You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November 2007.

Battlefields in areas that are either well tilled or part of an urban landscape will be tidied up pretty soon after the event. Watching film of The Great War always makes one astonished that the trench line from the Channel to the Swiss Border has been so generally effaced even ninety years on.

The Western Desert is rather different. Being a desert, no one has had much inclination to complete the tidying up process. This story, which is a genuine good news story, reminds us that there will probably, given the arid and dessicating nature of the sands, be more such discoveries in the centuries to come: out there must still lie trucks, tanks, crashed aircraft and other impedimenta of war that have lain untouched since the moment of conflict, islands of history in the landscape.

Advertisements
As the Rats emerge blinking in the sunlight from the sewer that is the Labour Party, the spectacle of Comrade Harman ripping into Comrade Brown like two ferrets in a sack will cheer everyone who despises Labour and all its rotten works. Let us hope it gets significantly worse before it gets better.

The intervention of Knacker of the Yard was inevitable given the clear evidence of offences having been committed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The mere fact of his intervention further disgraces an already disgraced Labour Party which this year became the first party to have a Prime Minister interviewed by Police in connection with a criminal enquiry. To have one police enquiry, Mr. Brown, may be regarded as a misfortune; to have two looks like carelessness.

Whilst, on present information, it is unlikely that Gordon Brown will have his collar felt for an interview under caution, there must be reasonable chance that he will be interviewed as a witness. This makes Labour’s holding of the Premiership resemble the old joke about London’s buses: you wait for 286 years for a Prime Minister to be interviewed by the Police and then two come along at once.

One puzzle as yet is how the MSM media has failed to absorb the timescale of this piece of sleaze: the timescale that is that puts most of the secret donating of the curious Mr. Abrahams into the periods of office of one Mr. Tony Blair and one Lord “Cashpoint” Levy, the “Tennis Partners”. Of these it is pertinent to ask some questions:

  • Given Mr. Abrahams’ privileged ringside seat at Blair’s leaving jamboree at his constituency in June, how well did Blair know Mr. Abrahams?
  • Has Mr. Abrahams ever made a donation to Tony Blair as PM or as MP or to his Constituency Party?
  • Given Lord Levy’s connection to Labour Friends of Israel with which both Mr. Abrahams and Mr. Mendelsohn (Levy’s moolah-raising successor) are also strongly connected, has Lord Levy had anything to do with the donations to Labour secretly made between January 2003 (or even before) and June 2007?
  • Did Lord Levy know Mr. Ruddick, Mrs. Dunn, Mrs. Kidd or Mr. Mccarthy?
  • Given that this quartet gave £331,000 or so to Labour between 2003 and 2007, what enquiries did Lord Levy make about them?
  • If he made no such enquiries, why not, given the substantial size of the donations involved?
  • Who was it from the Blair fundraising team that apprised Mr. Peter Watt of the facts of Mr. Abrahams’ nefarious donations?

We now know rather more about the curious Mr. Abrahams than we did at the outset. The Daily Mail today has some interesting photographs of him doing the groupie thing with various Labour rodents such as Paul Boateng (now, despite any obvious qualifications as a diplomat, our High Commissioner to South Africa), Jacqui Smith (now, despite any obvious qualifications for anything terribly much, our Home Secretary), Sleazocrat Peter Mandelson (he of the dodgy mortgage and the iffy Hinduja passport application), Peter Watt (disgraced and recently resigned general Secetary of the Labour Party) and Vanity Blair himself. Just how many other Rodents he was chums with will doubtless come out of the sewers with the rest of the flotsam and jetsam in the days and weeks to come.

It is also said that the Durham Plod are taking an active interest in the business park which was promoted by Mr. Abrahams and which was the subject first of a planning refusal and then of planning consent: doubtless they are wondering if there was any connection between the donations and the unlocking of the application.

Talking of planning applications, both Guido Fawkes (Property Developer Gets Local Labour MP Stephen Ladyman’s Backing After £25,000 Donation”) and Dizzy Thinks (“Some more Friends in the North (East)”) take flyers at interesting connections between those with planning applications outstanding and donations made to MPs for the area within which the applications were made. Doubtless there is some wholly innocent explanation to these unfortunate and regrettable coincidences, but perhaps we should be told what that explanation is? And perhaps Inspector Knacker ought to add these to his portfolio………


Have some pity for Inspector Knacker. I have been rooting round the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 wearing my hat as someone who has practised in the criminal courts for thirty years and am less than impressed with the Act as a work of draftmanship.


One is bound to make the observation that, although there is a clear and simple prima facie case to be explored against various individuals under Section 54 (7) of the Act, I have to confess that this Act is one of the biggest dog’s dinners I have ever seen in terms of well- or poorly-drafted Acts of Parliament. It is quite simply a nightmare to navigate one’s way round and has all the clarity of a slurry pond. Now that is not to offer any defence or mitigation to those who may yet be formed up at The Bailey to answer for their sins, but when, as seems inevitable, this Act has to be amended in the light of current problems, it is to be hoped that the work will be carried out by a Parliamentary Draftsman rather than some Intern in Labour’s Gimcrack Gimmicks and Gadgets Department.


I turn now to the curious business of Gordon Brown’s fundraiser, Mr. Jon Mendelsohn. He became aware after taking up his post of the arrangements whereby Mr. Abrahams was making unlawful and prima facie criminal donations to the Labour Party and candidates for the Labour Deputy Leadership. Frankly, in the light of the letter he wrote to Mr. Abrahams, his explanation of his conduct is simply utterly unbelievable.


But if his claims are to be believed (pass me a pinch of salt now, please) is it not a testament to the methods and culture of Rodentine Labour that he sat on the matter for two months and only when there was a whiff of political warfarin in the air did he then write his curious little billet doux to Mr. Abrahams instead of drawing the matter to the attention of the Electoral Commission?


While we are on the subject of Mr. Mendelsohn, he it was who gave £5,000 to the Deputy leadership campaign of Peter Hain. This donation was never reported to the Electoral Commission. It might be helpful if Mr. Mendelsohn and Mr. Hain explained how this could happen, given that Mr. Mendelsohn has been chosen as Labour’s fundraiser, which imports the notion that one of qualifications to be such must have been a knowledge of the basic nuts and bolts of reporting such donations. Did he not check as he was reviewing the fundraising scene on first taking over whether his generous lump of moolah figured in the returns?


One is heavily struck by the thought that, given all these shenanigans and that of Gordon Brown’s Scottish Vicarette on Earth in Scotland also having been caught out in a donations scandal that may also be the subject of an enquiry by Inspector McKnacker, how very much this is an egregious example of Labour’s instinctive “Do as I say, Not do as I do” culture and the sense that as far as the PPERA 2000 is concerned, they may (as they continuously trumpet) have introduced the legislation but they sure as hell do not intend to obey it come hell or high water.


I have two other observations to make.


Firstly the determination with which individual news anchors and reporters for the MSM, BBC. Sky and elsewhere seem absolutely determined to miminise the seriousness of what, after all, are allegations of crimes, by giving every opportunity to the likes of Michael White of the Guardian to say how much this is all a storm in a teacup. Never has the blogosphere been more needed than when the MSM acts in this way so that we can ask some of the germane questions which the broadcast media’s Rodent Lovers seem bent on not asking.


Secondly does anyone else find it sinister that Jacqui Smith has chosen today as the day when we need to be terrorised by the threat of a ‘dirty bomb’ attack? SKY News has been carrying her doom-laden thoughts along with pictures of decontamination exercises in London: am I just being too cynical in wondering if this is a straightforward Goebbels-like attempt to bump the Donorgate Scandal off the top spot in the news logs? Nothing like the thought of London being irradiated to bury a bit of bad news, is there?


A thought about Mr. Bean. I have been much struck by his body-language this week. I have made the comparison of him to a Dancing Bear, which remains valid. But I have been fascinated by the thought that he actually seems, in his Press Conference, for example, to be utterly bewildered by all the attacks coming in from every side and is unable to comprehend just how he has managed to foul up his Premiership in just five months. He really does look out of his depth, not least, perhaps, because, having been so long unchallenged Monarch of the Glen, he has never really had to mix it in a fight of this magnitude before. It probably does not help that he is a coward to boot.


Lastly, all should remember that, when the objects of Inspector Knacker’s attentions bleat that they did not realise any of this stuff was illegal, not to say criminal, ignorance of the law is no defence to a criminal charge.

By the by, I hear the sound of yet another expenses scandal involving one of Blair’s Babes about to surface in relation to a failure to register substantial sums of sponsorship in the Register of Intersts. of this more soon.

UPDATE: Michael White is now in The Daily Politics studio, again trying to rubbish the Donorgate Story. Plainly the Left has really got the wind up if it is making this sort of effort.

The European Scrutiny Committee has produced its latest report on the Union Constitution a.k.a. The Treaty of Lisbon. Given the Treaty’s impact on the independence of the United Kingdom, one could be forgiven for thinking that their ‘scrutiny’ might have been directed at the effects of the Treaty as a whole.

Sadly this Labour chaired and dominated committee has largely devoted itself to two issues: firstly the position of national parliaments under Article 8c of the new treaty which states, inter alia, that “National Parliaments shall contribute to the good functioning of the Union” and whether the treaty thus subordinates national parliaments to the Union; and secondly to trying to demonstrate that, as far as possible, the four so-called ‘red lines’ are watertight so that Brown and Miliband can go on waving them much as Chamberlain did his piece of paper after Munich.

That comparison is not original, of course, as the Committee Chairman, Mr. Connarty, has already made the comparison which caused Miliband to have a serious hissy fit in which he wielded his Jewishness as a defensive weapon. Nonetheless, though Mr. Connarty was browbeaten (as people are these days when anyone bleats ‘anti-semitism’) into apologising, the comparison was an apt one.

As to the first issue raised, the committee is still much exercised by the apparent obligation laid upon parliament by the Article 8c which says:

National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union:

(a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft European legislative acts forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union;

(b) by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

(c) by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 64 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust’s activities in accordance with Articles 69k and 69h of that Treaty;

(d) by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 33 of this Treaty;

(e) by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 34 of this Treaty;

(f) by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union.”

I have picked out the words “shall contribute” as to any lawyer worth his salt the word ‘shall’ immediately imports a clear and unambiguous sense of the mandatory. This is what so concerns the committee, though they seem unable to grasp that the word ‘shall’ means what it says.

Their conclusion is worrying, given that Brown is due to sign us away in early December:

We are not persuaded that the text of the Reform Treaty has been amended so as to put beyond any doubt the principle that no obligation must be imposed on Parliament. In our view, the obvious amendment would have been to use the word “may” instead of “shall” in Article 8c EU as well as in Article 63 and Article 9 of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the Union. The statement “National parliaments shall contribute to the effective functioning of the European Union” is one from which an obligation can readily be inferred. Given its constitutional significance, we must emphasise that this is not an area in which any ambiguity is tolerable and we shall look to the Government to ensure that its original undertakings are met in any new text.

One is inclined to ask how and when they think the text is to be changed at this late stage.

And how is it that they are unable to understand that when the word ‘shall’ is used, it means just that. This clause plainly places a mandatory obligation on the UK Parliament and thus subordinates it to the Union.

I turn now to the four ‘red lines’. I do not propose to look at them in detail, for in reality they are matters of considerable irrelevance in the context of the Treaty as a whole. Suffice it to say they are less than persuaded that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not going to be justiciable in UK Courts in one manner or another and is less than persuaded that the justice and home affairs red line will not eventually cost us a shed load of money. In other words they reckon the Brown-Miliband assurances as to the watertight nature of the red lines are not worth the paper upon which they are printed.

But in the end this is all very much a matter of not being able to see the wood for the trees. The Treaty as a whole has enormous and devastating implications for the independence of the UK. Would it not have been better for them to have addressed it as a whole?

Sadly this sort of nit-picking is what we may expect of the passage of this dangerous and inimical Treaty through Parliament. Instead of taking a broad view of the Treaty and its state-building nature, Labour is going to bog everyone down in the minutiae. The Tories will be sucked into this process and everyone will be bored to tears. And unless some Labour MPs remember they are British before they are Socialists, we shall have been sold down the river.

In the meantime the Sun King, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, himself has his own blog (I kid you not) in which he has lately boasted of how his essential nine points from the original Constitution have been faithfully reproduced in the Treaty.

Of the 1975 referendum, many who voted ‘yes’ can today honestly say ‘we never realised it would be like this’. No such excuse is available this time round for we have been told time and time again that the Constitution and the Treaty of Lisbon are essentially the same thing. Giscard d’Estaing has, after all, been banging on about it for months. Yet still much of the political elite affects not to hear or understand.

Well, we have marked their wilfulness and will know for whom space must eventually be found in the dock when the time comes.

We should all raise a glass this day and cheer the memory of Charles Martel, de facto ruler by the time of his death in 741 AD of the realms of Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy. A great military leader, progenitor of heavy cavalry and the concept of chivalry, he founded what became known as the Carolingian Empire.

He has many claims to fame but this day we should thank our lucky stars that he was a fine general and leader of men, for his great victory in the summer of 732 AD at the Battle of Tours is generally accounted as the moment when the expansion of Islam into Western Europe was halted. Thereafter, though the final expulsion of Islam from Western Europe would take another seven hundred years, the Umayyad Caliphate was at first contained and then gradually driven back over time into the hinterland of the Iberian Peninsular.

Had he failed at Tours, many believe that Islam would have had a clear run at ruling over all of Western Europe and that most of the former Roman Empire’s provinces would have fallen like so many ripe plums into the hands of the Caliphate.

There will be some who will point to the great erudition of Islam at this time and its fine artistic achievements and suggest that Islam was not such a bad thing. The problem is that Islam has since that time essentially remained stuck in an eighth century mindset.

Charles de Steuben’s Bataille de Poitiers, en octobre 732,
painted between 1834 and 1837

How else can one account for a religion which so dominates the law of a country that a woman teacher, dedicated to the cause of teaching children, can, for having permitted one of her charges to name a teddy bear ‘Mohammed’, be dragged from her home and charged with offences which may lead to her being lashed and imprisoned? Even now some hotheads are calling for this unfortunate woman to be executed.

There may well be a kernel of decency in this religion, though it is really rather difficult to discern it. But in its outwards manifestations, its beheadings, amputations, floggings, treatment of non-believers and apostates, its attitude to women, this religion must be accounted one of mediaeval barbarity.

Our multiculturalists cosy up to it and fawn over it instead of standing up to it. They become aerated at any manifestation of ‘fascism’ (which to them is pretty well anything they do not like) yet when a truly nasty bunch heaves into view, they kow-tow. Faced with a group of people who as plain as a pikestaff do not share our English and Western values, these apologists indulge in mealy-mouthed appeasement.

These appeasers and the appeased pose a significant threat to our way of life. Time, some may think, for a stand to be taken and for it to be explained, forcefully if necessary, that they must embrace our values or take theirs elsewhere.

One of the pleasant things about lurking under the shade of The Umbrella is that free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution, so to speak, and thus if one expresses a contrary view one may expect lively, polite but reasoned debate, a fine contrast from some of the invective that forms the diet of other blogs.

In particular there is no danger of finding a company of North’s Arquebusiers drawn up on the lawn before The Hunting Lodge ready to storm the ramparts, nor will there be an early morning knock at the door from the Geheim Nords Polizei Amt.

Thus, without fear and in the fervid hope of not being thought terribly pompous, I venture to express my dissent from his proposition that the present imbroglio over unlawful and prima facie criminal donations to Labour is a matter of “not very much importance in the grander scheme of things”.

It is important because of its place in the Labour scheme of things, the way Labour does business in pursuit of power. It is important because it is a blatant example of the ways in which Labour has set out in calculated manner to debauch the political life of the United Kingdom and pervert the very body politic of our Kingdom. It is important because it is part and parcel of the Labour Gerrymander which seeks to sustain Labour in power for ever and a day and to procure the emasculation of all its opponents. It is important because we have a deeply corrupt government that needs must be purged of its corruption.

It is also important because the admitted facts thus far disclosed provide clear and unambiguous grounds for saying that a prima facie case exists that various of the actors in the affair have committed offences under electoral law. Given that those offences involve the funding of the party of government, something which goes to the very root of any democracy, and that Labour has since it came to power been involved in dubious conduct in relation to that funding, the time has now come to bring an end to their inclination to break the law with impunity.

It is also important because this is a government whose actions in relation to the EU Constitution pose the greatest threat to the very independence of our nation since the Second World War. In those circumstances it is legitimate to use a matter such as this to try and bring its rotten life to a premature end so that we may have the best possible chance of preventing that Treaty being ratified or coming into force.

Finally it is about the leadership of this country. These events and the events of recent weeks demonstrate clearly that, whatever Mr. Brown’s qualities might be as a Labour Politician and even as a Chancellor, he lacks the requisite qualities to be Prime Minister: courage, honesty, honour, fair-dealing, leadership, example to name but a few. None of these does this man have and we have quickly discovered what Tony Blair plainly knew only too well: that this man is not up to the job.

Thus I apologise not for keeping a weather eye on this nasty business and for adding my two penn’orth to the efforts of the blogosphere (which has shown itself to be well ahead of the MSM in much of this, particularly as regards the asking of pertinent questions that they have failed to consider) which can show in such a case the potential that it has to change the way in which political discourse takes place in this country when a political elite tries to have it all its own way.

And lastly, but not least, The Huntsman must hunt.

Nick Griffin and David Irving are characters who repel. The former espouses obnoxious opinions and the latter simply upends history to meet his own weird views of the truth like a flat-earther or a creationist who ignores immutable scientific fact in favour of their own loopy world-view. How to deal with them is the trick.

I am absolutely certain that the worst thing to do is to get up a storm such as that which was seen outside the Oxford Union lately. Each of these two unpleasant individuals must have been quite delighted by their reception which afforded them far more oxygen than they could ever hope to get in the course of ordinary events which otherwise see them with audiences numbered in handfuls.

The Left shows itself at its worst on such occasions, exhibiting a tendency to suppress free speech that is positively scary. It is a tendency which all those interested in free speech should resist as hard as possible for if we give them so much as an inch they will take a mile. On the back of this tendency have come all sorts of restrictions on free speech, many of which make it very difficult to judge just what you should say or write lest you become the object of Sir Ian Blair and his predilection for fulfilling targets: after all nabbing a sedentary blogger for a Thought Crime is a lot easier than tackling an armed robber or a burglar or a drug dealer and a whole lot safer (not much need for a risk assessment before breaking down a blogger’s front door, after all!).

I have been against every such development proposed and legislated for, usually by the Race Relations Industry, going right back to the Race Relations Act 1968. I would abolish the crime of blasphemy tomorrow and repeal all such laws. All they seem to achieve is to make martyrs of the likes of Griffin and Irving, surely a daft result if ever.

Far better to let them be heard and to use the proper means of ridicule and contempt in destroying their arguments. Instead by trying to make them forbidden you actually make them more exciting, exotic and alluring, like cigarettes, sex and alcohol when those things are forbidden.

Trying to suppress their right to free speech is, frankly, an admission that your own arguments have failed and that the only way of winning is to shut your opponent up. It does not work. The Chaplain at School used to retreat into curtailing our arguments against Christianity with ‘well, God is on my side and so I am right’ which helped turn me into a lifelong atheist. I reckoned that if he was not prepared to allow debate, his case must be really weak.

We should salute the likes of Rowan Atkinson who does so much to help hold back the tide of political correctness in all its most tyrannical manifestations and keep fighting for the right of Messrs. Griffin and Irving to say whatever crackpot thing they want and our right studiously to ignore them with contempt and ridicule.

Labour’s great fear in Scotland is that conservatism, in whatever form it may come, should ever take root once more. After all, the great slab of rotten boroughs that form the very heart of Labour’s Raj routinely provides a big chunk of any Labour government’s Parliamentary majority. Since May, however, forces Labour does not control have been hard at work.

Over the years most of us have thought of Alex Salmond’s SNP as being essentially a party of the left which may, in part, explain why it has taken such hard work for it to get into power. If it is genuinely a party of the left then it has had its work of getting into power cut out by having to compete with another party of the left.

Yet if one thinks about it, the grander aspirations of the SNP that foresee a Scotland with a Tiger economy being one of the richest nation states of Europe suggest an approach that has more to do with Toryism than Socialism.

For sure, Salmond is happy to exist like a pilot fish on a shark, feeding off the scraps that the statist, corporatist entity that Scotland, with its benefit and public sector job junkie economy, has become whilst he tries to drive Scotland down the road to independence. That is because he understands only too well the limits of his power (however skilful he has become at making the most of that power) within the devolutionary settlement and the money he gets from a hostile government in Whitehall. But has Annabel Goldie of the Scots Tories perhaps worked out a way back for Conservatism in Scotland?

This report in The Scotsman provides some food for thought in that regard. Perhaps she thinks that, by co-operating on a measure-by-measure basis, she can teach Salmond the virtues of traditional Tory policies and is also, as is suggested, trying to position her party for the day when the Tories become the party of government in the UK but remain small in Scotland, where, of course, they have gone from considerable strength to oblivion in a generation. If she has forged a path of co-operation now, then this may well contribute firstly to the detoxification of the Tory brand in Scotland and secondly to the fact of being a Tory becoming a respectable thing once more.

And if Cameron comes to power in the UK as a whole, he might well find it congenial to have a governing party in Scotland that is far from hostile to the general thrust of his policies (agreeing to differ, naturally, on the issue of independence) upon which he might rely for some support in the Lobbies in due course. This in turn may well lead to the Scottish Tories to benefit from a more free-market economy approach by Scots.

The only glitch is the Scottish Tory opposition to an independence referendum. This, I am afraid, sits uneasily with the party’s demand for a referendum on the EU Constitution and by facing in diametrically opposite directions on the two referenda opens the party to a charge of hypocrisy. It would be far better to espouse such a referendum and to help it to be held as soon as possible when that particular nationalist Fox can be shot forthwith leaving the parties to settle down to the real business of making Scotland more prosperous. And a more prosperous Scotland might prise Scots away from their long-term allegiances to Labour and Liberal ‘Democrats’.

Remember that the SNP have in the past been known as the “Tartan Tories” and one begins to think this sea-change is not impossible to achieve.

One thing was noticeable about the coverage yesterday evening by Pro-Labour elements of the MSM of the Labour Donations Scandal was the desperate attempts of most presenters to try and minimise the affair – the phrase ‘draw a line under it’ seemed particularly prevalent. They know, of course, that no such thing is going to happen.

Some further nuggets emerged, however, despite this tendency. One was the curious interview by Paxo of Mr. Abrahams/Martin which revealed instantly that all the talk of Peter Watt having been the only one to know about him and his secret donations was a lot of bosh. Labour’s own current fundraiser Jon Mendelson had only this weekend past written in particularly effusive terms (as you would to one of your principal donors) to Mr. Abrahams/Martin:

“Dear David,

Thank you for the message which Oliver [an official of the Labour Party] passed on to me. The party is of course very appreciative of all the help and support you have given over many years.

At some point I would like to have the opportunity to talk to you personally about our plans. As one of the party’s strongest supporters it is only right that you are kept informed with what we are doing and the priorities that we are assigning to our resources.

Any time that you are next in London I would very much like to meet to discuss this.

Warmest regards,

Jon.

Director of General Election Resources.”

There can be no doubt, can there, but that the Labour fundraising machine knew exactly what the situation was concerning this man and the manner in which his donations were concealed from the Electoral Commission and the general public.

Mr. Abrahams/Martin also became very coy about the Harman donation. He could not recall much of it, he said, and when pressed by Paxo, basically clammed up, saying that Hilary Benn had been his choice for the deputy leadership. This, taken with the fact that the donation to Harman came weeks after the end of the Deputy Leadership contest will surely require significant further investigation. The handwritten ‘thank you’ note by Ms. Harman will also arouse considerable interest

The relationship that Mr. Mendelson had with Mr. Abrahams/Martin is, of course, one thing that will now have to be closely scrutinised. But is there not also a sense in which this story is Hamlet without the Prince?

I mention this because before Gordon Brown became Prime Minister this man gave £311,975 to the Labour Party – a huge sum of money – under the fundraising regime of no less than our old friend Lord Levy. Should not our attention now be turning to the issue of what did Lord Levy know of this man and when did he know it or, alternatively, what did he know of the four proxies who passed his money along?

This question is of particular interest given the Noble Lord’s considerable reputation as a fundraiser for Labour and because of two other facts.

Firstly the presence of Mr. Abrahams/Martin in the intimate circle of friends and colleagues who were at Tony Blair’s nauseating tearjerker at Sedgefield when he was finally consigned to the dustbin of history.

Secondly because of the intriguing coincidence of donations of £24,000 by Mr. Riddick and of £38,000 by Mrs. Kidd the day the bye-election for Tony Blair’s Sedgefield seat was announced. Should we not also be enquiring of Mr. Blair what he knew of Mr Abrahams/martin and his donations and when he knew it, given this curious man’s relationship to Blair’s constituency (I do not think there is any suggestion that Mr. Abrahams/Martin was a constituent of Blair’s)?

A final nugget is the apparently curious way in which the Dunn donation of 2003 was made which suggests that Mr. Abrahams/martin himself paid a cheque of the Dunn’s direct to the Labour party thus himself concealing the fact that he was the actual donor. The Dunn had said they knew nothing about the money donated in her name until Monday. But Mr. Dunn has now apologised, explaining that Mr. Abrahams/Martin had paid £25,000 into Mrs. Dunn’s account and shortly afterwards, in January 2003, she had written a cheque for that amount with the payee left blank. Mr Dunn said:

It was done as a swap cheque. It was just done in and out. David’s put one in and we’ve put one out. I thought it was just a bit of business. It was David’s money and we’ve been used. We can’t go backwards, unfortunately.”

This was the only time they had assisted Mr. Abrahams/Martin in this way and they had had no idea the money as in fact destined for the Labour Party and, indeed, had since forgotten about the transaction.

This transaction was therefore done directly, in effect, by Mr. Abrahams/Martin in a manner that any reasonable bystander would have said was very dodgy indeed.

One other thing which was notable about last night’s media coverage was the anxiety of many commentators to try and belittle the whole thing. This is a grave mistake, there being already a considerable body of evidence on the admitted facts that would justify any lawyer finding that a prima facie case existed that offences had been committed. This demands that the CPS and the Police be involved immediately as there must now be a risk that attempts will be made to destroy or conceal evidence, particularly electronic evidence, of all that has gone on. This should curb any tendency to take documents and emails walkies…….

You would have thought Labour would have learnt its lesson the first time. That they have been caught at it again suggests that the depth of their corruption is such that they can no longer help it, being roundly addicted to the unlawful and the devious instead of the above board.

Blair is said to now regret that he and other so pursued the Tories for sleaze in the 1990s. he obviously forgot that old latin maxim:

Id Quod Circumiret, Circumveniat*

*What goes around, comes around.


UPDATE: readers might find these two titbits from Guido Fawkes of interest…….

Updated Timeline


AbrahamsGate Timeline

31 Jan 2003: Janet Dunn makes donation of £25,000 to Labour

06 May 2003: Janet Kidd, a secretary working for Mr Abrahams, donates £25,000 to Labour.

18 Aug 2003: Ray Ruddick, a jobbing builder, makes £25,000 donation.

01 Apr 2004: Mrs. Kidd donates £10,000.

27 Oct 2004: Mrs. Kidd donates £2,000.

05 Feb 2005: Mr. McCarthy donates 25,000

29 Jul 2005: Durham Green Developments submits plans for Durham Green Business Park

05 Oct 2005: Highways Agency blocks plans for Durham Green Business Park.

22 Dec 2005: Mr. McCarthy donates £52,125

23 Dec 2005: Mr Ruddick donates £17,850, Mrs Kidd £30,000.

31 Mar 2006: Plans for business park withdrawn.

21 Apr 2006: Mr. McCarthy donates £50,000

24 May 2006: Mr Ruddick donates £50,000.

02 Aug 2006: Business park plans resubmitted.

18 Sep 2006: Highways Agency withdraws objections.

19 Oct 2006: Durham County Council grants planning permission.

May or June 2007: Gordon Brown is sent a cheque for £25,000 from Mrs Kidd but refuses to accept it because he does not know her.

22 Jun 2007: Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, registers £5,000 donation from Mr Abrahams to his campaign for Labour’s deputy leadership.

27 Jun 2007: Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister. Harriet Harman is Deputy Leader of Labour Party.

29 Jun 2007: Mr Ruddick donates £24,000, Mrs Kidd £38,000.

04 Jul 2007: Harriet Harman receives £5,000 cheque from Mrs Kidd.

07 Jul 2007: Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd make £80,000 donations.

09 Jul 2007: Miss Harman writes to thank Mrs Kidd, saying the money has “gone straight to pay the bill for our direct mailing”.

17 Jul 2007: Harriet Harman registers £5,000 donation from Mrs Kidd to her victorious campaign for the Labour’s deputy leadership. 20 Nov 2007: Official figures show that since Mr Brown became Prime Minister, Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd were Labour’s third biggest donors. 23 Nov 2007: Miss Harman is told the £5,000 donation came from Mr Abrahams.

24 Nov2007: Mr Brown is made aware of the “secret” donations. 25 Nov 2007: Mr Abrahams admits it was his money that had gone to Labour via Mrs Kidd and Mr Ruddick.

26 Nov 2007: Peter Watt admits he knew of donations and resigns as Labour general secretary.

27 Nov 2007: Mr Brown announces that all donations from Mr Abrahams will be handed back because they were “not lawfully declared”. He said: “It is necessary that this matter be cleared up.”



One thing was noticeable about the coverage yesterday evening by Pro-Labour elements of the MSM of the Labour Donations Scandal was the desperate attempts of most presenters to try and minimise the affair – the phrase ‘draw a line under it’ seemed particularly prevalent. They know, of course, that no such thing is going to happen.

Some further nuggets emerged, however, despite this tendency. One was the curious interview by Paxo of Mr. Abrahams/Martin which revealed instantly that all the talk of Peter Watt having been the only one to know about him and his secret donations was a lot of bosh. Labour’s own current fundraiser Jon Mendelson had only this weekend past written in particularly effusive terms (as you would to one of your principal donors) to Mr. Abrahams/Martin:

“Dear David,

Thank you for the message which Oliver [an official of the Labour Party] passed on to me. The party is of course very appreciative of all the help and support you have given over many years.

At some point I would like to have the opportunity to talk to you personally about our plans. As one of the party’s strongest supporters it is only right that you are kept informed with what we are doing and the priorities that we are assigning to our resources.

Any time that you are next in London I would very much like to meet to discuss this.

Warmest regards,

Jon.

Director of General Election Resources.”

There can be no doubt, can there, but that the Labour fundraising machine knew exactly what the situation was concerning this man and the manner in which his donations were concealed from the Electoral Commission and the general public.

Mr. Abrahams/Martin also became very coy about the Harman donation. He could not recall much of it, he said, and when pressed by Paxo, basically clammed up, saying that Hilary Benn had been his choice for the deputy leadership. This, taken with the fact that the donation to Harman came weeks after the end of the Deputy Leadership contest will surely require significant further investigation. The handwritten ‘thank you’ note by Ms. Harman will also arouse considerable interest

The relationship that Mr. Mendelson had with Mr. Abrahams/Martin is, of course, one thing that will now have to be closely scrutinised. But is there not also a sense in which this story is Hamlet without the Prince?

I mention this because before Gordon Brown became Prime Minister this man gave £311,975 to the Labour Party – a huge sum of money – under the fundraising regime of no less than our old friend Lord Levy. Should not our attention now be turning to the issue of what did Lord Levy know of this man and when did he know it or, alternatively, what did he know of the four proxies who passed his money along?

This question is of particular interest given the Noble Lord’s considerable reputation as a fundraiser for Labour and because of two other facts.

Firstly the presence of Mr. Abrahams/Martin in the intimate circle of friends and colleagues who were at Tony Blair’s nauseating tearjerker at Sedgefield when he was finally consigned to the dustbin of history.

Secondly because of the intriguing coincidence of donations of £24,000 by Mr. Riddick and of £38,000 by Mrs. Kidd the day the bye-election for Tony Blair’s Sedgefield seat was announced. Should we not also be enquiring of Mr. Blair what he knew of Mr Abrahams/martin and his donations and when he knew it, given this curious man’s relationship to Blair’s constituency (I do not think there is any suggestion that Mr. Abrahams/Martin was a constituent of Blair’s)?

A final nugget is the apparently curious way in which the Dunn donation of 2003 was made which suggests that Mr. Abrahams/martin himself paid a cheque of the Dunn’s direct to the Labour party thus himself concealing the fact that he was the actual donor. The Dunn had said they knew nothing about the money donated in her name until Monday. But Mr. Dunn has now apologised, explaining that Mr. Abrahams/Martin had paid £25,000 into Mrs. Dunn’s account and shortly afterwards, in January 2003, she had written a cheque for that amount with the payee left blank. Mr Dunn said:

It was done as a swap cheque. It was just done in and out. David’s put one in and we’ve put one out. I thought it was just a bit of business. It was David’s money and we’ve been used. We can’t go backwards, unfortunately.”

This was the only time they had assisted Mr. Abrahams/Martin in this way and they had had no idea the money as in fact destined for the Labour Party and, indeed, had since forgotten about the transaction.

This transaction was therefore done directly, in effect, by Mr. Abrahams/Martin in a manner that any reasonable bystander would have said was very dodgy indeed.

One other thing which was notable about last night’s media coverage was the anxiety of many commentators to try and belittle the whole thing. This is a grave mistake, there being already a considerable body of evidence on the admitted facts that would justify any lawyer finding that a prima facie case existed that offences had been committed. This demands that the CPS and the Police be involved immediately as there must now be a risk that attempts will be made to destroy or conceal evidence, particularly electronic evidence, of all that has gone on. This should curb any tendency to take documents and emails walkies…….

You would have thought Labour would have learnt its lesson the first time. That they have been caught at it again suggests that the depth of their corruption is such that they can no longer help it, being roundly addicted to the unlawful and the devious instead of the above board.

Blair is said to now regret that he and other so pursued the Tories for sleaze in the 1990s. he obviously forgot that old latin maxim:

Id Quod Circumiret, Circumveniat*

*What goes around, comes around.


UPDATE: readers might find these two titbits from Guido Fawkes of interest…….

Updated Timeline


AbrahamsGate Timeline

31 Jan 2003: Janet Dunn makes donation of £25,000 to Labour

06 May 2003: Janet Kidd, a secretary working for Mr Abrahams, donates £25,000 to Labour.

18 Aug 2003: Ray Ruddick, a jobbing builder, makes £25,000 donation.

01 Apr 2004: Mrs. Kidd donates £10,000.

27 Oct 2004: Mrs. Kidd donates £2,000.

05 Feb 2005: Mr. McCarthy donates 25,000

29 Jul 2005: Durham Green Developments submits plans for Durham Green Business Park

05 Oct 2005: Highways Agency blocks plans for Durham Green Business Park.

22 Dec 2005: Mr. McCarthy donates £52,125

23 Dec 2005: Mr Ruddick donates £17,850, Mrs Kidd £30,000.

31 Mar 2006: Plans for business park withdrawn.

21 Apr 2006: Mr. McCarthy donates £50,000

24 May 2006: Mr Ruddick donates £50,000.

02 Aug 2006: Business park plans resubmitted.

18 Sep 2006: Highways Agency withdraws objections.

19 Oct 2006: Durham County Council grants planning permission.

May or June 2007: Gordon Brown is sent a cheque for £25,000 from Mrs Kidd but refuses to accept it because he does not know her.

22 Jun 2007: Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, registers £5,000 donation from Mr Abrahams to his campaign for Labour’s deputy leadership.

27 Jun 2007: Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister. Harriet Harman is Deputy Leader of Labour Party.

29 Jun 2007: Mr Ruddick donates £24,000, Mrs Kidd £38,000.

04 Jul 2007: Harriet Harman receives £5,000 cheque from Mrs Kidd.

07 Jul 2007: Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd make £80,000 donations.

09 Jul 2007: Miss Harman writes to thank Mrs Kidd, saying the money has “gone straight to pay the bill for our direct mailing”.

17 Jul 2007: Harriet Harman registers £5,000 donation from Mrs Kidd to her victorious campaign for the Labour’s deputy leadership. 20 Nov 2007: Official figures show that since Mr Brown became Prime Minister, Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd were Labour’s third biggest donors. 23 Nov 2007: Miss Harman is told the £5,000 donation came from Mr Abrahams.

24 Nov2007: Mr Brown is made aware of the “secret” donations. 25 Nov 2007: Mr Abrahams admits it was his money that had gone to Labour via Mrs Kidd and Mr Ruddick.

26 Nov 2007: Peter Watt admits he knew of donations and resigns as Labour general secretary.

27 Nov 2007: Mr Brown announces that all donations from Mr Abrahams will be handed back because they were “not lawfully declared”. He said: “It is necessary that this matter be cleared up.”



One thing was noticeable about the coverage yesterday evening by Pro-Labour elements of the MSM of the Labour Donations Scandal was the desperate attempts of most presenters to try and minimise the affair – the phrase ‘draw a line under it’ seemed particularly prevalent. They know, of course, that no such thing is going to happen.

Some further nuggets emerged, however, despite this tendency. One was the curious interview by Paxo of Mr. Abrahams/Martin which revealed instantly that all the talk of Peter Watt having been the only one to know about him and his secret donations was a lot of bosh. Labour’s own current fundraiser Jon Mendelson had only this weekend past written in particularly effusive terms (as you would to one of your principal donors) to Mr. Abrahams/Martin:

“Dear David,

Thank you for the message which Oliver [an official of the Labour Party] passed on to me. The party is of course very appreciative of all the help and support you have given over many years.

At some point I would like to have the opportunity to talk to you personally about our plans. As one of the party’s strongest supporters it is only right that you are kept informed with what we are doing and the priorities that we are assigning to our resources.

Any time that you are next in London I would very much like to meet to discuss this.

Warmest regards,

Jon.

Director of General Election Resources.”

There can be no doubt, can there, but that the Labour fundraising machine knew exactly what the situation was concerning this man and the manner in which his donations were concealed from the Electoral Commission and the general public.

Mr. Abrahams/Martin also became very coy about the Harman donation. He could not recall much of it, he said, and when pressed by Paxo, basically clammed up, saying that Hilary Benn had been his choice for the deputy leadership. This, taken with the fact that the donation to Harman came weeks after the end of the Deputy Leadership contest will surely require significant further investigation. The handwritten ‘thank you’ note by Ms. Harman will also arouse considerable interest

The relationship that Mr. Mendelson had with Mr. Abrahams/Martin is, of course, one thing that will now have to be closely scrutinised. But is there not also a sense in which this story is Hamlet without the Prince?

I mention this because before Gordon Brown became Prime Minister this man gave £311,975 to the Labour Party – a huge sum of money – under the fundraising regime of no less than our old friend Lord Levy. Should not our attention now be turning to the issue of what did Lord Levy know of this man and when did he know it or, alternatively, what did he know of the four proxies who passed his money along?

This question is of particular interest given the Noble Lord’s considerable reputation as a fundraiser for Labour and because of two other facts.

Firstly the presence of Mr. Abrahams/Martin in the intimate circle of friends and colleagues who were at Tony Blair’s nauseating tearjerker at Sedgefield when he was finally consigned to the dustbin of history.

Secondly because of the intriguing coincidence of donations of £24,000 by Mr. Riddick and of £38,000 by Mrs. Kidd the day the bye-election for Tony Blair’s Sedgefield seat was announced. Should we not also be enquiring of Mr. Blair what he knew of Mr Abrahams/martin and his donations and when he knew it, given this curious man’s relationship to Blair’s constituency (I do not think there is any suggestion that Mr. Abrahams/Martin was a constituent of Blair’s)?

A final nugget is the apparently curious way in which the Dunn donation of 2003 was made which suggests that Mr. Abrahams/martin himself paid a cheque of the Dunn’s direct to the Labour party thus himself concealing the fact that he was the actual donor. The Dunn had said they knew nothing about the money donated in her name until Monday. But Mr. Dunn has now apologised, explaining that Mr. Abrahams/Martin had paid £25,000 into Mrs. Dunn’s account and shortly afterwards, in January 2003, she had written a cheque for that amount with the payee left blank. Mr Dunn said:

It was done as a swap cheque. It was just done in and out. David’s put one in and we’ve put one out. I thought it was just a bit of business. It was David’s money and we’ve been used. We can’t go backwards, unfortunately.”

This was the only time they had assisted Mr. Abrahams/Martin in this way and they had had no idea the money as in fact destined for the Labour Party and, indeed, had since forgotten about the transaction.

This transaction was therefore done directly, in effect, by Mr. Abrahams/Martin in a manner that any reasonable bystander would have said was very dodgy indeed.

One other thing which was notable about last night’s media coverage was the anxiety of many commentators to try and belittle the whole thing. This is a grave mistake, there being already a considerable body of evidence on the admitted facts that would justify any lawyer finding that a prima facie case existed that offences had been committed. This demands that the CPS and the Police be involved immediately as there must now be a risk that attempts will be made to destroy or conceal evidence, particularly electronic evidence, of all that has gone on. This should curb any tendency to take documents and emails walkies…….

You would have thought Labour would have learnt its lesson the first time. That they have been caught at it again suggests that the depth of their corruption is such that they can no longer help it, being roundly addicted to the unlawful and the devious instead of the above board.

Blair is said to now regret that he and other so pursued the Tories for sleaze in the 1990s. he obviously forgot that old latin maxim:

Id Quod Circumiret, Circumveniat*

*What goes around, comes around.


UPDATE: readers might find these two titbits from Guido Fawkes of interest…….

Updated Timeline


AbrahamsGate Timeline

31 Jan 2003: Janet Dunn makes donation of £25,000 to Labour

06 May 2003: Janet Kidd, a secretary working for Mr Abrahams, donates £25,000 to Labour.

18 Aug 2003: Ray Ruddick, a jobbing builder, makes £25,000 donation.

01 Apr 2004: Mrs. Kidd donates £10,000.

27 Oct 2004: Mrs. Kidd donates £2,000.

05 Feb 2005: Mr. McCarthy donates 25,000

29 Jul 2005: Durham Green Developments submits plans for Durham Green Business Park

05 Oct 2005: Highways Agency blocks plans for Durham Green Business Park.

22 Dec 2005: Mr. McCarthy donates £52,125

23 Dec 2005: Mr Ruddick donates £17,850, Mrs Kidd £30,000.

31 Mar 2006: Plans for business park withdrawn.

21 Apr 2006: Mr. McCarthy donates £50,000

24 May 2006: Mr Ruddick donates £50,000.

02 Aug 2006: Business park plans resubmitted.

18 Sep 2006: Highways Agency withdraws objections.

19 Oct 2006: Durham County Council grants planning permission.

May or June 2007: Gordon Brown is sent a cheque for £25,000 from Mrs Kidd but refuses to accept it because he does not know her.

22 Jun 2007: Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, registers £5,000 donation from Mr Abrahams to his campaign for Labour’s deputy leadership.

27 Jun 2007: Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister. Harriet Harman is Deputy Leader of Labour Party.

29 Jun 2007: Mr Ruddick donates £24,000, Mrs Kidd £38,000.

04 Jul 2007: Harriet Harman receives £5,000 cheque from Mrs Kidd.

07 Jul 2007: Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd make £80,000 donations.

09 Jul 2007: Miss Harman writes to thank Mrs Kidd, saying the money has “gone straight to pay the bill for our direct mailing”.

17 Jul 2007: Harriet Harman registers £5,000 donation from Mrs Kidd to her victorious campaign for the Labour’s deputy leadership. 20 Nov 2007: Official figures show that since Mr Brown became Prime Minister, Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd were Labour’s third biggest donors. 23 Nov 2007: Miss Harman is told the £5,000 donation came from Mr Abrahams.

24 Nov2007: Mr Brown is made aware of the “secret” donations. 25 Nov 2007: Mr Abrahams admits it was his money that had gone to Labour via Mrs Kidd and Mr Ruddick.

26 Nov 2007: Peter Watt admits he knew of donations and resigns as Labour general secretary.

27 Nov 2007: Mr Brown announces that all donations from Mr Abrahams will be handed back because they were “not lawfully declared”. He said: “It is necessary that this matter be cleared up.”



Blog Stats

  • 3,807 hits
November 2007
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930