Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.
History is littered with hundreds of conflicts over the future of a community, group, location or business that were "resolved" when one of the parties stepped ahead and destroyed what was there. With the original point of contention destroyed, the debates would fall to the wayside. Archive Team believes that by duplicated condemned data, the conversation and debate can continue, as well as the richness and insight gained by keeping the materials. Our projects have ranged in size from a single volunteer downloading the data to a small-but-critical site, to over 100 volunteers stepping forward to acquire terabytes of user-created data to save for future generations.
The main site for Archive Team is at archiveteam.org and contains up to the date information on various projects, manifestos, plans and walkthroughs.
This collection contains the output of many Archive Team projects, both ongoing and completed. Thanks to the generous providing of disk space by the Internet Archive, multi-terabyte datasets can be made available, as well as in use by the Wayback Machine, providing a path back to lost websites and work.
Our collection has grown to the point of having sub-collections for the type of data we acquire. If you are seeking to browse the contents of these collections, the Wayback Machine is the best first stop. Otherwise, you are free to dig into the stacks to see what you may find.
The Archive Team Panic Downloads are full pulldowns of currently extant websites, meant to serve as emergency backups for needed sites that are in danger of closing, or which will be missed dearly if suddenly lost due to hard drive crashes or server failures.
118 comments:
Any Totty pics?
hopefully some shit will finally stick to Teflon Tony.
it has been a long time coming.
Please, please God let that wanker be arrested !
Not sure if you've got him on this Guido. The point has always been that loans didn't have to be declared (or not declared straight away), whereas donations did.
If a donor wanted to donate money but was pursuaded to loan instead then the disclosure rules changed.
The donor/lender only has to abide by the rules fore what he acutually did, not what he wanted to do.
You are getting desperate now. These comments were widely reported at the time and are not contradicted by the fact that two lenders, post hoc, say something different.
And, a donation is not a loan.
If you think that they are the same then the boy Cameron is in deep sh1t too. As, unlike Labour, he has completely hidden the names of lenders.
Does Ann has a hard copy of the evidence or a list of the witnesses?
One would presume the only reason Tony has not been arrested is (1) the Police are chasing up futher allegations (2) they are waiting for him to resign before arresting him (3) Yates is negotiating for a peerage.
Is there any truth that after his tour of the Middle East, Blair is heading off to Rio where he's bought Ronnie Biggs' old villa?
If the loans were all on commercial terms why didn't the Labour treasurer pop down to his local Barclays branch and apply like anyone else. Bish bash bosh, funds are in and no pyromaniac blogger can link funds to peerages.
Guido - can you find the IP of the "Anonymous said..." bloggers. I'd love to see if it comes from a work address - especially a Labour Party linked one.
You may have crucial evidence you are witholding.
As I understand it, it is perfectly legal to convert a loan into a donation as long as the relevant disclosure rules are followed.
There MAY be bad intent but is this relevant if the law is adhered to?
You can only prosecute people for breaking the law, not for being sneaky.
He's an habitual liar who believes his own lies.
It's probably pathological.
He'll get a couple of tame trick-cyclists to assert that he needs 'understanding' rather than punishment..
Hopefully, he'll then be subject to 'care in the community', end up busking in some piss-stinking pedestrian underpass, and everyone can spit in his begging bowl as they stride past.
Ah, if only.
I think the 'commercial terms' test is pretty useless.
On the High St you can get loans at anywhere between 5% and 25% or more. I don't think it's significant if a political party got something closer to base rate than most.
A business lends money at the rate it is happy with.
Don't get me wrong, nobody wants Blair to be banged up more than me, but you won't achieve it by clutching at straws.
If not declaring loans is a crime, expect to see IDS, Howard and Cameron in the dock too!
You've got yourself in a real muddle here by assuming the laws relating to loans and donations are the same.
This is going nowhere.
I dont know about the rest of you but I must receive at least three telephone calls a week from banks offering to give me gifts of large sums of money with no strings attached, my response is always the same
thank you very much but I would much prefer to pay it back despite the fact that I am broke and have no real prospect of doing so , and dont tell anybody
Matt,
Because Captain Mainwaring down at the local Barclays (and his equivalents at Nat-West, Lloyds, TSB et al) wouldn't loan a single penny to an organisation that had tumbling income, massive debts, zero unmortgaged assets and negative goodwill.
Which, of course begs the question: "Why would gentlemen of such renowned business accumen as Gulam Noon etc. do what the manager of Barclays patently wouldn't? What extra was there in the deal that Levy and Blair couldn't offer Captain Mainwaring?
One obvious answer is a nice ermine lined cloak, a title for the missus and a seat in the legislature.
Of course there may be other, completely innocent answers. I'm still waiting for someone to suggest one though.
Gordon Brown and his cronies are leaking like mad to try to drop Blair in it and force him to resign but Gordon should take care or this business will end up giving him a very nasty bite on his bum.
another source on the NEC March meeting. Jack Dromey said the loans were set up by number 10.....
"Tony Blair said he understood the concern and took responsibility. Without high value donors, he said, Labour would have been unable to fight elections and Labour needed to approach the Hayden Phillips inquiry carefully, and be aware that the Tories would make proposals that would not suit Labour.
Jack Dromey said that the loans system was set up with the authority of Number 10 but without NEC officers knowing and had he known, he would have demanded transparency. He pointed out that those who had made the loans and were nominated for honours were already known Labour Party donors. He said the NEC should be strengthened as a representative of conference, the sovereign body of the party. "
http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/
What many of you seem to miss is the fact that £14 million has been spent, where did it all go ?
Somebody signed those checks , to whom?
I reckon Blair has stolen a pile of it.
Can't fault your analysis.
Guido - Still suffering? Did he really 'consess'?
Maybe he did. You can never tell what he'll get up to these days, what with withdrawing from Iraq. Shame he doesn't withdraw full stop. Mind you, perhaps the the stunningly lovely Cherie thought the same...
Oh and to all the Anon's out there. When did IDS, Howard, Cameron, Ming, Charlie and all the others get their hands on the magic machine that changes a person's name from "Mr" to "Lord". I understood that to be kept more securely in No 10 than the briefcase containing the "Go Go Nuclear Armageddon" button.
You are correct to say that loans are not donations and thus, strictly speaking, nobody had to declare them. This simply means that all the parties were guilty of breaking the spirit of the law if not the letter. However, since Nulabour brought in the new laws in the first place, it does make them seem rather hypocritical, doesn't it?
But that's all besides the point. Only one party appears to have offered something in exchange for these loans. Loans which then appear to have been written off by the lender. If that is the case then only one party has been breaking the law.
Simply squealing "Cameron Minor was taking anonymous loans too, sir," like some playground snitch is simply muddying the waters. Then again, I suspect that is your intention.
bogdan hitchens said...
What many of you seem to miss is the fact that £14 million has been spent, where did it all go ?
Somebody signed those checks , to whom?
I reckon Blair has stolen a pile of it.
Here we go. Another one shit stirring on Gordon's behalf.
Be careful, or you will find Mr Brown-hatter has bitten off more than he can chew.
Chuck,
Kidney/liver seems to be failing and effecting my typing. Corrected.
You watch out, Guido - according to the Evening Standard, the Met has stepped up security around DAC Yates and his incident room in case he gets bumped off/it gets burned down a la Northern Ireland...
Gotta love this comment by a Labour peer commenting on Number 10's complaints about police leaks:
"“The common ploy by criminals is to get their retaliation in first and make a complaint against the police to divert the attention of the authorities and put the heat on the police,” he told The Mail on Sunday. “But it rarely works."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2451258,00.html
Met has stepped up security around DAC Yates and his incident room
apparently they heard that Blunkett was wondering up and down Victoria St with a machine gun.
or 'wandering', you never know.
It is true that IF a sum of money, once solicited as a potential donation,was eventually provided as a genuine loan then, however smelly the sleaze is, it is still legal.
IF, however, Lord Levy (or anyone else) persuaded a donor-in-waiting who was sitting there chomping at the bit, chequebook open and pen in hand, that it would be better to PRESENT the transaction as a loan, even though the donor never at any time had any hope or intention of receiving repayment (or indeed interest, which is another issue which might mean that there was a different undisclosed 'gift') then the law has clearly been broken. I would think that the Tories are as potentially open to this sort of charge as is Blair.
Not sure about how any of this can lead to 'cash for peerages' charges to stick.
Guido,
Surely in your day F and S were used interchangeably.
If Howard, IDS & Cameron are guilty too (and they may well be; I don't know), then that would lessen Blair's guilt by, ooooh, not one jot. I don't ever remember a murderer getting away with something because there are other murderers who haven't been prosecuted yet.
"£14 million has been spent, where did it all go ?"
We would all be a lot better off if the political parties stopped providing a load of ad agencies with stupid billboard ideas etc which gobble up the cash. Scrap the tours of Britain by helicopter. Start debating polices.
Don't confuse "loans", "commercial rates" and "commercial loans". They are different beasts.
The hallmark of a "commercial loan" is a written LOAN AGREEMENT, where all the terms and conditions are specified, and asent is indicated by the signatures on the document.
If the Labour Party held such WRITTEN CONTRACTS none of this would have happened. They don't have them.
The logic is this:
LAW: All donations above a certain amount MUST BE DECLARED.
BLAIR: These weren't donations, they were commercial loans.
LAW: Prove it if you are claiming the loophole(!)
The burden of proof is on the Labour Party. Plod does not need an evidence trail. All he must do is to show that money changed hands.
WHERE are the written, dated, signed loan agreements?
Yes - very good. Where is the totty?
RS
There were loan agreements drawn up.
Totty pics will be here today.
Bear with Guido - brain fuddled by 4 days of alcohol and too many digital devices and cables.
The point is that THEY WERE NOT REALLY LOANS.
If you borrow money on commercial terms there will be a witnessed legal document itemising the rate of interest, the repayment date(s) and the penalty for default. If the interest rate is less you could get on the open market, if the repayment schedule is not specified, if there are no penalties for default THEN IT IS NOT A 'LOAN' EVEN IF THE PARTIES CALL IT A 'LOAN'.
It is a bribe. Pure and simple. Guido's narrative is spot-on and I would love to be prosecuting counsel. To have some much fun with your clothes on (and at my age) is more than I dare hope for.
Am I so wrong to have the faint hope that Swiss (bank account) Toni and a gaggle of his flunkies will actually get nicked?
I pray very hard every night for this to be so.
And if Father Christmas reads this, I've been a (mostly) good boy this year, and don't want any other presents.
Guido - finally back to your best
There were loan agreements drawn up.
Any refs, Guido?
This strikes me as the central point.
True commercial loans are even more complex than the mortgage agreements you and I signed in years past.
illegal beagle gets it.
John
Machiavelli
Ahh yes John Stalker - will John Yates end up the same way?
"On 5 June 1986, just before Stalker was to make his final report, he was removed from his position in charge of the inquiry. On 30 June, he was suspended from duty over allegations of association with criminals."
Somehow this time I think not - but we shall see!
12:39 PM Guido "... Kidney/liver ... failing & effecting ... typing.."
Dear Senor Guido
Well done, but Spelling Standards !!! ... Ladies & Children, lobsters, weasels, stoats & other small deer, to say nothing of a Romanian Impala & a Canuckistani read this blog
Affecting !!!
Let us hope that Inspector Yates uses a Spell-Checker for the Charge Sheet
Your hypercritical (or is that hypocritical) Servant etc
G a Chat
Despite your excesses, you seemed on good form at the FCS bash last night, Guido.
Please, please, please check the IP address(es) of the NuLab desperados trying to rubbish the story. They know that journalists read you - and this is a clear attempt to 'blah blah' you and muddy the water. The Blairite janisaries know that hacks are sensitive to the 'you're not falling for THAT one' jibe - hence its scattergun deployment in this thread.
Expose the fuckers.
Guido - pull yourself together for God's sake. Your spelling - normally blameless - has been 'affected'.
You need to have a lie down in a darkened room for a while - preferably with some totty and a few digital devices, I think.
No wonder he looks so worried all the time.
umm... sorry guido i think this time your story didn't really go anywhere - much as i'd like it to have done. barking up a wrong tree on that line i think.
can i offer up just this little tinkling i'm getting though. never presume that new labour has managed to create any sort of new establishment. the establishment elite, those in the military, industry, civil service and the aristocracy remain the same at heart. tony's cronies will come and go. once the real establishment sees that the time is approaching i think they'll be inclined to help them on their way. i just get the impression the establishment might very well just let the sh1t hit the fan on this one.
I think Guido ought to pictured with the Pinocchio nose for promosing and then failing to deliver any totty.
Where is it mate?
There is also some other issues for Yates to take into account. Apparently the loans were made after the Labour Party accounting year end, but before the accounts were signed off by the Party and the auditors. Loans of this scale relative to the size of the 'business' would usually be disclosed as what we in the accounting trade refer to as a 'Post balance sheet event' in the accounts. No such disclosure is made. Did the auditors know of the loans? If so they would have surely insisted on such a disclosure. Or did someone wish to further obscure the sources of the Party's funding? All sorts of issues arise from this, not least that the signed-off accounts may not have, in accounting parlance, given a true and fair picture of the state of the Party's finances. Anyone for false accounting charges?
What I do not understand is why he is still clinging on, Iraq in shreds,majority of people believe he is guilty as hell over cash for peerages, but will not get charged- any sane person would have stopped digging the hole, done a deal and got out.
"On the High St you can get loans at anywhere between 5% and 25% or more. I don't think it's significant if a political party got something closer to base rate than most."
How, pray, does an organisation such as the Labour Party obtain a loan for over £1 million at somewhere near base-rate, when they're already over £10 million in debt, with no discernible means of repayment of those existing debts ? True commercial lenders would take account of that, and either refuse a loan, or offer the loan at something close to 40%, which of course the Labour Party couldn't fund.
Therefore, to obtain a rate, in those circumstances, which is close to 'base-rate' is not at a commercial loan rate simply because a commercial loan would have had a much higher rate.
As Bliar has clearly been involved with tranferring donations to loans which are clearly not at commercial rates, he's clearly got some answering to do.
I find it amusing how many 'anonymous' posters keep typing negative messages. I wonder if Bliar's little apostates are getting nervous. I do hope so.
If party treasurer Jack Dromey was unaware of the 'loans', as he has stated, there must have been an off-balance-sheet slush fund. That fund was controlled in 10 Downing Street by aparachiks who took, and continue to take, their orders from Blair. Neither they nor he could have been unaware of the implications of their actions - they just thought that after returning to government they could kick over the traces.
Blimey!!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23374432-details/Dramatic+new+twist+in+cash-for-honours+probe/article.do
Dramatic new twist in cash-for-honours probe
Security has been stepped up around police investigating the cash for honours allegations.
Special measures have been brought in to protect detectives and the incident room involved in the inquiry, the Evening Standard - the Mail's sister paper - has learned.
The extra security is believed to include additional CCTV cameras and alarms.
Guido - great stuff. But forget this trivial PPERA 2000 act stuff. If Ann Blacks account is correct, then as Stunt Cock (great name) states, Blair et al should fear the use of Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 in relation to anyone who:
""destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose"
The penalty, a maximum of seven years. Whilst not a lawyer or accountant, I would suggest that £14 million in loans ("commercial" or otherwise) were material to the Labour Party accounts and were not disclosed to the auditors. Why? Who?
I hope Blair has a good lawyer (not Cherie as she's only capable of doing the human rights bullshit stuff)
"Big Issue, sir?"
"I don't want to buy one, but I'll lend you a quid instead."
"Yes, sir, that would do just as well."
Stunt cock
If you are really in the accountancy trade - can I suggest that you look at the Labour Party accounts and SSAP 17 before making such statements. Disclosures were made about the accounts being prepared on a going concern basis - which would have been been undermined by then disclosing details of the loans - post balance sheet event disclosures are meant to improve the ability of the users to understand the financial situation.
If the auditors were not told about the loans - you may want to ask why they haven't subsequently resigned. Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail.
"post balance sheet event disclosures are meant to improve the ability of the users to understand the financial situation.
And they would not have done so in this instance?
Hieronymus,
Matt Carter is the man.
A "ringer" put in place for a specific purpose.
General Secretary of the Labour Party at 31.
Never held a proper job in his life.
Signed the cheques.
Made out such a cheque for #600,000 to Mark Penn, as payment for the slogan "Forward, not back"
Left the job three months after the General Election.
Became founder/managing director of Mark Penn's polling organisation in the UK.
All clear?
John
The 'commercial rate' test is a red herring. You can get credit cards at 0% or a loan shark at 1000%, and everything in-between.
The test is trying to say 'could anybody get this rate?' But we know that different people get different rates, quite legitimately, so the test must fail, it can never be proved.
All the lender and the borrower have to say is 'we were happy to accept these terms'. So what if a bank wouldn't; who cares? They aren't banks.
For all we know Blair put up his future earnings as collateral. Or they assumed public funding would rescue them. It doesn't really matter - one organisation was prepared to lend to another on these terms. Law adhered to, which is all that matters to Blair.
What will do for Blair is that he sold peerages.
im getting bored of this - plus Thatcher made loads of peers
Guthrum said...
What I do not understand is why he (Blair) is still clinging on.....
Simple: to stop Brown taking over.
The longer Blair hangs on the worse the economy gets and the worse Brown's chances of becoming PM become.
anonymous at 1.48...
If I were to 'lend' £100,000 to a local authority planning officer who was handling my planning application do you suppose the courts would conclude that it was all above board because we had both agreed to call it a 'loan'? Particularly if I could subsequently afford to write it off because I had a field full of new houses to sell.
Just because the parties call it a 'loan' doesn't mean it is a loan. The law will consider the reality, and not a façade cooked up to conceal it.
Anon 2:06 - exactly. A loan to a planning officer or to Blair which results in preferential treatment is illegal. But it's the preferential treatment that does for them, not the loan/donation. (OK - planning officers shouldn't arrange loans like this, but parties can).
As 'Deep Throat' said in Watergate - 'Follow the money'.
Guido, you are getting nearer to the bullseye every single day.
Keep it up, and don't get diverted by trivia like the mayoral race..
You don't get him under 61(1), 'cos this is about non-permissable donors - i.e. foreign residents. Remember, remember, the 2000 Act was passed with the naked intentions of (1) choking of Tory Party funds and support in kind, (2) rigging the Euro referendum that never took place, and (3) letting the unions continue to do what the hell they like to interfere with elections.
You don't get him under 61(2) all the while the loans are not converted to donations. As long as the Treasurer was informed once the transubstantiaion took place, then that's OK.
What's dickier, as others have pointed out, is the question of commerciality. If a magic loan is interest free until anyone looks at it, but back-interest becomes owing on it at a commercial rate the moment they do, then maybe for someone with a retrospectively adaptable memory (like for example TB), there is no mental element to make out the offence. But what's the interest rate?
Police have just opened up a case to investigate the suicide of Inspector Yates!
Well its gonna happen soon if he carries on.
it's clear what happened, they loaned Blair the money, and he loaned them the peerages. They're going to give them back after the next election, and then he can sell them off second-hand.
Whether we believe Blair will face charges is less relevant than, judged by his recent behaviour, Blair himself thinks he will.
cough cough
Blair seems very on edge these days, does he? Tra la la - oh happy days.
This isn't just about cash for peerages. It's about cash in exchange for huge Government contracts involving billion's of pounds of taxpayers money.
In other words bribery.
And where has this millions in bribes disappeared to, I wonder?
Lets hope this is Tony's Capone tax evasion moment. Can't get him for being a Lying, warmongering Bastard instead he'll be done for this. Fingers crossed.
Where has Peter Hitchens gone? He doesn`t seem to be anywhere. Is he dead or something .
This whole cash peerages is incrediuble boring by the way , everyone was doing it and it isn`t very evil anyway . Govt . Spending available on google ;now thats interesting
If Inspector Yates suffers a Dr kelly outcome....well, nothing would surprise me about this shower. Hope those CCTV cameras in his secret inner chamber have more film in them the ones in the tube station where Juan Carlos de Menezes met his end.
TOTTY, PUHLEEZE. I'll send some virtual help with the cabling....I don't think I can stand any more of Blair without actively planning to emigrate.
I think anyonebutblair is on to something. If I were advising the CPS on a prosecution I would tell them to focus on the false accounting charges. It is astonishing that the Labour Party's Treasurer, Jack Dromey, was not told about the £14 million coming in or (presumably) going out. The explanation given, on the day Dromey blew his top, was risible. It was said that his function as treasurer was simply to present the accounts to the Annual Conference, so he didn't need to know about the £14m. I don't see this argument going down too well at the Old Bailey.
And let's not forget that no-one, repeat no-one, is going to take the rap for Tony Blair. He has made too many enemies within the party.
It seems increasingly obvious that if blair can't be proved to have sold peerages he is absolutely in deep SH1T over false accounting
Guido is right -nick robinson and mary ann moron are wrong - this will end up in court
AND
Someone is going to end up as a guest of her majesty
Where has Peter Hitchens gone? He doesn`t seem to be anywhere. Is he dead or something .
crazed by lack of totty, he is stumbling over lambeth bridge muttering "adriana...adriana..."
at least that's what I heard.
Nice to see the House of Cards beginning to wobble.
Teflon Toni may find that he is not as water-tight as he thought. Like all ships of state the timbers rot and it eventually founders.
Would be nice to St Toni of B-Liar taken away in the gibes. Perhaps we can get Parliament to bring back hanging for the peerages lark.
Did the Labour Party really spend £14 million on the election ? - I didn't think it was worth 14p quite frankly. For what it is worth I think Guido is right, because for there to be a loan in existence there has to an intention to repay, and there is no evidence of that at all (because there was no intention to repay) - there is case law about this some lawyer will know. Otherwise we could all go around making "loans" to each other and therebye escaping all sorts of taxes, liabilities etc.
Sorry for being so dull ....
Been trying to get my thoughts round Money Laundering implications...are there any...be fun if NuLab not only got stuffed for selling peerages but also were paid in hot money. As the moeny laundering rules are pretty absolute did the Labout party run any check, and what did their bank think of very large cheques, probably not drawn on a UK bank, appearing in Labours account...indeed was the money paid into a mainstream account or was it deposited in a nice quiet dark hole!
How can you prove there was no intention to repay?
All you have to do is say 'I can't afford the repayments now so I'll give you the full amount plus interest in 5 years.' Then a year later you convert to a donation and no repayments are necessary. And you declare as required.
Yes it's completely dodgy but it's also legal.
It was the Lib-Dems who got paid in hot money.
For NuLab it will be the Companies Act or similar, false accounting and all that.
One thing to bear in mind is that any admission B-Liar made has been taken out of context ans will probably be inadmissable. He will ensure that by claiming Parliamentary privilege or the like.
No it isn't legal
Seriously, have Labour's wonkbrigade been ordered out of bed today to attack Guido or what?
1) Can any anonymous (lets start with the the 12:06pm prize specimen shall we?) explain why it is that Scotland Yard are no longer investigating the Conservative Party, on the basis that Yates is satisfied that the loans were repaid with interest at the standard commercial rates for loans to charitable organisations?
2) Has the Labour Party ever repaid its loans, at any rate at all? Has it indicated to Patel and others that it was in agreement to pay them interest at ANY rate, let alone standard commercial rates, even though the 'lenders' had no problem with donating the money?
I think that throwing your toys out of the pram on an online web log is not going to diminish the evidence so far accrued against the upper echelons of the Labour Party. Far better these individuals direct their bile and hatred of facts against Scotland Yard by writing to Yates (don't forget to use a gummed envelope though) or using the various online methods of corresponding with the police. Do bear in mind though that the police are not quite as forgiving as the rest of us - your own party did after all give them new laws to deal with public nuisances such as anonymous hatecalls and unsigned letters.
I honestly expect the tirades to get worst and worst as Yates edges ever closer to questioning Blair. According to various reports so far Labour is absolutely desperate that Yates not question him in London, asking so far that if he is going to be arrested then can it be from Chequers. Hopefully this is because Labour Wonks can already see their careers starting to slowly drip away into the sewers the closer we get to the first Prime Minister ever to be questioned in office by the police, let alone arrested by them.
Will Uncle Gordo's tax sleuths follow any of this up, and queer their master's pitch for PM?.In the unlikely event that they will, they ought to explore the dark possibilities that other free market peerages may have gone to fund more off the books 'New Labour High Moral Projects', that Jack Dromey has yet to learn about """"allegedly """"...to infinity.
Sorry for being so dull ....
I agree with you mutley d as somebody else pointed out chaces are this will be Blairs al capone moment, he WILL have done something highly illegal in this business and it my be easier to prove than flogging honours will be.
Something else if it can be shown that more than one individual got together to plan this then as far as I know that's a conspiracy which carries 14 years not 2.
I am not a lawyer of course.
I am a highly respected Romanian pox Doctor and fair ground worker.
CPS do not have the balls, nor theskill, nor the will to prosecute. Yates is wasting his fucking time. Put away the notebook and get back on the beat.
We capitulate to a couple of 100 drug addicts for fear of losing the case. Blair is laughing at all this fevered speculation.
dr crackers are you by any chance related to a Mr T Kelly of the downing street press office ?
have you been socialising with mary ann moron ?
Julian 3:32 - can I gently suggest you may be exaggerrating the importance of this blog and its contributors.
As with most blogs, all of us are merely ildly speculating about life rather than doing what we're paid for.
I suspect political parties make little or no contribution here.
Anyway, the point is that people are prosecuted for breaking the law, not just for being dodgy.
migsuk:
I hope Blair has a good lawyer (not Cherie as she's only capable of doing the human rights bullshit stuff)
This board does play host to some absolute first class moonbattery.
On the loans, I'm sorry Tory wingnuts, but if you speak to anyone in the know (and Guido knows but is so blinded by his antipathy to our thrice-elected Tory-crushing PM) they'll tell you the Tories are absolutely up to their necks in shit on this one.
I know a lot of journos are doing a lot of work on the Midlands Industrial Council - if you think what Labour have been up to is bad.... (Cameron is still willing to be photographed with Sir Anthony Bamford though)
And let's also not forget--let's not forget, Dude--that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city-- that isn't legal either.
robinson-bliars poodle
no connection to that lying twat Kelly.
You are not related to Shagger Robinson the one who fucked his way to £13m - tax free thanks to Orion Trust. I guess not.
My cynical take on this is based on following the track record of DTI over 15 years - eg Ernest 'Alzheimer' Saunders one of 100's of fat cat crooks whom our feeble prosecutors failed to bring to justice. DTI track record rather worse that Charlton Athletic's recent form. Blair, if charged, will walk free. He won't be charged because we are fucking wimps in bringing the great and evil to justice. Its depressing but true.
With a bit of luck we'll get the chance to extradite Twerp Blair to the US of A where he can stand trial alongside Bush for war crimes. Then he can spend 2000 years in one of those deliciously violent and unruly prisons where people get shot on a regular basis.
Spare a thought for all those Labour peers who have paid good money for their peerages - only to see them all washed away when the HoL becomes an elected chamber. Or is that the reason they are not too keen on further reform?
Wouldn't it be good, if say, Lord Goldsmith decided it would not be in the public interest to press charges against any Labour politicians or those who made loans to them.
I'd have to agree.
And wouldn't it be justice if it were decided that the Conservative Party and its brigade of donors were up to their necks in greed, sleaze and law-breaking as usual? And charges were then pressed.
I'd have to agree there too.
I trust the Labour Party has opened its books to prove these loans really were on commercial terms and has the documentary evidence to prove it. If they were donations masquerading as loans then tax should have been paid on them.
Anyone with any modicum of intelligence are sceptical of the Standard as they are of the media. The enquiry has been awful - far too many leaks and I blame press happy, self absorbed Mr Yates for this.
Unless the NEC minutes were recorded no note taken by someone taking part in the discussions can be a true record of the meeting. I have been reading these minutes for months but have always assumed they are the reflection of one member of the NEC.
Why are the other parties not going on about this issue - just the media and Tory blogs. Because all political parties have obtained loans and many donors from all political persuasions are in the Lords. Am I not right in saying that the media were up in arms when Lord Ashcroft was appointed a peer? Was he not a major donor to the Tories in addition to his tax haven in the Caymans?
Why should wealthy and often philanthropic people who contribute to political parties not be offered seats in the Lords. They often have valuable skills (how they made their money) and I would rather they were in the Lords than those who inherited their seats.
I think the cash for honours is a bit of a red herring. Tony can always claim it is his job to dish them out. End result enough doubt.
However, he really has a major problem with another issue. He has admitted not telling the treasurer of the party of the loans. The treasurer has said so too. They are now declaring the loans to the electoral commission. The law hasn't changed in the interim. That means at the time of the last election, the loans should have been declared.
The proble for Tony is that it is two years of watching your back in the showers for not telling the treasurer of anything that should have been declared.
This law was introduced by him, and he's a lawyer. I can't see him claiming ignorance.
Why should wealthy and often philanthropic people who contribute to political parties not be offered seats in the Lords.
Philanthropic?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
But despite all this, Labour still seem to be using peerages as inducements - for example to get rid of troublesome Members of the Scottish Parliament in order to parachute in favoured former Ministers, according to both the Scottish Sunday Times and the Scotsman.
But it's no wonder that he wasn't supposed to talk about it, given that such an inducement would be be contrary to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 and the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.......
Smoking gun anyone?
migsuk:
Considering until very recently the Tory position was that by the Grace of God certain first born sons should be Lords, I don't think Labour should take any lectures on the composition of the Upper Chamber from the Tory rank and file who blog on this site.
PS - No one's mentioned Lady Thatcher giving Dennis a hereditary peerage so her coup-supporting, corrupt inept shit of a son could enter the Other Place and exercise his voting rights over plebarian MPs.
I'm glad you lot are not all in the same room..there would be blood everywhere....goody!
To all Labour hacks on this blog: at least you ARE doing what you're paid for (unlike most of the rest of us here).
You really should think twice about repeatedly trotting out the argument that the Tories are guilty too. That may or may not be true. It may be a good approach in politics generally. It is, however, a rubbish argument in court of law. If a normal person gets done by a speed camera, is it any defence to say that everybody else does it? Of course not.
By using this argument you're implying that you think different rules should apply to Labour leaders than to the rest of us. I don't know about you, but I don't think that's going to go down very well amongst ordinary voters.
"No one's mentioned Lady Thatcher giving Dennis a hereditary peerage so her coup-supporting, corrupt inept shit of a son could enter the Other Place and exercise his voting rights over plebarian MPs."
Guido - can you please announce a prize for the daftest post of the day?
migsuk:
By using this argument you're implying that you think different rules should apply to Labour leaders than to the rest of us. I don't know about you, but I don't think that's going to go down very well amongst ordinary voters.
Both parties have borrowed money. I don't think under the terms that both parties have borrowed money, it is a criminal offence. Few will be convinced on this board - but that is the most likely verdict of Mr. Yates.
What is true is that politics and political funding is considerably cleaner under a Labour government that under the previous Tory government. It is only because party funding has to be declared now, that the current interest in this issue has arisen. Party funding will continue (for all parties) to become more transparent as the rules are tightened still.
5:05pm Anony "Guido .... please announce a prize for the daftest post of the day"
Pick me
Pick me
Pick me
Pick me
Pick me
Pick me
Geo's Autistci donkey ... daft-ish, admittedly, but hardly compares with 4.44
airdrieonian
you are John Reid aren't you? Beaten your wife lately? Leave her alone and go kick the shit out of Brown. Theres a pack of XXXX lager in it for you.
Since Margaret Thatcher had an Earldom for the asking - thereby eventually passing it to her son, would Anonymous 4.44 prefer that?
Perhaps someone should focus on how it was the Tories spending in excess of the legal national campaign expenditure limit that drove all of this. It is a well known fact that the Tories outspent Labour at least 2 or 3 times on poster spend - and then hid the expenditure in Constituencies/Midlands Industrial Council etc - but the National Campaign return showed only about the same expenditure as Labour and a much lower figures for overheads, benefits in kind etc.
migsuk:
Thatcher gave Dennis a hereditary peerage, that's how Mark Thatcher got his current title.
For the record, if Blair gave Euan a peerage upon leaving No. 10, I will eat my Labour party membership card with imported HP sauce.
Perhaps someone should focus on how it was the Tories spending in excess of the legal national campaign expenditure limit that drove all ...ad hoc ad nauseam
Perhaps someone should focus on getting a girlfriend, or something.
Anonymous 5.53 needs it spelling out. Mark Thatcher is a baronet not a peer. He cannot sit in the Lords
O Guido, dear Guido, kind Guido can we have our totty now? You promised us. You did. Give us totty, please. Pretty please.
Anonymous criticises someone for not having a girlfriend... then begs Guido for some 'top totty'.
(PS - the Top Totty is on the frontpage)
What's the Tory line on the Midland Industral Council btw?
This blog entry is about Loans for Peerages arranged illegaly by the current sitting Prime Minister (and amusing off-topic subjects)! Not someone trying the old "Blame the conservatives" line yet again. Labour have ruled (badly) for 10 years now, and it looks like they've been crooks for quite some time as well.
Whiter than White? More like Corrupt as fuck.
Before the anons at No.10 all have a collective coronary - or something - there's one small fact to remember.
The only people who can hand out titles are (1) Her Majesty the Queen, and (2) The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister (God help us) happens to be Tony Blair.
Since the Police are not currently queuing up to interview the Queen, I guess the main suspect must be T. Blair.
Is that simple enough for you, boys?
Is there going to be a cash for honours version of Cluedo?
Who committed the crime, where was it committed and what was the weapon?
It was Prime Minister Whiter-than-white, with a coronet, on the sofa of No 10!
What is true is that politics and political funding is considerably cleaner under a Labour government that under the previous Tory government.
Political funding may be cleaner, the politicians however are not, and the electorate and Yates are on to it.
Why are all the NuLab anonymongs on this thread so loyal to Blair? He's toast anyway, and will be gone in 6 months. Are they worried that some of the mud will stick to his successor? If so, I wonder why?
They have sold their soul to New Labour who wants to admit to having sold the Labour Party to a bunch of corrupt, incompetent State Capitalists? And then found that it got flogged on for a 2000% markup?
liz said...
Anyone with any modicum of intelligence are sceptical of the Standard as they are of the media. The enquiry has been awful - far too many leaks and I blame press happy, self absorbed Mr Yates for this.
But who do you think is orchestrating the publicity of Yates' efforts? Yates himself? Doubtful that an investigating officer is going to be so pally with the media, especially a Labour media.
The likelihood is that either someone in New Scotland Yard is leaking his day-to-day progress to Labour Wonk HQ or that Sir Ian Blair is using this opportunity to prove to the media that he is not quite his namesake's poodle as we all presume.