I am shocked that the Liberal Democrats, who run on a platform of total political accountability, would even consider not returning the funds. They have been on notice of this fact for several years. To continuously try to make excuses to avoid this responsibility is not the actions of an honourable political party. The voters in England should consider such conduct when they select their next political representatives. I am hopeful that the powers within the Liberal Democrats will decide to do the right thing both for me and the honour of Britain.
The full article is HERE.
UPDATE: I reported the above in a rather balanced way, I thought. But having read LibDem Voice's version of events, I am afraid I shall revert to type. Stephen Tall repeats the usual defence that the Electoral Commission passed the donation and therefore the LibDems have done nothing wrong. He quotes from an Electoral Commission press release, which indeed appears to give them the all clear. Sadly Stephen omits the important bit of the press release. For the sake of completeness, let me quote it here...
Nevertheless, we have always said that if any additional information that has a bearing on the permissibility of the donations comes to light, for example as a result of the ongoing police investigation or legal proceedings relating to the affairs of 5th Avenue, we would consider the matter further.
Less of the sanctimony please. No one knows how this will turn out - not me, not LibDem Voice. But the possibility that the money will have to be repaid is certainly there. The LibDem auditors have told them they do not need to make provision for any repayment in their accounts. I wonder whether that advice will come back to haunt both parties.
8 comments:
The LibDems just don't seem to get it.
That Brown could have lied to them about the money's source is irrelevant on whether they took it in good faith or not.
If the money transpires to not have been his to give then they are in receipt of stolen property and should repay it.
It doesn't say much for their promotion of a squeaky clean image that they continue to hold such an indefensible line.
People who buy stolen cars in good faith end up having to return them or pay the owner. If they want to be reimbursed it is the criminal they have to seek redress off.
Why do the LibDems think they are exempt from that clear legal position?
Re Anon @ 4.05pm
this is my understanding of the position too. Perhaps if the Lib Dems make public their legal advice and how it relates to the facts in detail it would help to clear this up.
Their defence surely isn't built on Storming Plan no.357 in which Mr X is involved, but in a "purely personal capacity", thereby totally insulating any reasonably proximate beneficiary organisation from any and all potential liability.
I see Stephen Tall has been using the carefully-edited-Electoral-Commission-press-release excuse again.
That's the one where he forgets (in good faith of course) to print the rest of the release that the EC may revisit donation.
Hilariously he aaccuses the Observer of being economic with the actualite.
Only the LibDems could try and brazen it out with accusations that actually apply to them.
Anon @ 5.07. Further to that they just don't seem to realise that they took money from a crook and that until they return it will be tarred as the crook's friend.
I am sure Joseph Rowntree will be happy to pick up the tab.
The auditors' position is quite interesting.
I don't imagine that auditors are great followers of the Electoral Commissions missives preferring the likes of Accountancy Age.
So I wonder what the auditors have based their position on since the Electoral Commission have clearly said they would consider the matter further pending the police investigation and legal proceedings?
If they have just been shown the partial press release as Stephen Tall has done then they could be in trouble for misleading the auditors.
Maybe something for a member of Her Majesty's Press to ask the auditors.
What evidence did they base their conclusion of no need for provision on?
@sham69: The auditors would rely on any legal advice. The legal advisors would have relied on the facts as told to them by the Lib Dems. Hear no evil, see no evil ...
Oh dear. I think Sham 69 and Alex have found the fingerhole in the dyke.
Won't be long before a surge of jouranlist like water gushes through it.
Ouch. This could really hurt the Lib Dems as they try to claw back some of the voters they lost to the Conservatives. £600,000 could pay for a lot of local campaigning.
Post a Comment