Prediction: There wont be a trial in the cash for honours fiasco

Avatar Image
Dom Tuk | 11:44 Tue 06th Mar 2007 | News
10 Answers
What a master stroke from Downing Street. Get the BBC on side and leak a few names. Get an injunction to show that 'hey we did not want it to come out' Then get your buddies in Guardian to publish it anyway. UNFAIR TRIAL they will scream. They will stoop so low they have reached the earths core. A feat not achieved yet...except by Labour


1 to 10 of 10rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Dom Tuk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Labour Party/Blair/Government/No.10/Attorney General did not seek an injunction, it was the Police. The case has taken an age to investigate, and as yet, no charges have been made against anyone. If charges had been laid, then the injunctions might have stuck. You cannot protect a process that is not yet been instigated, and that is how the Guardian have been able published
Unfortunately, there is clearly the hand of Downing Street minipulating the process and that stinks. I think they are trying to drag the process out until Tony is gone, then the in-fighting really starts.
Question Author
of course are making the assumption that the Police are totally independent in all of this.

However it was the BBc who went to the police and they had no option but to ask for an injunction.

however the information has come out as planned via the guardian...

so there you are the govt says....the police asked for an injunction, the injunction was tweaked by the media lo and will be an unfair trial.....job done.
they asked for an injunction against the Guardian too, but the judge told them to get lost. As the matter of possible prejudice has been weighed up by a judge already, and discounted, I doubt the defendant (which basically sounds like being Levy) will be able to claim he can't get a fair trial.
What a storm in a teacup. One years waste of police time and several million pounds. If you want to criticise the government criticise its policies, not some stupid non-event.
Worth noting that plod have been on this case now for over a year, and that the police requested that parliament halt the public administration committee hearing with four of the peerage nominees that started the investigation, as it could prejudice the criminal investigation. The assistant commissioner, John Yates asked for the parliamentary investigation to be postponed.

And how many �millions of public money has the investigations cost already?
This political tribe have hoodwinked the British public since 1997 and now they are trying it out on the police!
Question Author
how does it matter how long the investigation takes. labour faithful have been saying it is taking too long as some sort of defence and proof of their innocence. If you want justice you waith as long as it takes for the police to do their job. The Norwich killing of 5 women will atke a long time before it comes to court and will spend millions. does not mean we stop the investigation. so labour faithful try some other tack.
Dom Tuk,

"you are making the assumption that the Police are totally independent in all of this"

Why would the police spend a year investigating something and then be part of a conspiracy to stop a trial???

The Norwich comparison is not a good one. A man was quickly arrested. In this case, the police have spent a year invesigating if a crime has taken place at all. No arrests have taken place and no one charged.
I dont give a fig who the government give a peearage to. The currrent House of Lords is irrelevent in a democracy. Governents have always given and will always give peerages to their friends. How else is a House of Lords going to be populated? The only difference here is that it is alleged that it is done for money. Does it matter? The onty alternative is to have it completely elected but would anyone want to do the job, let alone the effort and time for the election process if they are not going to win?
experience suggests quite a lot of people stand for election even if they aren't sure of winning. Even in upper houses - the voter turnout for the US Senate, for instance, is pretty good and there's no shortage of candidates.

1 to 10 of 10rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Prediction: There wont be a trial in the cash for honours fiasco

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.