So this now leads the BBC Ten O'Clock News but Nick Robinson can't say what the injunction is all about. Let me help. I understand it is to do with an email that incriminates someone in a fairly drastic way. I do not know what the terms of the injunction are, but isn't this an injunction which the Labour Party should have asked for rather than Her Majesty's Government?
I am aware of the identity of the individual who is the subject of the email, but I think if I name them I'll probably be banged up at Heathrow on my return! And, dear reader, you wouldn't want that, would you?!
My, my Mr American Pie, drove my chevvy to the..
ReplyDeleteOr you could just stay in the States - you do seem quite at home there !
ReplyDeleteOnly teasing...
Iain, it is not an exclusive, i've read similar to what you written, and it was posted elsewhere before you. Also, you have hardly given much of a reason... the email says what exactly?! Very vague.
ReplyDeleteTell us in code (in such a way that you could not be incriminated). Or have you already?
ReplyDeleteIain, I bet you never thought that when you left for the States, that this would be the last time you would ever set foot in Old Blighty?!
ReplyDeleteCould this possibly be connected with the loss of your iPod by any chance.....
You know the Government is in trouble when Iain Dale has to moderate the comments on his blog.....
Go on Iain...publish and be dammned! The Government may be able to bully Auntie, but surely the bloggers should be our last bastion of democracy!
ReplyDeleteIf that argument doesn't work I'll be forced to resort to playground teasing..."Brack, Brack - CHICKEN!"
How about we do it the way Dr. Kelly's name was leaked to the press?
ReplyDeleteI'll go first was it from RT to JMcT?
This was probably an interim injunction, granted to preserve the status quo pending a contested application. As yet the court may only have heard one side of the case. In a day or two the full application will probably be heard (in private) and at that stage the court will hear both sides of the argument.
ReplyDeleteThe temporary injunction may or may not be extended.
Go on. Give us a few intials. Or an anagram.
ReplyDeleteokay, does anyone spot the slight conflict of interest here? Oh, and smell the stench of sleaze, lies, outright corruption and criminality. The application for the injunction itself seems tantamount to perjury.
ReplyDeleteIs Blair the subject of the email? Has turner fingered him? ( oh errr...)
ReplyDeleteAnother thought.
ReplyDeleteIf Levy goes down, it was always stated Blair 'has to resign on the spot' right?
Richard Nixon Blair...good riddance
Post and be damned. We need the truth.
ReplyDeleteYes please, oh yes please. Then you might give more consideration to prisoners votes.
ReplyDeleteOn Newsnight, Nick Robinson stated that the AG acts in the public interest, and if such a story was broadcast in the media it could prejudice a fair hearing.
However, the AG is not impartial. We already know that his integrity was compromised over the changed legal advice on going to war with Iraq. He is too attached to the Labour Party.
It comes down to was the gag in the public or Labour's interest?
The fact they've went for the injunction and the obvious full disclosure of the detail sounds like it could finish this government off.
ReplyDeleteGood.
Lets hope it happens in the run up to the council elections.
Labour deserve to be decimated in every possible context.
This shower offend every generation of my family that voted Labour.
I'm the first not to. I can't imagine them ever changing that.
No, but you could link to this, and I'll take the flak!
ReplyDeletehttp://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/03/cash-for-peerages-has-there-been.html
If it's something that will be used in a criminal prosecution it's better for everybody if it's not made public until the proper time in a court case.
ReplyDeleteIn which case, it's not inappropriate for the AG to be seeking the injunction. Remember: justice is a dish best served cold.
The good news is that, if this email is as incriminatory as suggested, there now seems to be zero chance of there not being charges.
Remember a comment at the beginning of this saga when a policeman said that innocent people never refuse to talk? And then it came out that Levy had refused to say anything at his first interview with the plod...
Bets on hour remaining of Blair's premiership anyone?
We can assume the email incriminates one of the individuals previously arrested?
ReplyDeleteIts come to something when a secret inquiry clears the Home Office ministers
ReplyDeleteThe independent Attorney General is helping suppress evidence in a case against the government
The publicly owned broadcaster wont publish soemthing in the public interest anyway
Goldsmith/Bliar positions completely untenable
Time for someone at the beeb to grab his balls and do the right thing.
Regardless of the emails contents it surely confirms that the government is rotten to the core and we need an inquiry into the last 10 years fraud.
I cannot see how the winner of an election from whichever party could be taken seriously without some sort of clearing of the decks.NuLab cannot continue in government now its mental
The Met Police asked for it
ReplyDeleteSurely if you posted the info from the land of the free, you are not breaking any laws in this country?
ReplyDeleteIain,
ReplyDeleteDo we have any info on the injunction itself.
Was it against the BBC, BBC News, BBC1, because if it was specific then one of the other BBC channels may think it worth risking putting out...
May be worth keeping an ear on the BBC radio channels.
Ooh, you tease! The injunction is on the BBC so what is the problem with you posting?
ReplyDeleteNice post Iain, keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteIain - Why have you now deleted the Ruth Turner "label" from the foot of this thread?
ReplyDeleteThe Department of Education has chosen today to release a report that alleges schools are institutionally racist.
ReplyDeleteOn Radio 4's The World Tonight Diane Abbot said the report '...was written some time ago and they've finally put it out' (12:30 into the real audio stream).
Was this report put out today in an attempt to keep the cash for peerages injunction story off tomorrow's front pages?
you have a moral obligation to disclose. Anything else is catering to your own vanity.
ReplyDeleteA statement this evening reveals the police requested the injunction, rather than Number 10.
ReplyDeleteIf it is true that either an email severely inciminates, or someone female close the Tony who's name rhymes with "Strewth" is to be charged...can't see how our dear leader can get out of this scrape? Brown in No.10 by Monday?
ReplyDeleteOh please let it be Blair!
ReplyDeleteTell us the name - immigration is so lax entering the UK they won't even know who you are
ReplyDeleteI'll try again, though you're obviously unable to approve or disapprove any comments at the moment.
ReplyDeleteGoldsmith - give the man a break - me? Well, look at it this way. The police have apparently asked for the injunction. If this is to come to trial, how would it work if the key 'evidence' is already in the public domain? It would surely destroy the chances of getting anything to trial.
The alternative hypothesis though. Goldsmith - compromised Mr. Conflict-of-interest. The Beeb, bless 'em, have got such concrete evidence that, if public, it would forbid Goldsmith from refusing to allow prosecution - a decision still in his hands. For fear that his one and only option from the start of this be taken away, he goes for the suppression of information option and then kills the case when the police want to bring charges, and like Hutton, it will stink to high heaven, but miraculously, no one can do much about it. At least not until the perpetrators are well out of reach of the relevant courts.
You choose.
If this is about an email, possibly from Levy to Bliar, or to Powell saying "discuss with TB"???
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows Ruthie is being charged, the rest will follow. Bliar to go soon
ReplyDeleteIts Ruthie in chains with the rest to follow
ReplyDeleteFine, lets have the info posted on a stateside web site where there is constitutional protection for freedom of the press.
ReplyDeleteFuck them!
If the Labour Party brought the injunction then it will be to protect Tony Blair. Ha.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I can think, Ruth and Levy etc, haven't been hung out to dry is that they have evidence on Blair. They got their own lawyers to counter-balance Blair and they are all standing in a circle with guns at each others heads.
Honestly, I don't see anybody other than Blair's lawyers having the balls (and working knowledge) to bring an injunction like this - or to have a preview of the film.
Iain - Congrats on being first to break this story, closely followed by Benedict White, which is becoming bigger by the hour - but where are have you been for the past three hours?
ReplyDeleteThis blog says it's Ruth Kelly.
ReplyDeleteWhy not tell, say, an anonymous blogger and let them post it on their blog?
ReplyDeleteRS
Get an overseas blog to release the info. Does anyone know if UK citizens permanently resident overseas are covered by such injunctions?
ReplyDeleteyak40, above -
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be mixing up your "Ruths" just as does Jailhouselawyer rather coincidentally in the blog to which you refer.
You wouldn't one and the same person would you?
peter from putney
ReplyDeleteNo, not one & the same as jailhouse, sorry !
Yak40 said...
ReplyDeleteThis blog says it's Ruth Kelly.
12:52 AM
......and a writ from Ms. Kelly's lawyers will probably follow.
Here is the latest from the BBC confirming your story - can you access a copy of that email:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6414113.stm
Coming back to this in the cold light of dawn. Plus seeing that the injunction was requested by the police. I see a slightly different scenario...
ReplyDeleteSuppose the police had got wind that parties assosciated with No. 10, Were going to release via contacts within the BBC, information into the public domain.
Said release of this could be later used as an arguement about any prosecutions being already compromised by this action.
I now wonder if the hand of the AG was forced by the police to prevent this perversion of justice.
But well done Iain on the exclusive!
Much as I'd love to know the details now it seems that both the AG's Office and the Met Police agreed a statement which says that the injunction was requested by the Police to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation. That being the case, I'm content to await developments - with eager anticipation
ReplyDeleteMore here
While the police may have (understandably) requested the injunction, my guess is that the leaking of the evidence it seeks to suppress was and is part of a calculated effort by No 10 insiders. How best to scupper prospects for a successful prosecution must be the question around which they are expected to unite, with running the country a minor side-issue right now. Part of Plods task is to divide them with mutual fear and suspicion.
ReplyDeleteOh the joy of watching them squirm
OK, we now know that the Met applied for the injunction. But why was the application made by the Attorney-General and not the Director of Public Prosecutions?
ReplyDeleteThe hearing is said to have taken two hours; quite long for an interim injunction. (Twenty minutes would be more usual.) This suggests that the BBC had been notified of the application, were represented, and contested the case.
There must have been two leaks. First the e-mail was leaked to the BBC. (We don't know when. Could have been weeks ago.) Then someone leaked the fact that the BBC was about to broadcast it, presumably on one of yesterday evening's bulletins.
The Met may not know who leaked the e-mail to the BBC, or when. It could have been one of their own officers or possibly some disaffected man or woman at Downing Street.
At this stage, therefore, we can draw only three conclusions:
1) Contrary to what the spin doctors would have us believe, Yates is NOT leaking info. in the hope of embarrassing No. 10. On the contrary he is trying to keep the enquiry under wraps.
2) Downing Street is (still) furious. That's "furious" as in shit scared.
3) The four main suspects probably each have their own lawyers and will not hesitate to dump on each other when the going gets rough.
Name him!
ReplyDeleteIt din't do Oscar Wilde any harm - although the Blog of Paddington Green hasn't a BAD ring to it, has it?
The police couldn't have just sat back and allowed major evidence in an on going enquiry to lead on News at 10. If they did, they would be being negligent - scandelously.
ReplyDeleteI am of the mind that this is a Sith related leak - they need to keep the pressure on Blair, and reduce the exposure for Palpatine. Not quite ready for Executive Order 66....
Proving the specific offences of offering or soliciting cash for honours was always going to be difficult, and probably still is. However, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice would only require evidence of emails that the police would have wanted to see being destroyed when it became obvious that they were dangerous. My bet would be that the email was key evidence of a cover-up and preversion of justice, but not of the sale of honours. Blair will claim his advisers did it without his knowledge, but will resign anyway to clear the air... sorry, I seem to have wandered onto the set of Frost/Nixon...
ReplyDeleteThe injunction obtained by the Government only applies in England & Wales. I'm not aware of the Government having sought a similar interdict in the Scottish courts, so BBC Scotland could break the story if they wished ....
ReplyDeleteWe're all assuming that Nick Robinson is the one who discovered this smoking gun and Goldilocks is the one doing the cover up. Now that may well be the case. But, as ever with this crowd of crooks, might it not be worthwhile looking at things backwards?
ReplyDeleteLet's say Plod has got his hands on something Blair and co would rather he hadn't. They know that if it is used in court they are way up that smelly creek of yore but there's nothing they can do about getting back. So the slime balls revert to default mode (i.e. cornered rat crossed with schyster lawyer) "The only way to minimise the damage is to get the evidence published and then rubbish it in court," they think.
So THEY leak the evidence to a tame journo working for an organisation suficiently beaten into submissiveness?
Plod gets wind of this "cunning plan" and turns to Goldilocks who, out of fear of yet more aspertions being cast on his character or hope that Gordon might still need him as AG, complies and gets the injunction.
It's convoluted, I agree. But as I say, with this crowd, sometimes thinking arse-about-face helps understand them. I guess only time will tell.
We're all assuming that Nick Robinson is the one who discovered this smoking gun and Goldilocks is the one doing the cover up. Now that may well be the case. But, as ever with this crowd of crooks, might it not be worthwhile looking at things backwards?
ReplyDeleteLet's say Plod has got his hands on something Blair and co would rather he hadn't. They know that if it is used in court they are way up that smelly creek of yore but there's nothing they can do about getting back. So the slime balls revert to default mode (i.e. cornered rat crossed with schyster lawyer) "The only way to minimise the damage is to get the evidence published and then rubbish it in court," they think.
So THEY leak the evidence to a tame journo working for an organisation suficiently beaten into submissiveness?
Plod gets wind of this "cunning plan" and turns to Goldilocks who, out of fear of yet more aspertions being cast on his character or hope that Gordon might still need him as AG, complies and gets the injunction.
It's convoluted, I agree. But as I say, with this crowd, sometimes thinking arse-about-face helps understand them. I guess nly time will tell.
A P.S. to my last post - if however it is true that it was the police who asked the Attorney General for the injunction, fearing that disclosure would hamper their enquiry, perhaps we shouldn't be hoping that BBC Scotland, or anyone else, will break the story, if that were to interfere in police investigations, as we do want (don't we?) the culprits of the Cash for Honours affair to get banged up for it!
ReplyDeleteIt is far better that an injunction be in place, that aids a prosecution, than to allow a difficult case to collapse for the sake of BBC ratings.
ReplyDeleteWhile looking for something else, I was reminded of how the Chairman of the Carlyle Group, Louis Gerstner, came to be recommended by TB for an honorary KBE in 2001. And that came to light only because an e-mail intended for Lord Mcintosh was sent to Tory MP Anne McIntosh by mistake. (Bet you, too, that the youngest Blair child - born 2000 - is named for Gerstner.)
ReplyDeleteSo, the police seek an injunction to stop the broadcasting of 'leaked' information that may compromise their investigation. But the BBC lawyers fight this. Why? What have they to gain by damaging the investigation? Are the police concerned that the BBC may, surprising as it seems, have a proxy role in this affair? The tactic of leaking information about the enquiry may be a ploy to present it as a political witch-hunt which cannot get to court because it has been thus compromised.
ReplyDeleteOops, youngest Blair is of course Leo not Louis.
ReplyDelete