from David Abrahams via an agent Miss Janet Kidd. Furthermore, Hilary Benn took care to ensure that his donation came from and was declared as coming from David Abrahams. Because Harriet Harman failed to take care, which would normally be termed as being negligent, she was reckless.
Powered by ScribeFire.
13 comments:
"No, I never knew where all that money came from. When we get such a huge sum of money as a donation it is considered very impolite to ask where it came from."
Ron Knee: That my dear chap is why we call it being reckless...
It's not section 39 you want, John: that's under Part II, not about donations.
In relation to Harriet, the relevant offence is para. 12(2) of Schedule 7 to the Act. Janet Kidd had a duty to disclose the original source of the money, though, so I think it's enough, in order for Harriet to have a good defence under para. 12(3) of having taken all reasonable steps to comply, if Kidd didn't disclose the source of the money. I don't see para. 12(3) as requiring Harman to inquire into every donor.
But of course if that's right, then Janet Kidd may have committed an offence.
Hi Carl: I am aware that the section is not in relation to donations and have read the part in relation to donations. Firstly, I don't accept the good faith line of defence. Secondly, if the Act is read as a whole, I don't see why the negligence or recklessness charge cannot be made to stick.
I did note that others should face criminal charges, and picked up that Janet Kidd is liable. Including David Abrahams.
BTW, if you type Harriet Harman has committed a criminal offence into Google you will find that some bastard has plagiarized my post to steal my number one spot off Google and the site has done it to earn revenue from advertising. If I am wrong about Harriet Harman, being a man of straw it would be pointless to sue me for libel. However, it might be worth her while to sue the bastard who has ripped me off.
Let this lot govern for gods sake, that's what most of us want. This daily have a go at Gordon is beginning to annoy me you know. Plus Guido keeps deleting my comments, now that's not playing the game is it ?
mike: I would like nothing better than for this government to govern. For example, it could get on with the business of proposing a Bill to legislate for convicted prisoners to have their human right to vote. Instead, it appears it is more interested in getting involved with corruption.
Guido is a cunt.
Mike:
This lot can't govern properly because they are too busy filling their own back pockets. Gordon is a sly cunt.
jailhouselawyer said...it could get on with the business of proposing a Bill to legislate for convicted prisoners to have their human right to vote.
To be honest not top of my wish list that one, doubt it will ever actually make my wish list. Have to agree with the bit about Guido though. Read your blog daily, worth a view most days I find.
Ron Knee said...This lot can't govern properly because they are too busy filling their own back pockets. Gordon is a sly cunt.
Disagree, but then I would as not only do I vote Labour, but also think Gordon given half a bloody chance could help get rid of the stench that was Blair. However I doubt he will be given that chance now, too much happening and most not his fault. Pop back to Guidos' now and get another comment deleted, keeps him on his toes and hopefully comment moderation will follow. Now that really pisses the good folk off, noticed you post there, I'll be checking your next comment for accuracy and fairness towards Gordon. Still with your views I feel you have a friend in Guido, and most unlikely to have anything deleted.
Mike: I voted for the first time in my life at the last election and put my cross for Labour. However, I thought long and hard about it because I had reservations over the Iraq war.
If you believe in human rights and the rule of law, then I fail to see how you cannot not support the prisoners legal and human rights to vote. True it is not a popular cause, but there again, neither was abolishing the death penalty. It's quite simple. It's a matter of right and wrong. The government are wrong not to fulfill their obligations under the Convention. Furthermore, if the prisoners had the vote it would raise the prison crises on the political agenda and lead to solving the problems once and for all. It would turn a lose-lose into a win-win situation.
jailhouselawyer ..
John:
Agreed the Iraq war was not what I voted for either, history told what the outcome of that would be. Did not want Blair the second time around, was voting for Gordon. Blair was a phony and was never any flavour of The Labour Party. My father was in the prison service, before your time he's been dead for thirty years. He like you was against the death penalty, as a kid I can remember coming home and finding him crying, later discovered he had been required as part of his job to witness a hanging. I am also against the death penalty, the reason being you can't bring them back if you make a mistake. I would not give prisoners the vote, I accept you have different views. If not Gordon who would you trust, don't say Cameron, that man is more shallow than even Blair. We've run out of good men, they will however make themselves know in time, bloody soon I hope. The press are going to make being the P.M. a job that few will want, and that could be dangerous. We are already being run by The Daily Mail and The Sun and I can't see that changing. Gordon if given the chance could just sort things out, trouble is it's those who should know better that keep causing all the problems. He could be brought down by the incompetence of his friends, unbelievable. But with Honest Dave making such a show of it all, is he riding for a fall I wonder ? Is all that squeaky clean in his party, had I been in charge I think I would have kept my head down, just in case !
Mike:
"However I doubt he will be given that chance now, too much happening and most not his fault."
It amazes me the number of people who make excuses for these idiots. They are paid BIG BUCKS to be the top dog and if they don't want to be associated with the flack from a former leader they should not get into bed with them in the first place. I have had a gutful of hearing mis-informed friends make excuses for leaders to the tune of: "Well, he didn't know what his ministers were doing behind his back"
Sorry old chap, these people are paid to know what their minions are doing. To say otherwise is an admission that they do not know how to lead or have the full support of their workers.
As for "inheriting" problems from a previous leader go, I have heard that old chestnut made as an excuse for Bliar's troubles as well. Just where DOES the blame lie?
Ron Knee said...
Ron:
The guy ain't in it for the money, if you believe that then you're daft. The money for the job they do is derisory, if you doubt that you're daft. The job comes with huge responsibilities and no glory, if you doubt that ..... The press run this country and the plebs don't give a rats ......All they want is footie and beer. Most don't even vote when given the chance and for why, they know it won't make any difference who is in power. I'm too old to worry about most things now, just turned 65, had three heart attacks and the National Health Service was in my case impeccable. My pension is as expected and together with savings and company pension I am going to make it. My streets are clean and we use wheelie bins which are rat free, inflation as good as it has been in twenty years, I'm OK. I also remember Maggie, was born in Durham and don't want that crowd back in power. I want Gordon to have a chance on his own without smiley in the way. I don't give a fig what you want , and I know you don't give a fig what I want. But lets agree on one thing a guy whose only other job was working for a television company and going to a posh school is not who any sane voter wants as the next PM. Please tell me you at least agree with that or you're dafter than I thought.
Mike:
EVERY politician is in it for the money. That is why they get intae politics in the first instance.
As Billy Connolly once said:
"Should anybody WANT Tae want tae get intae politics shuid preclude anybody frae gettin' intae politics in the furst place"
Wakey wakey. An I don't beieve yor banter. i am also older than you know. Seen it all an have yet to see some cont with real feeling.
Post a Comment