Cash for Honours - Goldsmith censors his own crimes?

[TonyGosling]

"Law Chief wanted secret gag on the BBC."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6416657.stm

Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday has given by far the best coverage of this story over the weekend...

How about some educated guesswork about what Goldsmith might have gagged??? There has been talk of a secret email network within Downing Street - I have come across a similar 'secure' email type system in several elite/high-degree masonic places such as at Norman Foster's Architectural Consultancy called 'The Rothschild Path' - only trouble was I didn't have the password to get in to it! Could there be a connection here???

Can someone post some of this Mail coverage up please - I can't using this old IE5 browser - as a small contribution to undermining the crooked arrogant masonic troglodytes otherwise known as the government of Britain.

[Gibson]

Did No. 10 leak 'killer' e-mail?
By STEPHEN WRIGHT and JAMES CHAPMAN -

Downing Street has been accused of conducting a dirty tricks campaign in a desperate bid to undermine the cash for honours investigation.

Detectives believe Government officials leaked details of a "killer e-mail" between two of Tony Blair's closest aides which is at the centre of their probe.

The e-mail was sent by the Prime Minister's No 10 gatekeeper Ruth Turner to his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, after Scotland Yard launched an inquiry into claims that peerages were traded for donations to the Labour Party.

Police are also investigating claims that close aides of the Prime Minister have tried to cover up the scandal.

The contents of the e-mail cannot be disclosed after the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith successfully applied for an injunction barring the BBC from reporting the latest twist in the case, which intensified speculation that police have gathered sufficient evidence to launch a prosecution for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

According to prosecution sources, police are convinced officials linked to No. 10 were behind the email leak.

One said: "Only a handful of detectives knew the contents of this email, which is at the heart of their probe into allegations of a cover-up. The leak certainly didn't come from Scotland Yard.

"For some time, officers have been concerned that behind the scenes, Downing Street officials have been conducting a dirty tricks campaign to undermine the police investigation."

Another source said: "If evidence police are hoping to rely on appears in the media it could bring down the whole case. Those in the firing line are well aware of that."

SNP MP Angus Macneil, whose complaint prompted the police inquiry, said: "Whoever has leaked this email is in deep trouble.

"It looks very much as if someone has been trying to scupper a police investigation."

A senior Downing Street source insisted he was "confident" that no-one in Number Ten had leaked the email to the BBC.

"It is not reasonable for anybody to be assuming or suggesting that the leak came from inside government," added the source.

A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said he applied for the High Court injunction on Friday at the request of the police who were concerned that the disclosure of information contained in the BBC story could have harmed their inquiry.

His office denied reports that he had a High Court judge not only to ban the broadcast on the BBC's flagship Ten O'Clock News, but also to forbid any mention that such a gagging order had been taken out.

"At no point did we ask for the fact of the injunction to be kept secret," his spokesman said.

"We took action at the request of the police to prevent the contents of a broadcast of which we were aware and which gave the police concern that diclosure of certain information could impede their inquiry."

Last November Lord Goldsmith - a former Labour donor - faced calls to step down from the case because of his close links to Tony Blair.

His relationship with the Prime Minister, who gave him his peerage in 1999 and appointed him to Cabinet two years later, triggered protests over his possible role in determining whether charges should go ahead.

But Lord Goldsmith insisted he had no idea whether the Crown Prosecution Service would recommend charges over the affair.

Commons Leader Jack Straw yesterday defended the Attorney General's right to intervene in such a politically sensitive situation.

He told the BBC's Sunday AM programme: "The position of the Attorney General is very well established.

"He is independent of Ministers - every system in the world has a figure like the Attorney General, usually called an Attorney General.

"When this (issue) has come up before, the Conservatives have very wisely and correctly confirmed the position as well.

"I cannot talk about anything else that's happened recently in terms of the injunction."

But Europe minister Geoff Hoon later appeared to indicate that he believes it possible that the cash for honours investigation may result in a prosecution, telling ITV1's The Sunday Edition that Lord Goldsmith's intervention was essential to ensure a fair trial.

Mr Hoon said: "It is necessary to have someone who safeguards the public interest - and let's make it clear it is the public interest that is being protected - in ensuring that legal proceedings can continue without the kind of commentary that is a regular feature today of the modern media.

"It is vitally important that a figure like the Attorney General ... makes sure that our legal decisions, our court system, are able to function in the public interest without having a series of revelations that clearly might well jeopardise the fair conduct of a trial."

The cash for honours inquiry was sparked in March last year by complaints to the Metropolitan Police by Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru MPs that honours appeared to have been offered in return for financial support to the major parties.

So far, four people have been arrested - Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal fundraiser Lord Levy, Downing Street aide Ruth Turner, Labour donor Sir Christopher Evans and former headteacher Des Smith - but there have been no charges.

The CPS said last month there was no evidence to support a charge against Mr Smith, who told an undercover reporter that honours may be available in return for support for the Government's City Academy programme.

Mr Blair himself has been interviewed twice by police, both times as a witness, not a suspect. He has not been arrested or interviewed under caution.

The inquiry - led by Assistant Commissioner John Yates - is being carried out amid unprecedented secrecy.

His team of 12 detectives are based in offices near Scotland Yard which have been fitted with "Fort Knox" style security because of the sensitivities of the case.

Amid fears someone might try to steal the secrets of the investigation, codenamed Operation Ribble, the offices have a state of the art CCTV system, door alarms, swipe card entry system and an alarmed safe to store confidential files.

The offices are regularly swept for listening devices and a security guard is on duty 24 hours a day to spot any potential intruders.

A final report on the case is expected to be submitted to the CPS in the next month. A decision on charges is not expected until late summer.

[Gibson]

Jonathan, Ruth and how the BBC was gagged
By JANE MERRICK - More by this author » Last updated at 09:32am on 5th March 2007


The dramatic stand-off between the BBC and the Government's top law officer over the Downing Street email evoked memories of the row between the corporation and No 10 which led to the death of Dr David Kelly.

The BBC obtained the e-mail - allegedly showing evidence of an attempted cover-up - and planned to run it on Friday's news bulletins in a report by political editor Nick Robinson.

The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith obtained an injunction halting the BBC's story at the request of Scotland Yard.

Investigators feared that revealing details of the e-mail between Ruth Turner and Jonathan Powell could prejudice any prosecution brought by police.

The BBC's team of lawyers - who were involved in the Hutton Inquiry into Dr Kelly's death - were drafted in to argue that the report had to be broadcast in the public interest.

Sources said that by 5pm time was running out to put the bombshell report on the early evening news bulletin, but editors still planned to go ahead on the 10 O'Clock News if they could break the deadlock.

From 7pm, BBC lawyers spent two hours behind closed doors at the High Court locked in discussion with Lord Goldsmith's lawyers, following the request from the Metropolitan Police - who wanted an injunction against the BBC even referring to the battle.

At 9pm, Mr Justice Wilkie upheld the request for an injunction banning details of the story being broadcast. The BBC gave details of the injunction on its 10 O'Clock News bulletin - causing furious speculation throughout Westminster and Whitehall.

Downing Street claimed the first it heard of the story was on the 10 O'Clock News - and had no idea that lawyers acting on behalf of a member of the Cabinet had been at the High Court that evening.

But speculation is mounting that Downing Street had, in fact, leaked details of the e-mail in the hope of destroying the 12-month police investigation.

Ruth Turner, Downing Street's director of government relations, was first questioned by police on September 29. She was arrested before dawn at her London home on January 19 and questioned over allegations of the sale of honours and perverting the course of justice.

Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair's chief of staff, was first interviewed by police last summer. He is said to have been reinterviewed under caution in January, though Downing Street refuses to confirm this.

Lord Levy, Mr Blair's chief fundraiser, was arrested and bailed on July 12 last year. He was rearrested on January 30 and questioned for several hours on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

It was in 2003, that Downing Street, led by Alastair Campbell, and the BBC clashed for weeks over journalist Andrew Gilligan's report that No 10 'sexed up' Iraq's weapons capability.

No 10 was then accused of hanging weapons expert David Kelly out to dry by naming him as the source of the story. Dr Kelly was found dead in woodlands after a relentless campaign of briefing and counter-briefing between Number 10 and the corporation.

[GazeboflossUK]

Attorney General Blocks Sun, BBC Reports on Cash-for-Honors Probe (Correct)
By Kitty Donaldson

(Corrects to show Sun told not to publish, not injuncted.)

March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Britain's Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith blocked the Sun from reporting details of an e-mail between two of Prime Minister Tony Blair's closest aides as police investigate a political funding scandal.

Goldsmith, acting on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, obtained a court order last week to prevent the British Broadcasting Corp. from publishing contents of the e-mail, his office said today. Lawyers for the Sun were told by the attorney general's office yesterday not to publish details of the e-mail.

Police began an inquiry a year ago into whether Blair's office improperly recommended people to seats in the House of Lords in exchange for donations to the ruling Labour Party. The probe began after Labour disclosed that it had received 14 million pounds ($27 million) in undisclosed loans from 12 supporters, four of whom were later offered seats in the Lords.

The Sun today reported that it had the contents of an e-mail sent from an aide, Ruth Turner, to Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.

The BBC reported today that it had successfully appealed part of the injunction and was allowed to say the e-mail concerned Lord Michael Levy, who has acted as a fundraiser for Labour. He and Turner have been arrested and questioned under caution, meaning police are treating them as suspects.

Both Turner and Levy deny wrongdoing. Blair already has been questioned twice in connection with the probe. Blair's office today denied that it leaked details of the e-mail to the BBC.

``This assertion was not based on a personal hunch,'' said Tom Kelly, a spokesman for Blair. ``There are inaccuracies in the reports which means it couldn't have come from No 10.''

Britain's political parties had debts of 60.7 million pounds on Dec. 31, according to the Electoral Commission. Labour owed 23.4 million pounds. The main opposition Conservative Party owed the most, 35.3 million pounds. Most of that debt will be cleared by the sale of Smith Square, the party's old headquarters, for 30.5 million pounds, earlier this month.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kitty Donaldson in London at kdonaldson1@bloomberg.net .

[Busker]

The ship is sinking fast isn't it?

[GazeboflossUK]

Oh yes, it is indeed.

I can't remember a more damning period for the criminal "leaders" than the past couple of months.

May they continue to be exposed at an accelerated rate.

Thing is - I only found this story on Bloomberg (of all places) and I couldn't see it anywhere else. Which is to be expected I guess.

EDIT:

I now found the story in a few places.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6419275.stm

and the Gag has been partially lifted...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13570284,00.html

[rodin]

It's puppet Bliar's string pullers we need to get. He has been a useful tool. Now, I think, all but discarded - with blood on his hands yes. And deserves to be punished heavily. But with all major politicians in hock to the same elite the fall of one or two will not change anything.

The whole system must be smashed.

[Wokeman]

My God, If they've put the brakes on Murdoch, we are in deep *!

[humanoid]

If evidence police are hoping to rely on appears in the media it could bring down the whole case. Those in the firing line are well aware of that."


SNP MP Angus Macneil, whose complaint prompted the police inquiry, said: "Whoever has leaked this email is in deep trouble.

"It looks very much as if someone has been trying to scupper a police investigation."

A senior Downing Street source insisted he was "confident" that no-one in Number Ten had leaked the email to the BBC.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387672-details/Government %20accused%20of%20trying%20to%20derail%20cash-for-honours%20inquiry/ar ticle.do

[Mark Gobell]

This story has false flag written all over it.

To think that we are to believe that the BBC and Guardian are queuing up to undermine Bliar, is to me, flatly ridiculous.

Commander John Yates announced the start of the cash for honours investigation on 21.3.2006

This is a staged "row" over an injunction that was issued on 2.3.2007

Exactly 11 months and 9 days later.

And, 9 years, 10 months and 1 day after Bliar came to power.

Give me a break.

[TonyGosling]

May I respectfully disagree with you Mark - I think there is a rare element of real news to the struggle between Yates and Levy & The Attorney General. The whole things a bit epic, and IMHO not just for the cameras.

Levy is detremined to stop the investigation - that much is clear - and the object of the whole is to discredit parliamentary democracy to make it easier for the Corporations/NWO to dismantle.



Cash for honours: key document names Levy

Memo from Blair aide says peer tried to influence her evidence
Patrick Wintour
Tuesday March 6, 2007
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2027366,00.html

Detectives are investigating whether Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, urged one of Tony Blair's most senior aides to shape the evidence she gave to Scotland Yard, the Guardian has learned.
Police have been investigating whether Ruth Turner, the prime minister's director of external relations, was being asked by Lord Levy to modify information that might have been of interest to the inquiry. Officers have been trying to piece together details of a meeting they had last year. Ms Turner gave an account of it to her lawyers and this has been passed to police.

[Mark Gobell]

Tony no worries mate.

Let me put it this way.

I'm thinking that the injunction could possibly be a ruse to show apparent willing in trying to prevent publication of damaging material that ultimately someone may have to take the fall for.

It ain't going to be Bliar we know that much.

The fact that Goldfinger apparently "couldn't prevent" the Guardian from going public is very suspicious indeed.

Levy definitely and possibly Ruth Turner are implicated further by this.

I'm still holding my breath for John McTernon and hopefully Jonathan Powell.

As for the outcome of this particular problem, reaction, solution, there's only one loser and that's Parliamentary democracy, specifically the second chamber, Noo Lab's long held wet dream.

So, I agree with you on that possibility.

[Mark Gobell]

Tonight the Commons voted to make the Lords a fully elected chamber on the day that marks 9 years, 10 months and 1 week of Bliar's Presidency.

[rodin]

Hmmm.... This infernal triangle seems to have 3 major players. Levy Goldsmith and Bliar (sound like a firm of lawyers - accident on the pavement? No worries ring us well make up a story claim 50 grand you get 25% pay nothing up front)

The pyramid strikes again

..which one of the 3 is the odd man .. er... person out?

[TonyGosling]

The same crooked mates of Blair and Alistair Campbell who were behind the illegal Iraq invasion dossier are hereby fingered by Yatesey. Personally I blame the Crown Prosecution Service for this particular bit of corruption. The case should have come to trial since there was plenty of evidence but the. This Yates chap is a rare honest cop in amongst a vipers nest of Scotland Yard freemasons, and should replace Sir Ian Blair as Chief Constable of the Met. forthwith.

Cash-for-honours investigator complains of political interference
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 24 October 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3090316.ece

The senior Metropolitan Police officer at the centre of the aborted £1m inquiry into "cash-for-honours" allegations inside Downing Street was put under intense pressure by high-level political figures before the case was dropped, he said yesterday.

Assistant Commissioner John Yates told the Commons public administration select committee that his 16-month investigation was obstructed by a lack of co-operation. But he insisted that the pressure exerted on him during the course of the inquiry did not influence his decisions.

He said the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, co-operated "in full" but added: "Others did not. It would be quite obvious to everybody who that was."

Mr Yates said he had received letters from lawyers of some of the main players in the inquiry before yesterday's hearing, warning him against divulging information to the MPs that was gained during the police investigation. He confirmed, however, that a diary by the biotechnology entrepreneur, Sir Christopher Evans, and a note by Ruth Turner, Tony Blair's "gatekeeper" at No 10, was "crucial evidence" which "led us down another path", leading to the inquiry being extended.

The Evans diary is alleged to have included a note of a conversation with Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, discussing a "P" or a "K" (a peerage or knighthood). Both men denied any wrongdoing and, although they were arrested, no charges were brought before the Crown Prosecution Service ordered the case to be dropped.

Defending his dawn arrest of Sir Christopher, Mr Yates brushed aside MPs' protests that No 10 aides were subjected to an ordeal and "hung out to dry". "It was not just me going off on a wild goose chase," he said. "It was not great fun. It was bloody difficult."

His team received "less than full co-operation", said Mr Yates. "I don't say that now in the sense that it was deliberate in its intention but I think there was a sense they thought we would ask questions, get some answers and simply go away. That is not how the police work." He added: "People under suspicion in those kind of cases will try to hide evidence."

The inquiry was launched in March 2006 after the Scottish National Party made a complaint of corruption, following press reports that 12 millionaire businessmen made undisclosed loans totalling nearly £14m to the Labour Party for the 2005 general election campaign, and some had been put on a list for political peerages by Mr Blair. It was only in January this year that Mr Yates discovered how the list had been put together, he said.

"I felt uncomfortable on a number of times," said Mr Yates. "It was a difficult investigation with immense public scrutiny [and] some fairly dark comments by politicians who should have known better. Was it improper pressure? No – I don't think so. Would it have made any difference? No, I think not ... I want to assure the committee that at no time did that pressure influence me in my decisions." He added: "We were treated as a political problem, not a criminal problem."

The questioning follows reports that Mr Blair had warned police he could be forced to resign if he became the first serving Prime Minister to be arrested or questioned under caution.

However, Mr Yates refused to go into details of the dossier he submitted to the CPS before the investigation was dropped owing to insufficient evidence. Mr Yates, regarded as one of the brightest detectives in the Met before the inquiry, was asked if his career had been damaged. "I will leave it to others to judge," he said. His remarks will infuriate MPs who believe his inquiry was a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

Tony Wright, the Labour chairman of the committee, said Mr Yates's criminal investigation had damaged the MPs' inquiry but the panel would report before the end of the year. It will not be taking evidence from Lord Levy and Ms Turner. The Criminal Law Commission is due to report on reform of the anti-corruption laws and the MPs are likely to recommend a tougher regulatory role by the Electoral Commission. There may also be pressure to update the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, which was tightly drawn to prevent prosecutions without hard evidence of agreement on the sale of honours.

[TonyGosling]

SUE ME OVER HONOURS CLAIMS - HUHNE

The cash-for-honours controversy was reopened when Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne said he had no doubt peerages were "sold" to Labour donors - and challenged ministers to sue him over it.
Mr Huhne, who is fighting for the party leadership, said the chances it was coincidence that all £1 million-plus donors were awarded gongs were about the same as getting hit by an asteroid.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/24154/Sue-me-over-honours-claims-H uhne
Sunday November 4,2007

The Crown Prosecution Service announced in July that it would bring no charges after a 16-month police investigation into claims of corruption.
Several people were arrested and Tony Blair was interviewed by detectives as a witness, the first time a serving Prime Minister had faced such a grilling.
But Mr Huhne told The Independent on Sunday it was "completely mad" to suggest there was no organised system of awarding big donors in operation.
"It's quite clear what was going on: this was basically a supermarket in honours," he told The Independent on Sunday.
"It is completely mad to suggest other than (that) this was an organised matter. I am very happy to say that on the record. If they (the Government) think otherwise they can very happily take me to a libel court."
Mr Huhne told ITV's Sunday Edition he understood why it had been difficult to find evidence to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" test for a criminal case.
"But the chances of every single person who gave a million pounds coming away with a knighthood or a peerage, of that being a random coincidence, are about as great as the chances of us getting hit now by an asteroid.
"If ministers want to sue me I would be delighted to defend it."

[QuitTheirClogs]

Cash For Honours - An Interview With The Earl Of Sterling

John Morton -- Nov 20th 2008
http://www.ukcolumn.org/2008/11/20/cash-for-honours/

A few weeks ago, I interviewed Tim Alexander, the Earl of Stirling. Lord Stirling was directly involved in the Cash for Honours scandal, having submitted evidence to the Metropolitan Police investigation under John Yates. He has written a book ("Cash for Peerages: The Smoking Gun") on the subject, which is available from Lulu Press (www.lulu.com).

JM: I am sure you will agree that it is quite ironic for an American to be talking to a Brit about hereditary titles.

LS: [Laughs] Yes, well, as an American I don’t take the issue of hereditary honours too seriously, except in as far as this is part of my family history and traditions going back centuries, as outlined in my book. In my time working with Burke’s Peerage I became an expert on Scots Peerage Law, Baronetage Law, Baronage Law and Chiefly Law. This knowledge about the law is reflected in my complaint against Blair, Lord Falconer and now Brown and Straw.

JM: You may be aware of the work of the UK Column and our fight against Common Purpose, which we suspect of being a Masonic conspiracy at the higher levels. Care to comment?

LS: Common Purpose certainly sounds like a front group to me…


JM: In your opinion, why was the investigation shut down and what should we, the British public be doing about that? In particular, I am curious about the role of Detective Inspector John Yates, who is a name we have come across recently in connection with charges of treason that are being made around the country on our initiative – do you think he is corrupt or merely under enormous pressure by higher ups in the establishment.

LS: I personally talked at length with John Yates and with his senior detectives. They had, let me make this very clear, they had more than enough evidence, just from my case alone, to bring criminal charges against some of the highest office holders in the land. But the “fix was in”. The Establishment did not want a PM and senior cabinet ministers going to Her Majesty’s Prisons, so the deal reached was Blair was to resign by a certain date and no criminal charges would be brought against anyone in the Cabinet or Number 10.

JM: What is the next move for your fight over this issue and what are the prospects for success?

LS: Well the first thing to say is that under Scots Law I am the Earl of Stirling, and nothing, even the mighty New Labour, can change that. As it stands I am free to bring a very substantial lawsuit against Falconer, Blair and Straw which I am very confident would be sufficient to bankrupt all concerned. I do not like to make money off lawsuits, but this after all is a matter of principle.