cash for honours decision

In a case such as this, the essence of the offence lies in that unambiguous agreement. If one person makes an offer, etc, in the hope or expectation of being granted an honour, or in the belief that it might put him/her in a more favourable position when nominations are subsequently being considered, that does not of itself constitute an offence. Conversely, if one person grants, etc, an honour to another in recognition of (in effect, as a reward for) the fact that that other has made a gift, etc, that does not of itself constitute an offence. For a case to proceed, the prosecution must have a realistic prospect of being able to prove that the two people agreed that the gift, etc, was in exchange for an honour. (CPS Decision)

So unless one or both of them is stupid enough to admit an ‘unambiguous agreement’ or the police find documentation of such an agreement…

Whatever, such statements as ‘we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice – can properly be characterised as commercial’ hardly sound like a ringing declaration of innocence.

it wasn’t meant to be this way

Poor Tony Blair, his glorious exit was not meant to be this way:

• cash for honours just refuses to go away: lord Levy and Ruth Turner were re-bailed on 7 June, while the Crown Prosecution Service has asked police to carry out further inquiries before deciding whether any charges should be brought. Oh dear, by the time they decide that nice Lord Goldsmith will no longer be Attorney General. 
• the al-Yamamah controversy rumbles on: those nasty Panorama people are now alleging a government cover-up and the Great Leader is forced to state the case had to be dropped to prevent ‘the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs’ — which he’d previously said were ‘not the consideration in this case’ — when he’s supposed to be achieving great things at the G8. And, oh dear again, isn’t the government meant to have a responsibility under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention to ‘ensure that the investigation and prosecution of bribery of foreign public officials shall not be influenced by considerations of national economic interest, the potential effect upon relations with another state or the identity of the natural or legal persons involved.’
• George Bush just won’t return all those favours and agree to any actual targets on climate change — not even when Tony said ‘Pretty please.’ — only agreeing to ’strongly consider’ at least a halving of global emissions by 2050 leaving the deal, as Greenpeace accurately assessed, ‘barely worth the paper it is written on’.
• He signs a memorandum of understanding with Libya promising to ‘commence negotiations’ on prisoner transfer, extradition and mutual assistance in criminal law, with a final deal signed within 12 months. Unfortunately somebody omitted to consult the Scottish government, which is a bit unfortunate as the only significant Libyan prisoner in the UK is Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, who is subject to the Scottish legal system. Egg on face as Downing Street is forced to say: ‘The memorandum of understanding agreed with the Libyan Government last week does not cover this case.’ If so then to whom, pray, does it apply?  And according to the Herald: ‘Megrahi was the whole point of the talks as far as the Libyans are concerned.’
• And let’s not talk about the war(s) as the 150th soldier dies in Iraq and the 59th soldier dies in Afghanistan.

Tony Blair

Goodbye; good riddance; and here’s hoping Assistant Commissioner John Yates spoils your retirement.

Oh, and please don’t try those puppy-dog expressions on your way to the door: they just don’t work anymore. And there’s no point in trying to define your legacy as it’s already been set in stone and is summarised in one word — Iraq; Carmen Dowd may amend it but you can’t.

update 11/05/2007: I rather liked Rhodri Morgan’s aside as he paid tribute to a ‘great friend to Wales’: ‘It’s very strange for me to be standing here today to talk about a person who’s shafted me on one occasion but on the other hand, compared to what has happened with Iraq, I think that’s pretty small to be honest with you.’

more bad news for Tony

Iraq is his legacy; he’s electoral poison; ‘Blairism’ dies with his resignation; ‘cash for honours’ still threatens. And now, just to top it off, the Information Commissioner has ruled that the government must release the John Williams draft of the 2002 Dossier on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction — remember that 45 minutes claim. As IraqDossier claims, this will help to establish who really wrote the Dossier and just how deeply government spin-doctors were involved in ’sexing it up’. Ah well, at least his house improvements were approved. (source: BBC)

ten years: one bloody legacy

Seven out of ten people believe that Iraq will prove to be Tony Blair’s most enduring legacy, according to an opinion poll for today’s Independent; this far outweighs the score for any of his other ‘achievements’ and will probably stand the test of time to be forever be associated with him — as Eden is tied to Suez. Of course, ‘cash for honours’ may well creep up from its lowly 3%, depending upon the CPS decision.

‘cash for honours’: a test for Gordon

Blair’s other legacy — Labour replacing the Tories as the party of sleaze — is all over the papers again. And it’s clearly going to haunt them through the May elections.

So how is Gordon going to get out from under it. Well he likes tests so here’s five simple ones for him; if wants to convince us things are going to change then during his first week in office he should:

1. state clearly his belief in the integrity of the police investigation
2. suspend any officials interviewed under caution pending a CPS decision, and dump lord Levy
3. appoint an independent lawyer as Attorney General
4. reappoint Alistair Graham as Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life
5. confirm that the Treasurer of the Labour Party will have oversight of all fund-raising activities.

And during the phoney leadership ‘campaign’, he should, at least, state the importance of these prosecution decisions being taken not only ‘without fear or favour’, but without any possible allegation of political interference or conflict of interest.