Thursday, January 24, 2008

Hain To Be Investigated by the Met


The storm clouds are gathering again over Peter Hain. Sky News is reporting that the Electoral Commission has reported him to the Metropolitan Police. This does not, of course, mean that he will be charged, as we remember well from the Cash for Honours saga.

Can anyone remember the last time a serving Cabinet Minister was investigated by the Police?

UPDATE 12.22: Peter Hain is expected to resign this afternoon.
Graphic Hattip to Lakelander

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now this is exciting with a capital X !!!!!

As they used to say on Tiswas, 'This is what they want !!'...

Mr Pedant said...

Surely the last time a serving Cabinet member was investigated by the Police was last year? After all, Blair was as close to the Cash for Honours scandal as Hain is to the latest mess.

Anonymous said...

Hain's gone! Rejoice, rejoice!

Dan said...

Has now resigned!

Tone made me do it - he's a bad influence said...

I think I hate Nulab most because of the way they span the "sleaze" surrounding John Major's government.

As you mention earlier this week, the Hamiltons were bought down by the lying owner of Harrods rather than anything they actually did.

Almost all of the so called sleaze was spin.

Sleaze goes to the heart of NuLabour yet somehow the media makes little of it.

Anonymous said...

Bye Bye ! He Gawn !!

Anonymous said...

Last year?!

Alfie said...

Andrew Neil says he has already gone from W & P and Welsh O.

Good riddance.

Reactionary Snob said...

Did I beat Iain Dale to a scoop!

RS

The Creator said...

He has resigned. Harriet and wee Wendy next?

Unsworth said...

So, a good day to slip out some other bad news, then. Watch the other hand....

Anonymous said...

The tories take pleasure in the suffering of others. Hain is hero who fought a brutal police state in south Africa,. Well done tory bloggers another hero killed. Somtimes the bad guys do win,

Iain Dale said...

Anonymous. Ridiculous comment. Nowehere in this post do I take delight at this. The trouble is the electoprate will see it as fuirther proof that all politicians of all parties are as bad as each other. As for your point about South Africa, are you seriously saying that this means he should be given carte blanche to do anything he wants and hang the consequences? Astonishing.

Not a sheep said...

You choose why the prosecution of Peter Hain will not go ahead?

a) "a prosecution would not be in the public interest"

b) "insufficient evidence to prosecute"


It will be one or the other because for some peculiar reason Labour government ministers never seem to get prosecuted, strange that...

Anonymous said...

Hain has had to resign because he failed to adhere to legisltation enacted by the Labour Government since 1997 - not that this Government has a monopoly on bad legislation: just think of the Dangerous Dogs Act. He was at best incompetent; if not that, then arrogant. Neither are good traits in a Minister.

Brown made it abundantly clear that if the matter escalted in any way, Hain's position was untenable. He was pushed.

gettin back to my grassroots said...

I do take delight at this. Hain is an appalling hypocrit.
I was amused by the shadow Home Secretary saying how much he respects Hain etc blah. David D you're a bigger man than me.
There is joy in the heart of this conservative activist.
If I point out how much I hated apartheid can I not do my tax return?
Shamone Peter Hain! Welcome to the back benches.

Peppar John said...

“Not a sheep” do not forget that Hain has seen the inside of a court room before. At least 3 times...

However the first two some how don’t appear on his own wed site....

In 1972 Peter Hain was found guilty of criminal conspiracy and fined £200.

He appealed against the conviction in 1973. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs.

As reported in the Daily Telegraph of 23 October 1973, the court said his conviction was "fully justified".

Lord Justice Roskill said Hain had not elected to give evidence, adding that "He gave no explanation of his part over the incidents with which he was charged."

Then there was the Bank Robbery fit up which he does talk about.... ad infinitum!

Could it be he was embarrassed about being convicted or is it because this was a period be does not like to talk about in his life?

It was a dark sordid period which I can fully understand his reluctance to discuss.

He was a member of the Liberals!