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.

 

Tony Blair to be charged on anti-corruption laws...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
The 'cash for peerages' affair.

Alan Milburn was interviewed by Scotland Yard officers on tuesday as he was in charge of Labours last election campaign, as it appears that during fund-raising for the campaign Labour effectively sold seats in the House of Lords in return for loans.

Alan Milburn is quoted as saying "Following a request from the police, I have been interviewed as a witness. The police stressed I was not a suspect and the interview did not take place under caution".

It has also been revealed that Tony Blair is the only senoir member of the Labour Party not to receive a letter from the police, which asked them to detail their role in the affair. The letter also makes clear that they will not be interviewed in person. Party figures, including Brown and Prescott, where asked to confirm if they knew about £4.8 million of secret loans.

I just realised that this issue hadn't been raised recently and wondered what people thought the implications for Tony Blair will be.

[edit on 10/11/06 by byhiniur]




posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
What's your source(s) for all this, out of curiosity?

Anyway, it will of course have profound implications not just for Labour but for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats too (since it appears they've all been at it). So, if any Labour members get prosecuted, expect Tories/Lib Dems to follow.

However, it's probably going to be quite a while yet before the police decide whether they've even got a case, let alone who's going to be charged.

It does throw into question the whole system of party funding... should it be state-funded?

On the one hand, it will reduce significantly the parties' reliance on individuals and organisations, thus making them more independent and more likely to do as voters want. On the other hand... do you really want your tax paying for campaigns of the BNP and other nasty groups? I know I don't. And where's the money going to come from? A rise in tax?



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Tony Blair to be charged on anti-corruption laws...


- Er, says who and where can we see this report?

Please post some sort of backing to this claim cos
I can't see a single news report out there today saying anything of the sort.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I first read this in London Lite, a free newspaper, on 8th November, however a search on Google News for "cash-for-honours investigation" will give you many reports, including more recent revelations.

Here's the link.

[edit on 10/11/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
So, the truth is that you have posted something you cannot substantiate.


Originally posted by byhiniur
I first read this in London Lite, a free newspaper, on 8th November


- Why not find and then post a link so we can all see what they wrote?

Cos it looks like they're completely wrong as well, if you are accurate in claiming they have said TB had been charged.


however a search on Google News for "cash-for-honours investigation" will give you many reports, including more recent revelations.


- Er, no-one disputes that there is a Police investigation on-going into the whole so-called 'cash for honours' matter right now so a google link to reports of this on-going investigation proves nothing.

The point is that you started a thread making a claim (that "Tony Blair to be charged on anti-corruption laws...") which you obviously cannot back up.

The truth of the matter is quite simply this -
Right now, today on the 10/11/2006 @ 8:00pm no such charges have been brought against Tony Blair and there is absolutely no indication they are imminent either.


The simple and honourable thing to do would just be to admit you perhaps were either making a little mischief (in which case you should post such 'pranks' in BTS) or maybe you got carried away with some of your own wishful thinking or perhaps you just got the story completely wrong somewhere along the line.

Anyhoo, I recommend a little more patience and that you await something concrete and serious actually happening in this story.

Given the public perception of the history of the parties in this 'area' and the reality you might end up being very surprised.


[edit on 10-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Anyhoo, I recommend a little more patience and that you await something concrete and serious actually happening in this story.

Given the public perception of the history of the parties in this 'area' and the reality you might end up being very surprised. [edit on 10-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]


I am replying to the whole thread but didn't want to duplicate the whole thing here.

I have substantiated my claim (although I copied, in some parts, word for word the meaningful parts that London Lite had printed) by giving you other sources to the same information. The London Lite, although not a completely reliable source, had claimed that this was a possible outcome, TB (Tony Blair) being charged on either corruption or election laws, which is a title I used to attracty readers; I never intend to be judged on titles alone. I merely asked what the implications of TB being charged in such charges would be.

A google link provides other members to this threrad with the same information I have read and allows them to tell me the current state of affairs and pssible implications as they see it.

I made my claim in the same way any newspaper would in order to attract readers, I will refrain from this in the future as I now see it does not help people deny ignorance.

I agree that maybe I have got carried away, but I would refer you back to the original question I proposed in my first thread, which I didn't 'question mark', although it should have been clear that it was a question to ATS members. I didn't post this in BTS as PTS seemed a better forum for better answers from ATS members who have an interest in this field. If you wish to ask me why I'm asking for implications rather than referring our readers to concrete facts of TB being charged, I would refer you to many sections of ATS that are mere speculation rather than concrete fact.

I agree that it will take patience until TB is actually convicted of anything, however I am interested in what the implications of TB being charged while he is in office and after would be. I am also interested in hearing what more learned people would say as to the relevance of the information I gave you.

I want to know whether me campaigning outside parliment would allow me to have a PM I detest (for obvious reasons) being charged for one of the things he had done wrong.



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
[edit on 10/11/06 by byhiniur]



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 05:56 AM
link   
he will get away with it.

he best friend gets the final say on the case.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by byhiniur
I have substantiated my claim


- No you did not, at all.

Your original 'claim' was that Tony Blair had been charged.

He has not.

Therefore the rest is all mere spin to avoid admitting you made a false claim.


The London Lite, although not a completely reliable source, had claimed that this was a possible outcome


- Yet you are completely unable to link to even this headline
(which, lets face it, if true, would be all over every paper and news site everywhere).


TB (Tony Blair) being charged on either corruption or election laws, which is a title I used to attracty readers


- It's a lie.

True that's, sadly, the kind of bias, distortion and outright lie we've come to expect from out tabloids but if that is the standard you want to employ here then, ok you work away, but it's your own credibility you're knocking by admitting that.


I never intend to be judged on titles alone.


- So why use such a patently obviously false one then, hmmmmm?

It's not as if you're saying it's immaterial or you hoped no-one would notice, right?


I merely asked what the implications of TB being charged in such charges would be.


- No.

With a false title like that you aren't 'merely' asking anything; you made a statement of fact.....
....which turned out to be completely wrong.


A google link provides other members to this threrad with the same information I have read and allows them to tell me the current state of affairs and pssible implications as they see it.


- If that's really all you're trying to do then why not just raise your 'take' on the issue on one of the several threads already running about this, hmmmm?

There is a search facility so as to try and avoid pointless duplication....although the some of the threads are here on page one of the main UK politics page.


I made my claim in the same way any newspaper would in order to attract readers, I will refrain from this in the future as I now see it does not help people deny ignorance.


- 100% correct and right on the money.



If you wish to ask me why I'm asking for implications rather than referring our readers to concrete facts of TB being charged, I would refer you to many sections of ATS that are mere speculation rather than concrete fact.


- If you don't go for a false title in the first place you might find you get better debate.

If you look you'll find that on many threads we're not against 'tweaking a nose' or 'pulling a tail' politically, so to speak, that's fine and part of the expected knockabout in politics.

But outright falsehood is not ok.

.....and like I said we already have more than one thread running on this subject already anyway.


I agree that it will take patience until TB is actually convicted of anything, however I am interested in what the implications of TB being charged while he is in office and after would be.


- If you seriously think the sitting British PM or Minister is going to be convicted of this I think you are very much mistaken.

Even when he leaves office I doubt there will be any convictions (and no convicted torys or LibDems either).


I want to know whether me campaigning outside parliment would allow me to have a PM I detest (for obvious reasons) being charged for one of the things he had done wrong.


- Eh?
Sorry how would you campaigning outside Parliament have anything to do with your having a PM whether you like him/her or not?

.....and no, your reason aren't especially obvious, plenty of British people support Blair and the Labour gov (as show in a general election less than 2yrs ago).

It's up to the Police, the CPS and possibly the Attorney General, we'll just have to see what they say.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Sminkey - In future I'll account for what you have said. However, I think it unfair for you to say I lied when I didn't. If you read my original post you should understand the reason for this thread, as other people who replied did. Don't waste your time replying.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Whether he gets charged or not is immaterial as honours are now dishonoured and this will ease the destruction of the house of lords.This will leave he and his sitting pretty unless a way can be found to strip him of ministerial priviledge.This entails a petition to the queen to do this as she is the only way that parliament can be dissolved.The only petition that will stand would be about his involvement in deaths of all those at war, both IRAQUI and ALLIANCE nations.The right amount of preesure and no one is expendable



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by avatari777
Whether he gets charged or not is immaterial as honours are now dishonoured


- This is getting surreal and truly hilarious.

Do people here have any idea of the history of the British 'honours' system?

They have always been a vehicle of patronage and favour, it is exactly what they are all about.
Originally it was 'Royal patronage' and lately a more political form of patronage......what do you think the term 'service to the country' usually means to a politician (of any colour) hmmmm?

Tune in guys, everybody who knows anything about the 'system' knows this and has never found the 'honours system' particularly honourable!
(with perhaps the exception of when it applies to 'ordinary people' being recognised for working for the community or perhaps a well known and respected sports-person etc).

It's partly why the idea that politicians could ever be nicked over this is so ridiculous.

......and as for hoping Blair et al stand trial for 'war crimes' etc etc?

I just hope people think this idiotic nonsense through......

.......cos if they're so convinced that holds true for the politicians then prepare for the hundreds if not thousands of accompanying prosecutions for all the other members of the British armed forces.

Getting away with it claiming 'you only did it cos you were following orders' went out in Nuremberg, Germany from the mid 1940's onward, remember?



[edit on 11-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 03:14 AM
link   
This is well thought through with conversations with better barristers than Booth n Blair.The labour party has been destroyed for the people as LADY ELIZABETH QUEENBOROUGH said in her book about THE OCCULT, It is in the interests of all concerned to own the opposition,This is where Blair rose to fame. He is just another expendable politician at the end of the day.But he is assured of riches by people who say he cannot be touched.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by avatari777
The labour party has been destroyed for the people as LADY ELIZABETH QUEENBOROUGH said in her book about THE OCCULT


- Oh righto, so a Lady E. Queenborough says the Labour party is "destroyed"?!

That'll come as news to the Labour party members, it's local organisations across the nation, the millions of supporters and the Labour Gov itself.

......and from your comments the nub of this arguement stems from an observation and a complaint that Labour has embaced a more modern 'Social democrat' approach and won't 'go' for a good old extremist 'workers Marxist socialist utopia' anymore.
How aweful of them.


Yeah right, as if.

First of all what a renowned authoritative political and economical source, not.

.....and perhaps you'd care to provide a link or two to this great authority and her publication(s) (btw are you really talking about the 1930's author?).

A nearly 80yr old critque from a member of the upper classes (as they were back then) of British politics and the political parties (as they were back then) and the (then) influences of the (then) ruling class don't strike me as a great guide to the modern political landscape we see today, sorry but no way.

.....and secondly, imagine the British upper classes whining that Labour won't hobble itself posing or playing extremist and out-of-date 'workers paradise' games anymore....coo who'd ever expect that, huh?

It's as funny as when the tory party used to complain that the Labour party had 'lost it's principles' by having the audacity to change some policy and then become electorally sucessful, thrashing them at the polls in the process.

It's typical but nevertheless utterly absurd.

The complaint basically boils down to (whatever the decade/century) moaning that it isn't really 'Labour' if Labour rejects left-wing extremism and moves to become so sucessfully electable.....and thereby gain power to actually implement it's program for Government.

(but don't worry, no doubt at some point they'll be back to pretending that Larbour are all a crazed gang of ultra-lefty extremists anyway.....just check out a weeks worth of Daily Mail/Telegraph/Sun/Express etc etc for proof!
).

Well, hard lines, suck it up.
Labour are in power, are implementing their program for Gov and look set to continue to do so for along time yet.

Anyone else who wants to go down the route of imagining a more hard-line leftist 'old Labour' as 'the answer' might care to ask that if it is so true, that Labour is so "destroyed" and therefore working classes have no voice with them then, how come people like Scargill's 'Socialist Labour party' flop so badly with the British electorate?
Or the British communist party.

Etc etc etc.

.....and if you really imagine there's no difference between Labour and tory then maybe you should be asking how come the tory party and their hangers on are so devastated at losing power to them for so long.
Perhaps a look at the policies Labour have brought in might be in order too, the tory party would never have invested so heavily in the public services, introduced - or kept increasing - a minimum wage etc etc.

[edit on 12-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   
If you read your history correctly as you seem to know so much perhaps you would enlighten us as to why the labour party became new labour under blairism.The original party was for the people and the current format is for new labour. It does not deter from the fact that all politicians are expendable and when they are kicked out of office they go with hefty pay offs and pensions,etc.Politics is being eroded in the U.k because if the 67% of people who did not vote were to have a say then we would have democracy and not demoncracy which is currently in power.Blair and his friends have destroyed what the original party stood for and all the good things that they put in place before, the nhs, national security, national insurance and even NATIONAL identity in their lust for power.By the way as a taurean he will take all the flak and still claim he did his job,hence "TEFLON TONY".The present political arena is as corrupt as the ruling classes who sought doit de segneur in the middle ages. The joke is that 33% swallow it and say these overpaid middlemen on state benefits are the next Gods.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
The book concerned is or was available in public libraries up until about five years ago and is called if remembered correctly "A HISTORY OF THE OCCULT" In hardback.A search of any reputable publishers would allow you to find a copy.MARXISM, BLAIRISM,they are all just the same dogma in a different suit and regarding the socio democratic state well thats a laugh even the doctors say we have a third world mentality and personally I have had seven operations cancelled and had a heart attack and given drugs which made it worse. I have studied the law since 1997 when my elder brother died to find a way to get these morons removed. they are not fit to babysit monkeys.They also hate me and all I and many others want is for them to quit I dony hate them. We have a labour government because John Major was useless and I met him personally many times including when he was chancellor. His problem was the "standard chartered bank and its money laundering operations in the 80s. Thatchers problem was that she did not read Milton friedmans,"Tyrrany of the status quo" properly like Reagan did.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Abrief search of google www.cuttingedge.org... pulled up a link, enjoy reading the other side.It does not matter to me how Blair is debunked,as long as he is and I belong to a group working toward this end.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
OK, this has gone wildly and pointlessly OT but just for fun and to address your points.


If you read your history correctly as you seem to know so much perhaps you would enlighten us as to why the labour party became new labour under blairism.


- Anyone who really knew much about British electoral history and Labour's own history from 1974 - 1984 and then later between 1985 - 1997 knows exactly how come the Labour party elected Tony Blair and subsequently endorsed the 'New Labour' agenda......and continues to vote for and endorse it.

There's no mystery and no great occultist conspiracy.


The original party was for the people and the current format is for new labour.


- Well matey you can conjure whatever mumbo-jumbo you like to avoid the facts and the truth of the actual history and events.

The Labour part was invented to attain power and exercise that power, when in power, in the interests of the majority of British people, which it still does to this day.

'Old Labour' became 'Old Labour' for the very good reason that they couldn't win sufficient electoral support to win a general election and gain power with out-dated, out-of-touch and dogmatic principles.

4 times running the Labour party had lost general elections and they were out of power for almost 20yrs.
That would be bad enough but they couldn't even win when the country was suffering as it was under such ghastly policies as those pursued by the tory party back then.

Eventually the party wised up and elected people who could win and endorsed a platform that would win.
No mystery and no conspiracy.

There's the bald truth no matter what day-dreams about 'ideological purity' you might prefer to clutch at.


Politics is being eroded in the U.k because if the 67% of people who did not vote were to have a say then we would have democracy and not demoncracy which is currently in power.


- OK, let's see you back this up.

Which recent British general election saw Labour elected on a turnout of 33% then, hmmmm?
I shall not be holding my breath for an answer on this one.


(I think you're getting rather - or perhaps deliberately? - confused over the overall Labour proportion of the total vote which was split several ways......here's the facts of the matter and the truth;
the British general election has never had a turnout of under 50% post-war you might care to admit it.
)


Blair and his friends have destroyed what the original party stood for


- You obviously know little or perhaps prefer to know nothing about the internal structures of the Labour party or how policy is voted upon by the mass-membership.

Labour party democracy saw Tony Blair elected by the mass-membership under a 'one man one vote' election (they did this long before the tory party and were the first of 'the big two' to embrace such a democratic mechanism).

Labour party democracy also saw the mass-membership vote for and endorse the New labour platform (as they continue to do).

.....you'll get nowhere arguing that sort of ridiculous fantasy with me;
I was then a member of the Labour party and I personally voted for TB & New Labour policies.


Blair and his friends have destroyed what the original party stood for and all the good things that they put in place before, the nhs, national security, national insurance and even NATIONAL identity in their lust for power.


- This is simply not true.

Have you been to a (new) hospital or (new) school lately?

National security?!
OK, feel free to let us know what terrible new threats we are now exposed to - thanks to Labour and Blair - that so threaten the whole realm then, hmmm?

......and "National identity"?!
Please.
Feel free to give examples - if you dare.


hence "TEFLON TONY".


- Actually the term "Teflon Tony" (no need to shout btw) came about because fools in the British right-wing press could never settle on a consistent plausible line of attack.....and everybody knew it and so took little notice of them.
It is, for instance, one of the reasons why people like the Daily Mail & Telegraph are laughed at so much in so much of British society today.
Glaringly obvious and faintly absurd inconsistency.

Much like your own commentary on Blair/Labour at the moment.

One minute it's scary and alarmist tales of how Blair's a raving and dangerous Marxist leading a gang of Trots and the next they're sneering that he's just 'Tory Blair', a pawn of the ruling class and business who has wrecked the good ol' Labour party (like they were ever it's 'friends' anyway
) making it no different that the tory party.

If you're going to comment or use these kinds of lines then at least please try and be accurate, eh?


33% swallow it and say these overpaid middlemen on state benefits are the next Gods.


- You'll, of course, be able to back that up, hmmmm?

The return of the '33% general election turnout fantasy' (or are you just confusing Labour's share of a vote split several ways?) and people claiming they're "Gods" (where the hell do you get that from?)


The book concerned is or was available in public libraries up until about five years ago and is called if remembered correctly "A HISTORY OF THE OCCULT" In hardback.


- Why don't you just 'grow a pair' and own up to it and admit that you are talking about an obscure early 20th century writer and a book published way back in 1933, hmmmm?

Please try and have a little courage and do us all the courtesy of posting a link about her and the book so that other folks here can see exactly who you are talking about, huh?
(or shall I?
)


MARXISM, BLAIRISM,they are all just the same dogma in a different suit


- Righto.
The 'Blair's a Marxist' line......well of course.


When does he reveal himself as the anti-Christ?

.....and don't you think he'd better hurry up constructing that 'workers paradise' then seeing as he's stepping down within no more than the next 9mths or so, wouldn't you say?




personally I have had seven operations cancelled and had a heart attack and given drugs which made it worse.


- It's all the Gov's fault...... and probably Tony Blair's personally.

I'd complain if I were you. That sounds terrible.

However your case doesn't sound anything remotely like either my own experience with the NHS nor that of any of my family and friends.

Whatever flaws remain in the NHS, right now, it is totally incontestable that it is immeasurably better than it used to be pre-1997
(so incontestable that even the tory party have given up on that line of attack and now concentrate on such, handy for them, limp and unquantifiable nonsense as 'there's been a lot of wasted spending').

You must have some luck, very bad luck.


Thatchers problem was that she did not read Milton friedmans,"Tyrrany of the status quo" properly like Reagan did.


- Er, Thatcher eventually ditched Friedman's gobbledygook after her disastrous and prolonged 'experiment' with it ushered in the deepest and most prolonged recession the UK had seen post-war......a recession which only ended when she eventually did jettison all that garbage (finally and publicly ditched with Lawson's Mansion House speech in 1985).
All that hurt and damage (to the British people) thanks to the grossly and wickedly over-valued £ and long-term sky high interest rates through following Friedman's loopy money-supply dogma.

Major engineered his own crazy high interest rate over-valued £ recession (btw that one was the 2nd most deep and prolonged recession in the UK post-war).

It's thanks to both Thatcher & Major's recessions why 'we', the British people, ditched the tory party and have no appetite for seeing that brand of politics back anytime soon.


It does not matter to me how Blair is debunked,as long as he is and I belong to a group working toward this end.


- Rock on, good for you.

You might have noticed that Blair is stepping down of his own accord probably in the late spring early summer of 2007.

You and your little gang better hurry up about it if you're to bring about his "end".

BTW I'm think 'Jimmy' (Reggie Perrin's wife Elizabeth's brother in the rise & fall of Reginald Perrin) and his little gang.......am I close?
How is your (traitorous) little 'revolution' coming along then?


Next you'll be trying to tell people the British 'honours' system has been "dishonoured"!





[edit on 13-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Ihave posted a reply and a link I really think that your personal attack is because you are just one of the many brainashed by the beauty of blairs teeth.This is a conspiracy whether by the fabians or the 1922 committee or any others and regards the so called little gang do you not realise that avatari is the plural of avatar. there are many of us looking for the same goal, you just stay in your cosy little world and when it all goes ape# remember that blair might have had a majority in terms of seats but it was still a minority that voted them in because the majority of enlightened ones would definately vote "none of the above" to any of these scroungers.The greater plan is to save the world not blairs ego.see you at the end.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
interestingly a look at the electoral commision pulled this up for the conspiracy fans. look at www.electoralcommission.org.uk...




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join