It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Goldsmith could have honours say

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 06:12 AM
link   


The attorney general has not ruled out having the final say over whether charges are brought in the cash-for-honours inquiry.

Lord Goldsmith told an audience: "There are a small number of cases where my personal consent is required."

His spokesman said it was "too early" to say if that would apply here.

Earlier SNP MP Angus MacNeil, who began the cash-for-honours inquiry, said it would be "unforgivable" for Lord Goldsmith to become involved.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


news.bbc.co.uk...

I have to second what the SNP MP said, it would be unforgivable to get involved with the cash-for-honours inquiry. It could affect confidence in our system, voters might see that corruption is allowed and ignored...which is not a good thing.




posted on Nov, 5 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Well, who knows?
We shall have to wait a little longer and see.

One can speculate away and imagine whatever one likes but who can tell how this will end up?

But let's not kid ourselves the Attorney General is a political appointment and as such and as someone connected to Government their attitudes and actions will always be seen as having a political aspect.

If the Police and the CPS can't point to a definite and serious breach of the law and it is open to reasonable question and doubt who seriously expects the AG to waste huge amounts of tax-payers money on a flawed and pointless trial?

I thought this from another post was quite lucid and to the point -
Here's the truth of the matter.

Parties are always broke.
Election campaigns are expensive.

No-one wants to pay for them.

They can either be funded by the taxpayer or by private individuals who may have their own agenda.

Take your pick.

The real point in all of this is that if the the extent of 'corruption' in UK government is confined to something that occasionally looks like 'the purchase of peerages' (and even that is open to exposure thanks to the unprecedented evolving legal and accounting framework - thanks to this government - documenting the parties incomes, gifts, donations, loans etc now in place) then we are probably not doing too badly.

If they weren't getting the gongs then you'd have to ask yourself what they were really after.

In America they don't have peers, major donors get to be ambassadors instead, which seems to me far more harmful.


Anyhoo, I do find it all the speculation rather amusing.

Particularly the over-done 'nothing like this has ever happened before and aren't those Labour guys (and most esp PM Tony Blair) a bunch of (almost) criminals' - despite a 100% complete lack of convictions - from the ever so theatrically shocked innocent(s) over this stuff.

Pity instances of genuine misuses of power are so quickly forgotten and ignored.

We did have a real and true outrage involving Ministers and the AG in recent history.
It ended up with the then AG pursuing a course of action which ultimately almost brought down the then Gov.

Were it not for the highly political actions of this then AG who clearly protected those involved for naked and totally obvious political reasons it might well have led to several tory Ministers facing criminal charges for perverting the course of Justice.

The case was Matrix Churchill and it was about arms and restricted highly specialised machinery exports to Iraq under Saddam Hussein which were found out about post Gulf war mk1.

The then tory Gov knew (cos the senior members of Matrix Churchill met and told the security services who subsequently then told the then Ministers) that the company was exporting these 'illegal goods' to Iraq and yet when this information came out post Gulf War mk1 and criminal charges were being laid those tory Ministers said nothing as those men faced prosecution......in fact they did worse, 4 of those then tory Ministers prepared immunity certificates to protect themselves and their own hides.

Those immunity certificates would have seen that the information (that they knew of Matrix Churchill's activities all along) was suppressed and never heard in court; effectively ensuring the conviction and highly likely imprisonment of the MC directors.

It was only when the Gov's prior knowledge came out that the men were acquitted and the threat of prison and/or fines lifted.
Knowingly being prepared to send innocent men to prison to protect Ministerial a$$; that's a real crime.

Sir Nicholas Lyell was the then AG in question.

Lyell later went as far as removing the ability to issue those 'immunity certificates' but it all ended up with no effective censure, no charges and certainly no tory Minister suffering anything like the plight of the Matrix Churchill directors.
Political justice indeed.

If you really want a look at a clear and obvious case of wealth and political donations securing a place in the HOL look no further than the Conservative party treasurer Michael Ashscroft, who was also his party's principal donor, was made a peer on the recommendation of the Conservative leader William Hague.


......it might even be that having been so determined to see this can of worm opened that it is the tory party that come out of it looking the worst.


[edit on 5-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 6 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Fresh in today.

Interesting reading for those who've already decided those close to the PM will stitch it-up.


Sir Ian Blair, Britain's most senior policeman, has excluded himself from making any of the key decisions in the cash for peerages inquiry......

.....The commissioner of the Metropolitan police, who has had a close working relationship with the prime minister particularly over security issues, decided to take a back seat to ensure that his officers could conduct the investigation without any appearance of a conflict of interest.



Ken MacDonald, the director of public prosecutions, has already stepped aside from the inquiry because of his close working relationship with the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair.

politics.guardian.co.uk...

Lord Goldsmith has been speaking and had this to say -

"I have always made decisions in the public interest, in the interests of justice and absolutely independently out of apolitical interest. I think we need to wait to see whether the police produce a file for the Crown Prosecution Service, what it is about and what issues there are to consider."


Depending on the Police & CPS report it turns out he may not have a final say anyway -

If the police pursued prosecutions under the 1889 and 1906 Prevention of Corruption Acts then the Crown Prosecution Service would require Lord Goldsmith's explicit consent to press ahead and charge. Police and prosecutors are, however, more likely to look at possible prosecutions under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

This would not require the attorney general's consent, but there is a convention that, as the minister "superintending" the Crown Prosecution Service he is consulted on difficult, sensitive and high-profile cases, although the final decision rests with the CPS.

politics.guardian.co.uk...

I suppose the real question will be whether the Police and CPS have the guts to admit there isn't a serious case to answer and drop this.
I suspect they won't but will chicken out, stand aside and kick it further on to let the political element take the howls of protest for calling a halt to it.

Few will want to hear that a weak, flawed and pointless trial would be a huge waste of tax-payers money but that is IMO the likely outcome of this.

It's possible things will work out differently but I'm not expecting too much.
Still with a little patience we shall, as I'm always fond of saying, see.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics
 
0

log in

join