political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
A nice article by John Rentoul as well! Cheered me up no end.
The prosecuting authorities cannot be serious if this statement from the Telegraph is accurate , what a perfect defence for anyone in trouble with the law !!!"The prosecuting authorities are very unsure as to whether someone who was, or claims to be, unaware that what they were doing was illegal can be successfully prosecuted."
Dunno. Says that there's only one person likely to be charged, and even he is unlikely to be convicted.
So will Gordon visit them / him in jail afterwards
No escape this time. Brown has already admitted the illegality so he can't pretend it's all got up by the media. Nor can he say it's a problem 'for all political parties' if Labour only is prosecuted.So he will say, 'This is not something we can discuss while criminal proceedings are pending.'
He he he! Gordon said he wanted to hit the ground running didn't think he meant from the police.This 42 day detention disaster.Why is brown trying it after bliar failed is it because it was his idea the last time? did he force bliar to do it?.Is he stupid?
Happy New Year to you to Mr. Dale.Thank you for the wonderful news.
Maybe there is such a thing as accountability, even in NuLab's Britain.
Having followed the Hutton proceedings and the ermine for vermine debacle, I think there is long way to go before we see any Zanu Labour scumbags in the dock.With regards to :-"The prosecuting authorities are very unsure as to whether someone who was, or claims to be, unaware that what they were doing was illegal can be successfully prosecuted."..I suspect that some of Gordo's legal mates have have been doing overtime to come up with sufficient chaff which, together with some arm twisting in the CPS, will see this whole affair consigned to the dustbin of history.
couldn't happen to a nicer man
Why only one person? peter Watt knew what was happening, but it started before he took up his position. Who told him about the arrangements, and who told him it was OK?
I am completely unaware whether the abrupt termination of another person's life by violent means is illegal. I think I was truanting when we dealt with that question at school. I just thought I'd put that on the record, so I can call it up in my defence at some stage in the future.
There will be another whitewash. Watt won't be convicted of anything (and even if he is charged, the charges will get dropped long before it gets to court) and the politicians, Harman etc. will not even have to go near a police station.Labour's close friends at the BBC and Peter Spencer at Sky, will tell the dim-witted prols that it was all a big mis-understanding and that Labour are as pure as the driven snow, and how poor Broon has been so unfairly dragged into it.
Looks like Gordon Brown will start 2008 in the same manner that he ended 2007. That's it Gordon, start as you mean to go on.
The Telegraph does have a knack of getting these things wrong. I'm not holding my breath. I fully expect the CPS to say "not enough evidence" or "not in the public interest".I also wanted to point out the Independent article about the Treasury trying to force the MoD to sell off Churchill's War offices.http://tinyurl.com/2skyseThis must be stopped at all costs. Is it just me or we returning to some 60's & 70's communist/socialist Labour party. Trying to sell off something that is such a strong part of Britishness, virtual nationalisation of Northern Rock (clause 4). What's next?
Our household similarly found the DT's comments about the likelihood of prosecution deeply peculiar.Must try it on HMRC next time they demand an extortionate new tax.
Superb News!Brown might want to recnsider plod's pay award!
Ignorantia iuris neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no-one) applies unless the persons alleged to be involved are mentally incapable of knowing(nescient). Additionally, it is not assumed that a person understands their legal rights when arrested which is why the police always recite the famous " You do not have to say anything etc "caution.
At face value, good news. But just WHO is the anonymous Whitehall source? In the same way as the sources that were busy briefing during Yates' investigations into peerages and loans and things, I fear an ulterior motive. My guess is that this "infomercial" is the start of getting sufficient knowledge out into the public domain before any decision to prosecute is taken, in order to justify the "not in the public interest, unable to ensure a fair trial" line.
Maybe the anonymous source could be Brown himself.Afterall, his admission has dropped them all in it in the first place.
Post a comment