When is a loan not a loan?

When is a loan not a loan?

The answer, when it's a loan made to Jeremy Corbyn.

Name of donor: Momentum Campaign (Services) Ltd
Address of donor: Walkden House, 10 Melton Street, London NW1 2EJ
Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: interest free, unsecured loan of £50,000 towards my campaign for leadership of the Labour Party. This loan is for an indefinite period.

My definition of a loan would be an amount of money borrowed from a bank (or elsewhere), that has to be repaid, usually with an extra amount or money paid as a charge (interest) for borrowing.

This 'loan' to Jeremy Corbyn however is interest free and for an indefinite period, isn't that a donation?

I wonder if the BBC would be interested in pursuing this matter.  I'd say that they would be about as likely to investigate this as they were about the Labour Party's Co-op bank overdraft facility. Remember that for the BBC nothing must be allowed to get in the way of a Labour Party win at the next general election.


Donor record from UK Parliament publications

Peter Mandelson no longer despoiling British politics

In wanting to check a fact, I stumbled upon the following in Wikipedia re Peter Mandelson:

'In October 2008 he left his post as Trade Commissioner to return to UK politics. As a former EU commissioner, Lord Mandelson is entitled to a £31,000 pension when he reaches the age of 65 years. This however is contingent on a "duty of loyalty to the Communities", which applies also after his term in office. The Taxpayers' Alliance, which uncovered the threat to his pension, demanded that he should declare the conflict of interest and either relinquish his EU pay cheques or resign as a minister. 

"When one considers that his new ministerial post deals specifically with business, enterprise and regulatory reform – all areas that are intimately involved with EU legislation, regulation and policy –" the group said, "the conflict of interest is even more stark." Mandelson did not agree that he had a conflict of interests. "He has always had a clear view of British interests and how they are secured by our EU membership," a spokesperson said.[50]'

You can read more about this despicable individual here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter Mandelson but you'll need a strong stomach.

BBC report only the stories that they want to report

Guido Fawkes here http://order-order.com/2014/04/10/he-lied-and-lied-and-lied-2/ has the latest on Labour's Jim Devine:

'Jailed expenses crook Jim Devine has been ordered to pay his former office manager £18,000 in damages after a judge ruled that he had defamed her to cover up his own criminality. Marion Kinley alleged Devine had “stated I’d stolen significant sums of money while office manager and the reason I did this was because I had a serious gambling problem”. The judge agreed “that when he made these statement he knew them not to be true and that they were made maliciously” and that Devine’s evidence was “incredible” and “implausible”. This is one Jim won’t be able to charge to the taxpayer... '

The BBC don't seem to have any room on their mobile news site front page or politics page for this news, I wonder why... I'm sure if he was a Conservative MP they'd find the space.

Denis MacShane's plea in mitigation...

Denis MacShane is guilty of expenses fraud, but his lawyer has included in his submission that Denis MacShane is a union man... as if that should be a mitigating factor.

The one hundred and sixty second weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award goes to the Dail Mail for this insight:

'During Tony Blair's tenure as Prime Minister, spin, deceit and downright lying became everyday facts of political life.'

No shit, Sherlock

BBC News - Police to re-open Denis MacShane expenses investigation

Oh dear, poor Denis MacShane...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21119031

It's a good question

“This is an absolute double standard. I was convicted of false accounting but I never forged documents as Denis has. Why has he not been prosecuted when we were?”

That's Eric Illsley, the former Barnsley MP, as quoted by the Sunday Times. He received a 12-month prison sentence for false accounting. He has called on the police and the CPS to pursue Denis MacShane following his resignation as an MP.

How is not correct?

Don't worry Denis you can just put the extra cost on expenses...

Oh sorry, can you not any more? Oh dear, how sad, never mind!

Guido Fawkes has lots of information about the political demise of Denis MacShane and the possibility of a CPS prosecution.

What was going on in Mumber 10?

A fascinating article in The Telegraph yesterday:

'Tony Blair and his former cabinet secretary face new questions over the “cash-for-honours” affair after fresh evidence emerged of a secret computer at 10 Downing Street. Damian McBride, who worked as a special adviser to Gordon Brown at Number 10 between 2007 and 2009, claimed he had been shown a “stand-alone computer through which No 10 staff could use personal email accounts”. This computer, understood to have been in a ground-floor room at No10, was run separately from the main Downing Street server, which blocked such accounts, Mr McBride said. He added that he had been told by officials: “We don’t discuss this publicly. We don’t want people going on about 'second Downing Street email systems’.” His account was in stark contrast to official denials given during the cash-for-honours investigation, which dogged the former prime minister’s last period in office. In 2006, Mr Blair’s government was accused of offering peerages and other honours to business leaders in return for substantial loans made to Labour before the 2005 general elections. As police investigated the matter, it was alleged that people working at No 10 had been able to circumvent the “normal” email system by using personal emails from a secret “second” system. Any such communications would have been outside the scope of the police inquiry into the affair, which saw several arrests, while Mr Blair was personally questioned by detectives as a witness. Responding to this suggestion, Lord O’Donnell told MPs on the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) in January 2007 that John Yates, the former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner who led the cash-for-honours case, had said he had received “excellent co-operation” from the Cabinet Office. Lord O’Donnell added: “We have had no complains from them [the police] about access. We have complied fully with any requests. The Prime Minister has made it clear to me, to ensure that we co-operate fully with the police, and that is what we have done. “There is no second email system inside No10.” When Mr Blair was asked by MPs about the Number 10 email system he referred his questioners to Lord O’Donnell’s testimony. A Tory MP who is a current member of the PASC said the new revelations raised “serious” concerns over the way Number 10 was run under Mr Blair in 2006 and 2007. Priti Patel said the matter needed to be raised again following the claims by Mr McBride, who resigned in 2009 after leaked emails from his No10 account revealed a smear campaign against leading Tories was being plotted. She told The Sunday Telegraph: “There is no doubt that this raises serious questions that have to be answered by both Tony Blair and Gus O’Donnell about what kind of operation they were running at No 10 during this particular time.” Although no charges were ever brought, the police investigation cast a shadow over Mr Blair’s final period in office and saw members of his inner circle arrested, including Lord Levy, Labour’s fundraiser, and Ruth Turner, the former prime minister’s political aide, who was held after a dawn raid on her London home. Mr Blair, who was last week appointed by Ed Miliband to a sports advisory role in what many saw as the first step towards a domestic political return, reveals the effect the affair had on him and his close aides in his 2010 autobiography A Journey. He describes it as “psychologically atrocious” and adding that the popularity both of himself and of his party “fell like an arrow” in its wake. A spokesperson for Mr Blair: “This doesn’t change anything. The matter was fully looked into at the time and we have nothing further to add.” Lord O’Donnell was unavailable for comment. A Whitehall source told The Sunday Telegraph: “There are stand alone terminals in some offices [in no 10] to allow press officers to access news and other sites that are blocked by the main system firewall. The same applies in other government departments.” '

A fascinating story that may shed light into what was happening inside Tony Blair's Number 10 before the shredders started whirring. The only problem is that it means I have to believe Damian McBride and that does go against my natural instincts. I am awaiting this story appearing on the BBC website...

Is Andy Burnham linked to some Werritty behaviour?

Guido Fawkes thinks so... With more here.

Why no interest on the BBC?

The BBC were obsessed with the cash for questions row in the 1990s, an affair that was concerned with Conservative politicians. The BBC reported very heavily the expenses row as broken by The Telegraph, although they did noticeably concentrate on the Conservative rather more than the labour culprits; duck ponds and moat cleaning being funnier than the more larger expenses claims from such as Gerald Kaufman.

The BBC seem to have taken no interest in the revelations on Guido Fawkes' site that some Labour MPs are receiving campaign contributions from Trade Unions and in return are directly amending legislation. Kate Green has been caught bang to rights and even apologised to Parliament about it but I can find no mention of this story on the BBC news website at all; I wonder why?

Perspective

Dizzy Thinks wonders at the current furore over David Cameron, Andy Coulson and phone-hacking:

 'Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: Accused of modifying government policy relating to tobacco advertising in sports in return for a donation of £1 million to his political party
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices. Donation eventually returned (although modified policy remained in force)
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived and won following two elections.

Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: Along with his Director of Commmunication accused of lying to Parliament by embelishing and "sexing up" the case for the Iraq War. Presure intensified by the sudden, mysterious death of whistleblower leading to multiple inquiries and conspiracy theories.
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived and won following election.

Prime Minister: Tony Blair
Allegation: That peerages and knighthoods were offered and exchanged for loans and donations to the Labour Party. Staff in Downing Street including the Prime Minister questioned by Police.
Truth Status: Not proven - opinions on truth dependent on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: Survived

Prime Minister: David Cameron
Allegation: That he previously employed someone who has since resigned, who may have - as yet to be proven but alleged by a whistle-blower who has suddenly died - acted criminally prior to his employment; and to have met with multiple times on both personal and business terms (in keeping with his two predecessors), the Chief Executive of a newspaper business.
Truth Status: What exactly is the allegation? Opinion will depend on personal prejudices.
What Opponents Said: Resign
Political Status: To Be Confirmed (oddly)'

Dizzy Thinks has a very good point. I think there may be other examples involving Gordon Brown...

John Prescott faces new probe

The Express reveals that:

'JOHN PRESCOTT is facing a fresh police probe into allegations he broke the law by having sex with his secretary while he was in Government, the Scottish Sunday Express can reveal.'

Read the story, I hope its true because the damage done by John Prescott to the country and the English language has not yet been fully recognised.

So what?

Reading through some old articles I found this Telegraph article about Labour's Baroness Uddin. The bits that struck me were first that:

'New evidence which came to light during the formal parliamentary sleaze inquiry into Labour’s Baroness Uddin is being passed to the Metropolitan Police, who may now consider reviving the criminal case, which collapsed amid recrimination earlier this year.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish Nationalist MP whose complaint to police sparked the original criminal inquiry, confirmed that he would write to the Met asking police to reopen the case in the light of this new evidence.

...

'She was found to have “misled” the subcommittee after suggesting that she regularly stayed overnight at the Kent flat – which she described as a “bolt hole”.
However, police obtained statements from 12 neighbours who all said that she had never been seen there and that they referred to the property as the “empty flat”.
Water bills showed close to zero usage, leading the water company to replace Lady Uddin’s meter, assuming it was broken because levels were so low.
At one point, some shirts blew off a washing line on to the balcony of the flat, and were left to gather mould because no one removed them.
Neighbours said that they could see that there was no furniture in the flat until press reports about her case, and no signs of occupancy other than a single unshaded light bulb, which was set on a timer switch.
Lady Uddin had asked the letting company to forward all correspondence to her London home.
The subcommittee report said: “We find that Lady Uddin deliberately misled us as to the frequency of her stays in Maidstone'

And second that

'Lady Uddin has said that she does not have the money to repay the £125,000 she illegitimately claimed.'

I trust that the CPS will take on board the new evidence regarding Baroness Uddin's non-use of her Maidstone flat and prosecute her accordingly.

I further trust that in reply to the Baroness's squeals that she doesn't have the money, the authorities say "So What?" and ask her to pay in large instalments or even use an 'attachment of earnings order'. If proven, why should Baroness Uddin get away with her illegal claims?

Why do we take political memoirs at face value?

Lots of people are in a bit of a tizz this morning because of what Tony Blair has said in his autobiography. I don't understand why; after all why should we believe he is telling the unvarnished truth? Do Tony Blair's memoirs report what actually happened, what he would have liked to have happened (knowing what he knows now), what he wants to believe happened (Tony Blair being able to convince himself of most things), what he wants other people to believe happened or what he wants other people to believe he believed happened?

Just as with Alastair Campbell & Peter Mandelson's books, why should anyone believe a word that Tony Blair says? All three are proven liars, so why should their books be any more truthful?

Interestingly, will any journalists be asking Peter Mandelson why he lied to the British public when he assured us that rumours of massive arguments between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were just media tittle-tattle?


From the time that I heard of Tony Blair lying about his stowing away on a plane from Newcastle to the Bahamas when he was 14, tricky as there were no such flights at that time, I had no faith in this man. I was therefore made exceedingly angry by the way the media, especially the BBC, repeated his claims of being a pretty straight guy.

Also remember Tony Blair's involvement with Bernie Ecclestone, the Hindujas and of course 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. In the latter case, the security services told Tony Blair that intelligence about WMD was 'sporadic and patchy', 'little' and 'limited'; Tony Blair translated that to Parliament as 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'. Also remember Tony Blair writing to the Romanian government when Lakshmi Mittal was bidding to privatise the Romanian steel industry. Tony Blair wrote that 'I am particularly pleased it is a British company which is your partner.' At that time this British compnay was owned by an Indian citizen with holdings in the Dutch Antilles and of his 125,000 employees just 85 were in Britain. The fact that Laksjmi Mittal had donated £125,000 to the Labour Party is of course entirely coincidental to Tony Blair's support. We should also consider the cash for peerages affair but that would take too much time and I am running shot of bile.

An odd expression or two

The Telegraph reported yesterday that the British police were 'close to bringing Fletcher murderer to justice'. The paper names two Libyan men who the police think they have enough evidence to bring charges of 'conspiracy to cause death' against.

Two expressions in the article caught my eye. The first was about the two men and ran

'They have remnainded close to Colonel Gadaffi... unlikely Libya will allow them to stand trial'

So much for Libya re-joining the family of nations. Libya was a terrorist state and, oil or no oil, until they allow the perpetrators of the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher to stand trial in London then they will remain a terrorist state in my eyes.

The second part that caught my eye was this:

'ask the Government to renegotiate a deal agreed by Labour which specified that any future trial would be held in Libya. "You can't get British justice in a Libyan court", said Mr Kawczynski.'

How cowardly and grasping were the last Labour government? Were they really so concerned with securing oil contracts for British companies and ensuring the future wealth of some of their senior members that they were willing to sell out the family of WPC Fletcher over and over again?

al-Megrahi update

I can't say that I am surprised by The Telegraph's revelations that:

'The Lockerbie bomber’s “low mood” and the fact that he was unlikely to reoffend after returning to Libya contributed to the Scottish government’s decision to release him, newly published documents have shown.'

Nor am I shocked to learn that:

'The Scottish executive has also admitted that the prognosis that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi had less than three months to live was based on the opinion of a single prison doctor, and was made when the terrorist had yet to undergo chemotherapy.

Those who made the decision also took no account of the views of relations of al-Megrahi’s victims, the documents disclose.'

One day in the future the truth will emerge about the release of al-Megrahi and the completely unconnected UK/Libyan oil deals and a number of prominent UK politicians will be exposed for their parts in the dirty deals that were struck, which explicitly or implicitly linked al-Megrahi's release to oil contracts. The lives of the little people are of no concern to those who see themselves as players on the world stage.

Some questions for Peter Mandelson should you meet him on Thursday, or any other day

The Telegraph has a fine article partly by Andrew Gilligan, headlined 'The mystery of Lord Mandelson's finances'. I urge you to read the whole piece, maybe take a printout and carry it with you at all times, especially if near Hatchards in Piccadilly on 15th July...

How are the Labour leadership elections going (28.05.10 12:30 update)

As of 12:30 update today:
Diane Abbott - 1 (no change) - Just David 'Mastermind' Lammy, are you not going to nominate yourself Diane, not sure if you are the right candidate?
Ed Balls - 32 (up 5) - just three more today; running out of time and MPs Ed maybe you will need Gordon 'popular' Brown's nomination
Andy Burnham - 17 (no change)
John McDonnell - 6 (no change)
David Miliband - 54 (no change) - keeping ahead of his younger, even smugger, brother
Ed Miliband - 45 (no change)

So who has fallen in behind Ed Balls today? Dear oh dear, what a sorry crowd.
Geoffrey Robinson - Former Paymaster General (from May 1997 to January 1999) who had to resign after it was revealed that he had lent his government colleague Peter Mandelson £373,000 to buy a house. Another committed Gordon Brown supporter
Marsha Singh - Backbench Labour MP
Andrew Smith - Former Minister but also Chief Secretary to the Treasury when Gordon Brown was Chancellor
John Spellar - Former Minister and the third most senior whip in the Whips' Office between October 2008 and May 2010
Tom Watson - Former assistant labour whip and Minister but also... Read his Wikipedia entry for more detail...

So today's fantastic five comprise two ex Whips, one ex-Minister from Gordon Brown's department, a committed Gordon Brown supporter and one ordinary MP. Ed Balls now needs one more nomination to get through to the next stage; will it have to be Gordon Brown himself?

Postal voting fruad in the UK - 2005 style

Political Betting wrote in April 2005, before that year's general elaction this:

'The judge in the postal vote-rigging trial has strongly attacked the government’s attitude to the problem accusing minsters of being not only complacent, but “in denial” about the failings of the system.

According to BBC Online Richard Mawrey QC was speaking as he ruled there had been “widespread fraud” in six Birmingham council seats won last year by Labour and his comments come as more voters than ever are preparing to vote by post in the general election.

In 2001, 3.9% voted by post but this time about 15% of voters have asked for postal ballots for the poll expected on 5 May. Birmingham was not part of the postal-only experiment undertaken in some areas at the last local elections. Both the pro-Kashmir People’s Justice Party (PJP) and the Liberal Democrats claimed local Labour activists used forgery and deception to collect votes - something the candidates denied.

Sitting as an election commissioner, Mr Mawrey said that the system gave an “open invitation” to fraud and was “hopelessly insecure”. He noted that it “is wide open to fraud and any would-be political fraudster knows that it’s wide open to fraud”.

The judge said he regretted the government had dismissed recent warnings about the system’s failings as “scaremongering”. He pointed to a government statement which said: “The systems already in place to deal with the allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working.” Mr Mawrey said: “Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising.'

2005 was a picnic compared with 2010, there are Labour party activists who have been planning the stealing of this election for some time and they may well succeed.