Electoral Commission can end Wendy’s career … or damage its own reputation LEGISLATE IN haste; repent at leisure. When Labour passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it was meant to be the final word on sleaze. The law was to be zero tolerance, strict liability, and would clean up politics once and for all. No-one was to escape the net. But they never expected the net to catch an entire shoal of Labour fish wriggling in disbelief.
Following Peter Hain's departure from office, to help police with their inquiries, there are a number of prominent Labour figures potentially in the dock.
The elusive northern property developer David Abrahams, who connived with Labour's former general secretary Peter Watt to set up a network of illegal proxy donors to channel £600,000 in illegal donations to Labour politicians.
Our own Wendy Alexander's case is with the Electoral Commission, and the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, also accepted an impermissible donation. Questions have been raised about the reported £300,000 donation to Labour from Glasgow-based businessman Imran Khand, through a front organisation, the Muslim Friends of Labour.
No doubt there will be others. The mystery is why Labour politicians were so ignorant of their own law. The Electoral Commission assigned £180,000 for education programmes to ensure party officers and elected members would be in no doubt of their obligation to obey the letter of it. Not money well spent, it seems.
But Labour politicians are incensed. Suddenly they've realised that no-one is safe from this terminator statute. Politicians aren't accountants, after all, and most of them are as uncomfortable with figures as the rest of us.
You can sympathise - well, a little. Anyone who has ever been under investigation by the Revenue or VAT inspectors, or had their expenses examined, knows accounts are rarely glitch free. You can be incriminated by any number of minor infractions you weren't aware of. And, of course, for agencies such as the Revenue, ignorance is not a defence.
But as fallen politicians plead workload or plain incompetence, they're being watched by an electorate whose patience is wearing thin. Why should MPs get off because they "didnae ken", when that defence doesn't work for ordinary people? The trouble is politicians really don't see themselves as ordinary people. There is a presumption of collective innocence - they really don't think the rules apply to them.
It's always "other people" - corrupt businessmen, dodgy lobbyists - who are the targets of anti-sleaze laws, not their own kind. Most become indignant at the mere suggestion they could break the law. And if found bang to rights, they attack the law itself - it was "badly drafted", "wrongly interpreted", the law enforcement agencies were "politically motivated", "the other parties are just as bad ..." etc.
Why should busy politicians have to give up their careers just because some underling didn't register campaign donations on time? Or because some numpty solicited a donation for an impermissible donor and tried to cover it up? Or had set up a network of fictitious donors to disguise the scale of contribution from businessmen? As Wendy Alexander has said, there was "no intentional wrongdoing" so why should they be treated as criminals?
The Electoral Commission - a Labour creation - now bears an onerous responsibility. It has become the guardian of political probity, and holds in its hands the very future of the government. If it decides this week that other Labour figures should, like Hain, have their cases referred to the boys in blue, then the damage to Gordon Brown's administration will be incalculable. If his Scottish leader, his UK deputy leader, a slew of senior office-bearers and others we don't even know about are forced to resign, then it would be curtains.
Mind you, Alexander's team are now saying that even if the Electoral Commission finds against her, she will not resign. They accept the law was breached when she accepted a £950 donation from tax-exile businessman Paul Green, but insist she knew nothing of it, even though she had sent a letter of thanks to his Jersey address. Her campaign team claimed the donation had not come from Mr Green but from a UK-based company, Combined Property Services. This was untrue.
But it was, we are assured, a muddle not a fiddle. Why should she be faced with resignation for a mistake she didn't make over a few quid? Well, the problem here is the law is tightly drawn, and the actual sum involved doesn't come into it. As the "regulated donee", Alexander is responsible for everything that happens in her name. And, despite her defiance, even a mild censure from the Electoral Commission might be enough to end her career.
What the commission will have to do this week - if it exonerates Alexander - is explain why, when the law has been broken by the admission of the parties involved, the case should NOT be referred to the relevant authorities. In short, why the police and prosecuting authorities shouldn't at least take a look at it. After all, the Electoral Commission is not judge and jury, but a regulator. It is supposed to refer any cases where there is a prima facie breach of the law over to the agencies equipped to assess them.
The danger here is that if the commission doesn't make a convincing case for leniency it will undermine its own credibility as well as Alexander's. The public will lose trust in the commission and whatever trust they still have left in politicians.
Could Alexander tough it out if that happened? She won't "walk away from her reputation", we are told. But what reputation would she have left? The prime minister himself said that Hain had done the "honourable" thing in stepping down to clear his name. Would Alexander be able to argue that her infraction is so minor she can remain honourably in post? The court of public opinion will have to judge that.
I wouldn't like to be the legal eagle in the Electoral Commission who has to adjudicate on the Alexander episode - it looks like a no-win situation. If she's exonerated, a lot of people will claim a cover-up; if they call in the law, it's probably the end of her career. Either way, the very foundations of this government are shaking - and we'll learn in a few days whether Labour's own law is going to be Alexander's undoing.
|
|
Posted by: Jimbo on 9:36pm Sat 26 Jan 08
The Cyber-Nats have been saying all of this for months now Iain.
The Cyber-Nats have been saying all of this for months now Iain.
Posted by: davie on 9:37pm Sat 26 Jan 08
"The danger here is that if the commission doesn't make a convincing case for leniency it will undermine its own credibility as well as Alexander's. The public will lose trust in the commission and whatever trust they still have left in politicians."
The public have alreadsy lost their trust in politicians
Smaller class sizes
1500 new police officers
support renewable energy
I'could go on but the fact is that many of hte electorate lost what little respect they had befroe the end of June 07
"The danger here is that if the commission doesn't make a convincing case for leniency it will undermine its own credibility as well as Alexander's. The public will lose trust in the commission and whatever trust they still have left in politicians."
The public have alreadsy lost their trust in politicians
Smaller class sizes
1500 new police officers
support renewable energy
I'could go on but the fact is that many of hte electorate lost what little respect they had befroe the end of June 07
Posted by: subrosa on 9:38pm Sat 26 Jan 08
Davie
You're not making sense. What do you mean? Perhaps you're still upset that the election didn't go your way?
Davie
You're not making sense. What do you mean? Perhaps you're still upset that the election didn't go your way?
Posted by: izzie, dundee on 9:41pm Sat 26 Jan 08
am i the only one who is angry that wendy and the labour party have brought the scottish political community into disrepute even if proved technically non culpable they have done we the people of scotland a diservice by appearing to want to hang on to power when all credability
has gone
am i the only one who is angry that wendy and the labour party have brought the scottish political community into disrepute even if proved technically non culpable they have done we the people of scotland a diservice by appearing to want to hang on to power when all credability
has gone
Posted by: Charles McGrory, Glasgow on 9:43pm Sat 26 Jan 08
It is not for the Electoral Commission to determine ‘intentionality’ but to determine that there is a case to answer. We already know from Wendy’s public confession that she broke the law.
‘Intentionality’ is a factor in criminal law and not civil law. The Elections Act 2000 calls for strict liability and so the ‘Wendy-Jackie-Defenc
e’ of lack of intentionality is irrelevant. The Elections Act holds all members of an unincorporated association – like the Wendy Campaign – to be all joint and severally liable.
Wendy has already agreed she broke the law having written to Mr Green in Jersey thanking him for his money; and someone also misrepresented the source of that money as coming from a completely separate Glasgow company who had nothing to do with the money; that is fraud and clear intent demonstrated and so they incur both civil law offence and criminal law offence. Done twice!
Any alleged ‘protocol’ – fancy word for agreement – that the Police cannot act on admitted law-breaking is non-binding. How many other £950s have been misrepresented? We await the proper conduct of the Electoral Commission; surely they are not stupid enough to be found in obstruction of justice?
I suspect that this government is so deep in its own mendacity that it has offered Hain to be in temporary exile to show the Commission or Public it can act while hoping for another drawn-out policy inquiry and delay to be finally dropped by the CPS and so Le Broon can plead plausible deniability.
But Wendy has admitted guilt and there is objective evidence that there was illegality and misrepresentation of source; such a conviction might just bring this government into the open of implausible deniability!
Of course we don’t know just how many other revelations will rise from the crypt; they must be in a state of panic, caught in the glare of their own headlights.
There is more at stake here than Wendy’s career; with his fiasco of managing the British Banking Industry & Northern Rock, now condemned by Mr Fall’s Committee, with his lecturing at Davos to the world’s bankers that they have too many ‘off-balance sheet’ transactions – read fraud – and his continued assurances that UK fundamentals are sound and that inflation is still below 2% - Le Broon is on the verge not just of being seen to be incompetent but downright ridiculous.
To be seen as a joke-figure of ridicule; such a prospect will be too much for Le Broon’s brittle moral image to bear.
Does Le Broon let Wendy swing or does Le Broon destroy himself as a man who cannot handle Moral Reality?
Alas dear Yorick that is the question, “To do the Lass or to do My-Self.”
It is not for the Electoral Commission to determine ‘intentionality’ but to determine that there is a case to answer. We already know from Wendy’s public confession that she broke the law.
‘Intentionality’ is a factor in criminal law and not civil law. The Elections Act 2000 calls for strict liability and so the ‘Wendy-Jackie-Defenc
e’ of lack of intentionality is irrelevant. The Elections Act holds all members of an unincorporated association – like the Wendy Campaign – to be all joint and severally liable.
Wendy has already agreed she broke the law having written to Mr Green in Jersey thanking him for his money; and someone also misrepresented the source of that money as coming from a completely separate Glasgow company who had nothing to do with the money; that is fraud and clear intent demonstrated and so they incur both civil law offence and criminal law offence. Done twice!
Any alleged ‘protocol’ – fancy word for agreement – that the Police cannot act on admitted law-breaking is non-binding. How many other £950s have been misrepresented? We await the proper conduct of the Electoral Commission; surely they are not stupid enough to be found in obstruction of justice?
I suspect that this government is so deep in its own mendacity that it has offered Hain to be in temporary exile to show the Commission or Public it can act while hoping for another drawn-out policy inquiry and delay to be finally dropped by the CPS and so Le Broon can plead plausible deniability.
But Wendy has admitted guilt and there is objective evidence that there was illegality and misrepresentation of source; such a conviction might just bring this government into the open of implausible deniability!
Of course we don’t know just how many other revelations will rise from the crypt; they must be in a state of panic, caught in the glare of their own headlights.
There is more at stake here than Wendy’s career; with his fiasco of managing the British Banking Industry & Northern Rock, now condemned by Mr Fall’s Committee, with his lecturing at Davos to the world’s bankers that they have too many ‘off-balance sheet’ transactions – read fraud – and his continued assurances that UK fundamentals are sound and that inflation is still below 2% - Le Broon is on the verge not just of being seen to be incompetent but downright ridiculous.
To be seen as a joke-figure of ridicule; such a prospect will be too much for Le Broon’s brittle moral image to bear.
Does Le Broon let Wendy swing or does Le Broon destroy himself as a man who cannot handle Moral Reality?
Alas dear Yorick that is the question, “To do the Lass or to do My-Self.”
Posted by: Mrs I P Knightly on 9:51pm Sat 26 Jan 08
What is the point of have laws if they are always being broken. The law should be applied and if Wendy wants it, the matter could go to trial. Then it would be up to a jury to decide.
What is the point of have laws if they are always being broken. The law should be applied and if Wendy wants it, the matter could go to trial. Then it would be up to a jury to decide.
Posted by: Saul Tyre, Germany on 9:59pm Sat 26 Jan 08
[quote][bold]davie[/bold] wrote:
"The danger here is that if the commission doesn't make a convincing case for leniency it will undermine its own credibility as well as Alexander's. The public will lose trust in the commission and whatever trust they still have left in politicians." The public have alreadsy lost their trust in politicians Smaller class sizes 1500 new police officers support renewable energy I'could go on but the fact is that many of hte electorate lost what little respect they had befroe the end of June 07 [/quote] Why don't you go on, Davie? Iraq, cash for peers, son of Trident, spin, lies....
davie wrote:
"The danger here is that if the commission doesn't make a convincing case for leniency it will undermine its own credibility as well as Alexander's. The public will lose trust in the commission and whatever trust they still have left in politicians." The public have alreadsy lost their trust in politicians Smaller class sizes 1500 new police officers support renewable energy I'could go on but the fact is that many of hte electorate lost what little respect they had befroe the end of June 07
Why don't you go on, Davie? Iraq, cash for peers, son of Trident, spin, lies....
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 10:35pm Sat 26 Jan 08
Charles McGrory wrote:
[quote]We already know from Wendy’s public confession that she broke the law.[/quote]
Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation.
But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction.
We also don't know if the emails between Wendy Alexander and Charlie Gordon demonstrate "due diligence, in the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part IV Chapter III (65)(5).
“Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any such requirements were complied with in relation to donations received by the party during the relevant reporting period.”
Charles McGrory wrote:
We already know from Wendy’s public confession that she broke the law.
Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation.
But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction.
We also don't know if the emails between Wendy Alexander and Charlie Gordon demonstrate "due diligence, in the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part IV Chapter III (65)(5).
“Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any such requirements were complied with in relation to donations received by the party during the relevant reporting period.”
Posted by: David B, Larhall on 10:39pm Sat 26 Jan 08
But depending on your viewpoint, it might be good for Wendy to stay. The labour party might have someone better in its wings. Although if it was Ms Baillie leading the party I'd need to keep the remote handy at all times for fear she'd turn up on my screen. Be careful what you wish for.
But depending on your viewpoint, it might be good for Wendy to stay. The labour party might have someone better in its wings. Although if it was Ms Baillie leading the party I'd need to keep the remote handy at all times for fear she'd turn up on my screen. Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by: Archie, Scotland on 10:39pm Sat 26 Jan 08
For goodness sake sir, what a weak article. We expect better from the press.
For goodness sake sir, what a weak article. We expect better from the press.
Posted by: buccleuch, Glasgow on 11:20pm Sat 26 Jan 08
Dear AM2,
'Contrary to the relevant legislation' eh...?
How quaint! Y
You mean ILLEGAL do you not. As admitted by one of her team live on television-I forget the unfortunate Labour doh-ball's name.
Dear AM2,
'Contrary to the relevant legislation' eh...?
How quaint! Y
You mean ILLEGAL do you not. As admitted by one of her team live on television-I forget the unfortunate Labour doh-ball's name.
Posted by: tam bones on 11:33pm Sat 26 Jan 08
AM2 u seem more than an ordinary blogger in that you have 2 bits of info close to hand tonight on planning and donor law
did u know these stories were on the way into the paper ???
AM2 u seem more than an ordinary blogger in that you have 2 bits of info close to hand tonight on planning and donor law
did u know these stories were on the way into the paper ???
Posted by: I'm no really here on 11:33pm Sat 26 Jan 08
It is not the Electoral Commission's role to be judge or jury. They have to decide whether the rules were broken. They cannot(or shouldn't be allowed to) turn around and say the rules were broken, but they aren't going to refer the matter. Surely they are obliged to refer the matter once it is clear the rules are broken - and Labour MSP's admit themselves the rules were broken - they admit lying. It is Wendy in the firing line - no one else. She cannot say that "a big boy did it and ran away".
It is not the Electoral Commission's role to be judge or jury. They have to decide whether the rules were broken. They cannot(or shouldn't be allowed to) turn around and say the rules were broken, but they aren't going to refer the matter. Surely they are obliged to refer the matter once it is clear the rules are broken - and Labour MSP's admit themselves the rules were broken - they admit lying. It is Wendy in the firing line - no one else. She cannot say that "a big boy did it and ran away".
Posted by: I'm no really here on 11:41pm Sat 26 Jan 08
AM2 wrote:
[quote]But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction.[/quote] Wendy is responsible regardless of who actually committed the act. She was the recipient of the donation, therefore she is responsible for what happened.
I know that might be a new concept for Labour - taking responsibility. Again, the old story about greedy politicians who want all the power and authority, but none of the responsibility that comes with it.
The longer she clings to power, the more damage she does to Labour - LONG MAY SHE STAY.
AM2 wrote:
But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction.
Wendy is responsible regardless of who actually committed the act. She was the recipient of the donation, therefore she is responsible for what happened.
I know that might be a new concept for Labour - taking responsibility. Again, the old story about greedy politicians who want all the power and authority, but none of the responsibility that comes with it.
The longer she clings to power, the more damage she does to Labour - LONG MAY SHE STAY.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 11:46pm Sat 26 Jan 08
buccleigh
No, I don't mean "illegal". An impermissible donation isn't illegal if the regulated donee can be shown to have exercised due diligence. I'm not prepared to prejudge the investigation.
buccleigh
No, I don't mean "illegal". An impermissible donation isn't illegal if the regulated donee can be shown to have exercised due diligence. I'm not prepared to prejudge the investigation.
Posted by: Curley Bill, the southwest on 11:46pm Sat 26 Jan 08
[italic]AM2 wrote:[/italic] [quote]But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled.[/quote]
Not so, sir. As 'regulated donee' Miss Alexander is personally responsible under the law. No if's, but's, or maybe's.
AM2 wrote: But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled.
Not so, sir. As 'regulated donee' Miss Alexander is personally responsible under the law. No if's, but's, or maybe's.
Posted by: An t-Amadan, Alba on 11:46pm Sat 26 Jan 08
Why did Wendy lie about the source of the donation? Why did she lie when she said it had not cone from Green when she had sent a letter to his Jersey address thanking him? As with a scandal in the now distant past, the Profumo Affair, which ultimately ended thirteen years of Tory rule, it was not the original offence which was counted as the serious matter, but the politician lying about it afterwards. Similarly with Watergate, it was not the original crime but Nixon's lies which brought him down. Alexander has been less than truthful about her illegal donations, and these lies rather than her original offences will be what brings her down,.She has proved that she cannot be trusted,. If she lied in this matter, would we ever be able to believe a word she said? A lying leader is a liability to any party, especially when the public know not to believe her, rendering them unelectable, and NL should bear this in mind.
Why did Wendy lie about the source of the donation? Why did she lie when she said it had not cone from Green when she had sent a letter to his Jersey address thanking him? As with a scandal in the now distant past, the Profumo Affair, which ultimately ended thirteen years of Tory rule, it was not the original offence which was counted as the serious matter, but the politician lying about it afterwards. Similarly with Watergate, it was not the original crime but Nixon's lies which brought him down. Alexander has been less than truthful about her illegal donations, and these lies rather than her original offences will be what brings her down,.She has proved that she cannot be trusted,. If she lied in this matter, would we ever be able to believe a word she said? A lying leader is a liability to any party, especially when the public know not to believe her, rendering them unelectable, and NL should bear this in mind.
Posted by: Plobotsky on 11:48pm Sat 26 Jan 08
[quote]AM2 u seem more than an ordinary blogger in that you have 2 bits of info close to hand tonight on planning and donor law[/quote] AM2 - you are too well informed. Perhaps you have access to some fiendish computerised internet silicon chip search technology denied to "ordinary bloggers". This all sounds like some kind of vicious unionist london labour conspiracy meant to frustrate the Righteous Ambitions of the Oppressed Scottish People.
AM2 u seem more than an ordinary blogger in that you have 2 bits of info close to hand tonight on planning and donor law
AM2 - you are too well informed. Perhaps you have access to some fiendish computerised internet silicon chip search technology denied to "ordinary bloggers". This all sounds like some kind of vicious unionist london labour conspiracy meant to frustrate the Righteous Ambitions of the Oppressed Scottish People.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 11:48pm Sat 26 Jan 08
Tam Bones - no.
I'm no really here - You're prejudging, or more probably indulging in wishful thinking!
Anyway, goodnight.
Tam Bones - no.
I'm no really here - You're prejudging, or more probably indulging in wishful thinking!
Anyway, goodnight.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 11:49pm Sat 26 Jan 08
Plobotsky - LOL. Damnit, rumbled! ;-)
Plobotsky - LOL. Damnit, rumbled! ;-)
Posted by: Plobotsky on 11:51pm Sat 26 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
buccleigh
No, I don't mean "illegal". An impermissible donation isn't illegal if the regulated donee can be shown to have exercised due diligence. I'm not prepared to prejudge the investigation.[/quote] Ah, you and your pettifogging insistence on letting the law run its course. Very unpatriotic.
AM2 wrote:
buccleigh
No, I don't mean "illegal". An impermissible donation isn't illegal if the regulated donee can be shown to have exercised due diligence. I'm not prepared to prejudge the investigation.
Ah, you and your pettifogging insistence on letting the law run its course. Very unpatriotic.
Posted by: doonhamer on 11:54pm Sat 26 Jan 08
AM2 posted,
[quote]But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction.[/quote]
Quite right, but it is not the role of the Electoral Commission to determine guilt or liability. If they feel their is a prima facae case of a present breach, they have the responsiblity to send the information to the appropriate investigative body ie. the Polis.
AM2, as you have confirmed the breach yourself, the decision of the Electoral Commission is evident... [bold]unless it abdicates its legislative role.[/bold]
AM2 posted,
But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction.
Quite right, but it is not the role of the Electoral Commission to determine guilt or liability. If they feel their is a prima facae case of a present breach, they have the responsiblity to send the information to the appropriate investigative body ie. the Polis.
AM2, as you have confirmed the breach yourself, the decision of the Electoral Commission is evident...
unless it abdicates its legislative role.
Posted by: doonhamer on 11:57pm Sat 26 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Plobotsky[/bold] wrote:
[quote]AM2 u seem more than an ordinary blogger in that you have 2 bits of info close to hand tonight on planning and donor law[/quote] AM2 - you are too well informed. Perhaps you have access to some fiendish computerised internet silicon chip search technology denied to "ordinary bloggers". This all sounds like some kind of vicious unionist london labour conspiracy meant to frustrate the Righteous Ambitions of the Oppressed Scottish People. [/quote] We have never accused AM2 of having "fiendish" technology...
Plobotsky wrote:
AM2 u seem more than an ordinary blogger in that you have 2 bits of info close to hand tonight on planning and donor law
AM2 - you are too well informed. Perhaps you have access to some fiendish computerised internet silicon chip search technology denied to "ordinary bloggers". This all sounds like some kind of vicious unionist london labour conspiracy meant to frustrate the Righteous Ambitions of the Oppressed Scottish People.
We have never accused AM2 of having "fiendish" technology...
Posted by: buccleuch, Glasgow on 12:07am Sun 27 Jan 08
AM2
Oh jeez... you haven't gone for 'impermissible' have you!
Blush...Oxford definition-'not allowed, not permitted' So re-writing your comment goes...
"A 'not allowed' and 'not permitted' donation isn't illegal" hmmm
Anyway, as has been pointed out by two posters Alexander is the 'regulated donee' who also, if you bother to re-call wrote a thank you letter to the guy in the channel islands and then her team pretended the money came through the Glasgow office.
But apparently it all wasn't 'intentional' !
AM2
Oh jeez... you haven't gone for 'impermissible' have you!
Blush...Oxford definition-'not allowed, not permitted' So re-writing your comment goes...
"A 'not allowed' and 'not permitted' donation isn't illegal" hmmm
Anyway, as has been pointed out by two posters Alexander is the 'regulated donee' who also, if you bother to re-call wrote a thank you letter to the guy in the channel islands and then her team pretended the money came through the Glasgow office.
But apparently it all wasn't 'intentional' !
Posted by: Gary Hills, Stevenage on 12:12am Sun 27 Jan 08
You article makes out that only Labour have had issues. And lets face it while this may be fun for the press and those against Labour to put the knife in, no Labour individual has actually gained financially. So the argument often used of corruption is not the case at all. Democracy is not free and has to be paid for. Its funny how you do not mention the 80 Tory MPs under investigation by the EU for finance irregularities, or how about David Cameron's constituency accepting £7500 in proved illegal donations and then of course there is Mr Osbourne with up to half a million? and we could not forget to mention how one Tory is trying to by democracy and wont even declare if he lives in the UK. Lord Ascroft. so if you must have a go at least add some balance. If the public are unhappy with donations then the only answer is for the public to fund political party's and its not the high cost assumed.
You article makes out that only Labour have had issues. And lets face it while this may be fun for the press and those against Labour to put the knife in, no Labour individual has actually gained financially. So the argument often used of corruption is not the case at all. Democracy is not free and has to be paid for. Its funny how you do not mention the 80 Tory MPs under investigation by the EU for finance irregularities, or how about David Cameron's constituency accepting £7500 in proved illegal donations and then of course there is Mr Osbourne with up to half a million? and we could not forget to mention how one Tory is trying to by democracy and wont even declare if he lives in the UK. Lord Ascroft. so if you must have a go at least add some balance. If the public are unhappy with donations then the only answer is for the public to fund political party's and its not the high cost assumed.
Posted by: Plobotsky on 12:13am Sun 27 Jan 08
[quote][bold]We[/bold] have never accused AM2 of having "fiendish" technology...[/quote] Who is this "we?" You're not admitting to being part of an organised group who gang up on AM2, are you?
We have never accused AM2 of having "fiendish" technology...
Who is this "we?" You're not admitting to being part of an organised group who gang up on AM2, are you?
Posted by: tommy trinder on 12:24am Sun 27 Jan 08
plobo - slobo
don't double bluff with the paranoia :-):-)
plobo - slobo
don't double bluff with the paranoia :-):-)
Posted by: ratzo on 12:25am Sun 27 Jan 08
Ian's hinting that (perhaps with Tory support) Labour could attack the electoral commmission this week for having been 'unintentionally' over-effective, then ask for a 'common-sense' clean start for all parties, with better info, clearer implementation...
Ian's hinting that (perhaps with Tory support) Labour could attack the electoral commmission this week for having been 'unintentionally' over-effective, then ask for a 'common-sense' clean start for all parties, with better info, clearer implementation...
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:38am Sun 27 Jan 08
The Electoral Commission will say the Crown office ( which is full of Labour activists)did not advice prosecution - The Advocate General donated to Wendy, the last Lord Avocote, Boyd , did as well and JOhn Beckett is a known LAbour activist.
Scottish justice is Bent
The Electoral Commission will say the Crown office ( which is full of Labour activists)did not advice prosecution - The Advocate General donated to Wendy, the last Lord Avocote, Boyd , did as well and JOhn Beckett is a known LAbour activist.
Scottish justice is Bent
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:40am Sun 27 Jan 08
Am2 above is barking /desperate apologist for Labour- Wendy is the Donee you numpty
Am2 above is barking /desperate apologist for Labour- Wendy is the Donee you numpty
Posted by: buccleuch, Glasgow on 12:50am Sun 27 Jan 08
This neatly sums it up. From David Ferguson on the Telegraph website.
As with Nixon - it's not the offence, it’s the cover-up.
The salient facts are these:
1. Charles Gordon solicited an illegal donation for the campaign from Paul Green.
2. Wendy Alexander wrote a personal note of thanks to Green at his address in Jersey.
3. Somebody recorded the source of the Green donation as a Glasgow company - Combined Property Services - on an official document that was submitted to the Electoral Commission.
On point 1, I don't have a problem believing that Charles Gordon genuinely didn't know the donation from Green was illegal when he asked for it. He'd have to be pretty thick, and he obviously wasn't paying much attention during the £180,000 taxpayer-funded training that his Party gave him, but then he is a stalwart of Labour's Scottish West Coast mafia.
On point 2, I can just about accept that Alexander neither penned nor bothered to read the letter she signed to Green, though it doesn't say much for the care and attention she exercised in her role as official donee of her campaign fund.
It’s when you get to point 3 that the whole rickety ‘innocent mishap’ construct starts to fall apart. The person who recorded Combined Property Services as the source of the Green donation could not possibly have imagined he/she was telling the truth. CPS had no connection with Green, and no involvement in the Alexander campaign. It’s a bit like me giving you a cheque, and you thanking me for the cheque and then telling everybody that you’ve just been given a cheque by a hairdresser at the other end of the country who’s never heard of you.
There just isn’t any explanation for point 3 that is coherent, plausible, and innocent. Jackie Baillie’s incoherent efforts (“Eh…beh…beh…eh…beh…
”) are required viewing on Youtube. There are plenty of innocent explanations – unfortunately they’re all in the great tradition of “the dog ate my homework’. How about “I was hypnotised by aliens… Elvis did it from the grassy knoll.”
There are plenty of explanations that are coherent and plausible - unfortunately none of them are innocent. I suspect the truth lies somewhere along the lines of:
“We didn’t really bother our backsides with any serious attempt at a cover-up. It just never occurred to us for a second that the Donations Registration form would ever receive more than a cursory glance from some junior minion at the Electoral Commission. If only we’d known…”
This neatly sums it up. From David Ferguson on the Telegraph website.
As with Nixon - it's not the offence, it’s the cover-up.
The salient facts are these:
1. Charles Gordon solicited an illegal donation for the campaign from Paul Green.
2. Wendy Alexander wrote a personal note of thanks to Green at his address in Jersey.
3. Somebody recorded the source of the Green donation as a Glasgow company - Combined Property Services - on an official document that was submitted to the Electoral Commission.
On point 1, I don't have a problem believing that Charles Gordon genuinely didn't know the donation from Green was illegal when he asked for it. He'd have to be pretty thick, and he obviously wasn't paying much attention during the £180,000 taxpayer-funded training that his Party gave him, but then he is a stalwart of Labour's Scottish West Coast mafia.
On point 2, I can just about accept that Alexander neither penned nor bothered to read the letter she signed to Green, though it doesn't say much for the care and attention she exercised in her role as official donee of her campaign fund.
It’s when you get to point 3 that the whole rickety ‘innocent mishap’ construct starts to fall apart. The person who recorded Combined Property Services as the source of the Green donation could not possibly have imagined he/she was telling the truth. CPS had no connection with Green, and no involvement in the Alexander campaign. It’s a bit like me giving you a cheque, and you thanking me for the cheque and then telling everybody that you’ve just been given a cheque by a hairdresser at the other end of the country who’s never heard of you.
There just isn’t any explanation for point 3 that is coherent, plausible, and innocent. Jackie Baillie’s incoherent efforts (“Eh…beh…beh…eh…beh…
”) are required viewing on Youtube. There are plenty of innocent explanations – unfortunately they’re all in the great tradition of “the dog ate my homework’. How about “I was hypnotised by aliens… Elvis did it from the grassy knoll.”
There are plenty of explanations that are coherent and plausible - unfortunately none of them are innocent. I suspect the truth lies somewhere along the lines of:
“We didn’t really bother our backsides with any serious attempt at a cover-up. It just never occurred to us for a second that the Donations Registration form would ever receive more than a cursory glance from some junior minion at the Electoral Commission. If only we’d known…”
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 12:57am Sun 27 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
buccleigh No, I don't mean "illegal". An impermissible donation isn't illegal if the regulated donee can be shown to have exercised due diligence. I'm not prepared to prejudge the investigation.[/quote] Due dilligence should involve the regulated donee checking out EVERY SINGLE donation, especially when she is sending out thank you notes to addresses in the Channel Islands.
AM2 wrote:
buccleigh No, I don't mean "illegal". An impermissible donation isn't illegal if the regulated donee can be shown to have exercised due diligence. I'm not prepared to prejudge the investigation.
Due dilligence should involve the regulated donee checking out EVERY SINGLE donation, especially when she is sending out thank you notes to addresses in the Channel Islands.
Posted by: EuroMac, Babylon 4 on 12:57am Sun 27 Jan 08
AM2
[quote]Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation.[/quote]
Not so. I did not crash, there was an inappropriate arrival velocity.
AM2
Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation.
Not so. I did not crash, there was an inappropriate arrival velocity.
Posted by: subrosa on 12:58am Sun 27 Jan 08
Posted by: Plobotsky on 12:13am today
We have never accused AM2 of having "fiendish" technology...
Who is this "we?" You're not admitting to being part of an organised group who gang up on AM2, are you?
Don't include me in this! My posts to AM2 are definitely made on a 1 to 1 basis ;)
Posted by: Plobotsky on 12:13am today
We have never accused AM2 of having "fiendish" technology...
Who is this "we?" You're not admitting to being part of an organised group who gang up on AM2, are you?
Don't include me in this! My posts to AM2 are definitely made on a 1 to 1 basis ;)
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 1:01am Sun 27 Jan 08
Colin B,. they're so bent their emblem shouldn't be a rose but a pretzel.
Colin B,. they're so bent their emblem shouldn't be a rose but a pretzel.
Posted by: Proud to be Scottish, Glasgow on 1:20am Sun 27 Jan 08
I find it highly offensive how much the gnats are determined to undermine our democracy.
There is a commision investigating this, they will no doubt find that there has been no wrong doing.
Thats not good enough for the gnats though is it? There is no substitute for the truth, a little bit of transparency from the gants about trumpgate and aviemoregate would be[quote]quote[/quote] nice.
I find it highly offensive how much the gnats are determined to undermine our democracy.
There is a commision investigating this, they will no doubt find that there has been no wrong doing.
Thats not good enough for the gnats though is it? There is no substitute for the truth, a little bit of transparency from the gants about trumpgate and aviemoregate would be
quote
nice.
Posted by: I'm no really here on 1:22am Sun 27 Jan 08
Looks like the opinion poll today is settling in at the usual 9:1 against Labour. At the moment there are more people who "don't care" what happens to Wendy than those who think she should stay.
Looks like the opinion poll today is settling in at the usual 9:1 against Labour. At the moment there are more people who "don't care" what happens to Wendy than those who think she should stay.
Posted by: democrate, central Scotland on 1:24am Sun 27 Jan 08
1.20, you forget that there has been wrongdoing; the donation was impermissible. Labour admitted that. The buck stops with Wendy as the regulated donee. The Commission is accordingly obliged to refer the matter to the police.
1.20, you forget that there has been wrongdoing; the donation was impermissible. Labour admitted that. The buck stops with Wendy as the regulated donee. The Commission is accordingly obliged to refer the matter to the police.
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 1:47am Sun 27 Jan 08
"Proud to be Scottish", why do you have "no doubt" the commission will "find that there has been no wrong doing"? Have you seen their report? Do you have insider information? Have they been nobbled?
And while we're at it, why do so many Unionist trolls use names like "Proud to be Scottish"? Is this supposed to make them more credible? Are we supposed to believe them because they've got a shortbread tin for a personality?
"Proud to be Scottish", why do you have "no doubt" the commission will "find that there has been no wrong doing"? Have you seen their report? Do you have insider information? Have they been nobbled?
And while we're at it, why do so many Unionist trolls use names like "Proud to be Scottish"? Is this supposed to make them more credible? Are we supposed to believe them because they've got a shortbread tin for a personality?
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 2:22am Sun 27 Jan 08
Neil - that was a typo. His name is really "Proud to be Snottish".
Neil - that was a typo. His name is really "Proud to be Snottish".
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 4:41am Sun 27 Jan 08
AM-Squared Volunteers For Alexander's Defence Counsel[quote]Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation.[/quote]What is your intention?
When pressed for an opinion on one website you tell us you wish to make no comment on Alexander's guilt or innocence because you believe in letting an enquiry take its course and not prejudging its outcome. (You put it in baser terms.) Yet here you are on this website defending her as innocent.
[bold]What is it to be? Fulsome defence or diplomatic silence?[/bold]
You are remarkable only for the ability to practice rank hypocricy
AM-Squared Volunteers For Alexander's Defence Counsel
Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation.
What is your intention?
When pressed for an opinion on one website you tell us you wish to make no comment on Alexander's guilt or innocence because you believe in letting an enquiry take its course and not prejudging its outcome. (You put it in baser terms.) Yet here you are on this website defending her as innocent.
What is it to be? Fulsome defence or diplomatic silence?
You are remarkable only for the ability to practice rank hypocricy
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 4:54am Sun 27 Jan 08
Macwhirter Wonders If Wendy Will Wander[quote]Could Alexander tough it out? She won't "walk away from her reputation", we are told. But what reputation would she have left?[/quote]Reputation?
She had none outside parliamentary circles until Labour PR announced her intellect was of a high standard, though it transpires, not one that understands basic right from wrong.
Her reputation with the public only arrived when she broke the law, the law devised and instituted by her own party. She is now perceived as incompetent, devious, belligerent, and dishonourable.
Reputation?
Is there no beginning to her talents?
Macwhirter Wonders If Wendy Will Wander
Could Alexander tough it out? She won't "walk away from her reputation", we are told. But what reputation would she have left?
Reputation?
She had none outside parliamentary circles until Labour PR announced her intellect was of a high standard, though it transpires, not one that understands basic right from wrong.
Her reputation with the public only arrived when she broke the law, the law devised and instituted by her own party. She is now perceived as incompetent, devious, belligerent, and dishonourable.
Reputation?
Is there no beginning to her talents?
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 5:00am Sun 27 Jan 08
Cult of Impersonation? She is not what she is declared to be. A limited intelligence posing as a cognesenti - laughable really.
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
As is the leader so is the party!
Cult of Impersonation? She is not what she is declared to be. A limited intelligence posing as a cognesenti - laughable really.
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
As is the leader so is the party!
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 5:17am Sun 27 Jan 08
Euromac:
[quote]Not so. I did not crash, there was an inappropriate arrival velocity.[/quote]
Stoap it - mah ribs ur hurtin!
Euromac:
Not so. I did not crash, there was an inappropriate arrival velocity.
Stoap it - mah ribs ur hurtin!
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 5:18am Sun 27 Jan 08
Scunnert Says Wendy Sour Cheese[quote]Stultus est sicut stultus facit[/quote]Erm, well, "Stultus" sound slike Stilton.
For someone proclaiming she knows the way forward she is always backing into the limelight.
Scunnert Says Wendy Sour Cheese
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
Erm, well, "Stultus" sound slike Stilton.
For someone proclaiming she knows the way forward she is always backing into the limelight.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 5:19am Sun 27 Jan 08
doonhamer says:
[quote]We have never accused AM2 of having "fiendish" technology...[/quote]
I have accused AM2 of being fiendish technology and I stand by that assertion!
doonhamer says:
We have never accused AM2 of having "fiendish" technology...
I have accused AM2 of being fiendish technology and I stand by that assertion!
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 5:23am Sun 27 Jan 08
At every FMQ Wendy is upstaged. Theatuh folks will ken whit ah'm sayin!
At every FMQ Wendy is upstaged. Theatuh folks will ken whit ah'm sayin!
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 5:54am Sun 27 Jan 08
Labour's Electoral Commission will damage even further it's tawdry "reputation", as it will Bendy Alexander's forever tainted "reputation".
It failed to act over her brother Dougie's mess from that house of ill repute, the Anti Scottish Office, Ben Dover Hoose, London, England. #Just as the London Polis failed to act over the so obvious Cash for Peerages scandal so will Labour's Lord Elder's Labour cronies act true to type.
What reputation? Their attempts, along with their Bendy Lib Dum flunkeys to to try and smear Alex Salmond's reputation should be minded come punishment time at the next election. It is The only option an angry public will have with the failure of the disreputable Labour placed and invented "Electoral Commission", who are putting out statements of intent in advance of the limitations of their commitment and competence. Best to scrap it now and create a new Commission with different personnel and proper powers. No Canadian or London Whitehall whitewashers this time.
Labour's Electoral Commission will damage even further it's tawdry "reputation", as it will Bendy Alexander's forever tainted "reputation".
It failed to act over her brother Dougie's mess from that house of ill repute, the Anti Scottish Office, Ben Dover Hoose, London, England. #Just as the London Polis failed to act over the so obvious Cash for Peerages scandal so will Labour's Lord Elder's Labour cronies act true to type.
What reputation? Their attempts, along with their Bendy Lib Dum flunkeys to to try and smear Alex Salmond's reputation should be minded come punishment time at the next election. It is The only option an angry public will have with the failure of the disreputable Labour placed and invented "Electoral Commission", who are putting out statements of intent in advance of the limitations of their commitment and competence. Best to scrap it now and create a new Commission with different personnel and proper powers. No Canadian or London Whitehall whitewashers this time.
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 5:55am Sun 27 Jan 08
Labour's Electoral Commission will damage even further it's tawdry "reputation", as it will Bendy Alexander's forever tainted "reputation".
It failed to act over her brother Dougie's mess from that house of ill repute, the Anti Scottish Office, Ben Dover Hoose, London, England. #Just as the London Polis failed to act over the so obvious Cash for Peerages scandal so will Labour's Lord Elder's Labour cronies act true to type.
What reputation? Their attempts, along with their Bendy Lib Dum flunkeys to to try and smear Alex Salmond's reputation should be minded come punishment time at the next election. It is The only option an angry public will have with the failure of the disreputable Labour placed and invented "Electoral Commission", who are putting out statements of intent in advance of the limitations of their commitment and competence. Best to scrap it now and create a new Commission with different personnel and proper powers. No Canadian or London Whitehall whitewashers this time.
Labour's Electoral Commission will damage even further it's tawdry "reputation", as it will Bendy Alexander's forever tainted "reputation".
It failed to act over her brother Dougie's mess from that house of ill repute, the Anti Scottish Office, Ben Dover Hoose, London, England. #Just as the London Polis failed to act over the so obvious Cash for Peerages scandal so will Labour's Lord Elder's Labour cronies act true to type.
What reputation? Their attempts, along with their Bendy Lib Dum flunkeys to to try and smear Alex Salmond's reputation should be minded come punishment time at the next election. It is The only option an angry public will have with the failure of the disreputable Labour placed and invented "Electoral Commission", who are putting out statements of intent in advance of the limitations of their commitment and competence. Best to scrap it now and create a new Commission with different personnel and proper powers. No Canadian or London Whitehall whitewashers this time.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 6:12am Sun 27 Jan 08
[bold]The Electoral Commission is where they write the alibis before Labour writes the spin.[/bold]
The Electoral Commission is where they write the alibis before Labour writes the spin.
Posted by: The West Awake, Argyll on 6:51am Sun 27 Jan 08
AM2
"My congratulations to Mr Salmond. An eight month honeymoon period is somewhat above average."- Your comment on the brand new allegation against Alex Salmond broken today and which, I note did not even merit a mention on B(ritish)BC Radio Scotland news this morning.
"I'm not prepared to prejudge the investigation." - Your latest desperate attempt to deny, against all common sense, what is obvious to all bar time-served Labour apparachiks, - that Alexander stuffed up, probably knowingly, and should be rightly called to account.
Will you accept your bais undermines your ability to comment fairly?
AM2
"My congratulations to Mr Salmond. An eight month honeymoon period is somewhat above average."- Your comment on the brand new allegation against Alex Salmond broken today and which, I note did not even merit a mention on B(ritish)BC Radio Scotland news this morning.
"I'm not prepared to prejudge the investigation." - Your latest desperate attempt to deny, against all common sense, what is obvious to all bar time-served Labour apparachiks, - that Alexander stuffed up, probably knowingly, and should be rightly called to account.
Will you accept your bais undermines your ability to comment fairly?
Posted by: Alan, Ayrshire on 7:23am Sun 27 Jan 08
Has anyone noticed in all the turmoil, that wendy is a very tasty bit of gear, at least to a 50 year old!
Has anyone noticed in all the turmoil, that wendy is a very tasty bit of gear, at least to a 50 year old!
Posted by: observer, Glasgow on 7:37am Sun 27 Jan 08
[quote][bold]AM2[/bold] wrote:
Charles McGrory wrote: [quote]We already know from Wendy’s public confession that she broke the law.[/quote] Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation. But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction. We also don't know if the emails between Wendy Alexander and Charlie Gordon demonstrate "due diligence, in the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part IV Chapter III (65)(5). “Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any such requirements were complied with in relation to donations received by the party during the relevant reporting period.”[/quote] AM - It's section 56 of the PPER Act which is relevant here and not section 65.
If you look at s.56 you will see it's a strict liability offence with no defence on intention.
To put it another way, intent goes to the level of sentence on prosecution with strict liability but is irrelevant as to commission ...
AM2 wrote:
Charles McGrory wrote: We already know from Wendy’s public confession that she broke the law.
Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation. But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction. We also don't know if the emails between Wendy Alexander and Charlie Gordon demonstrate "due diligence, in the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part IV Chapter III (65)(5). “Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any such requirements were complied with in relation to donations received by the party during the relevant reporting period.”
AM - It's section 56 of the PPER Act which is relevant here and not section 65.
If you look at s.56 you will see it's a strict liability offence with no defence on intention.
To put it another way, intent goes to the level of sentence on prosecution with strict liability but is irrelevant as to commission ...
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 7:49am Sun 27 Jan 08
[quote][bold]Alan[/bold] wrote:
Has anyone noticed in all the turmoil, that wendy is a very tasty bit of gear, at least to a 50 year old![/quote] I'm 50 and I find her repulsive.
Not even if she was the last woman left on the planet... <shudder>
Alan wrote:
Has anyone noticed in all the turmoil, that wendy is a very tasty bit of gear, at least to a 50 year old!
I'm 50 and I find her repulsive.
Not even if she was the last woman left on the planet... <shudder>
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 9:16am Sun 27 Jan 08
Observer @ 7:37am
Not so. Section 56 refers to “reasonable steps” being taken to verify permissibility. That’s what the Electoral Commission's investigation is all about - to see if due diligence can be said to have been followed.
Where's your consistency? Look at section 65(1):
“A donation report under section 62 shall be delivered to the Commission by the treasurer of the party in question within the period of 30 days beginning with the end of the reporting period to which it relates.”
And section 65(3):
“The treasurer of a registered party commits an offence if he fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a donation report.”
Did the SNP’s non-declaration for three years of that £5700 bequest to their branch in Hamilton adhere to those clauses? If you’re consistent, you would think so. As for me, I wouldn’t want to prejudge any investigation. There may have been mitigating circumstances.
Observer @ 7:37am
Not so. Section 56 refers to “reasonable steps” being taken to verify permissibility. That’s what the Electoral Commission's investigation is all about - to see if due diligence can be said to have been followed.
Where's your consistency? Look at section 65(1):
“A donation report under section 62 shall be delivered to the Commission by the treasurer of the party in question within the period of 30 days beginning with the end of the reporting period to which it relates.”
And section 65(3):
“The treasurer of a registered party commits an offence if he fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a donation report.”
Did the SNP’s non-declaration for three years of that £5700 bequest to their branch in Hamilton adhere to those clauses? If you’re consistent, you would think so. As for me, I wouldn’t want to prejudge any investigation. There may have been mitigating circumstances.
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 9:20am Sun 27 Jan 08
[quote][bold]doonhamer[/bold] wrote:
AM2 posted,
[quote]But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That\'s a crucial distinction.[/quote]
Quite right, but it is not the role of the Electoral Commission to determine guilt or liability. If they feel their is a prima facae case of a present breach, they have the responsiblity to send the information to the appropriate investigative body ie. the Polis.
AM2, as you have confirmed the breach yourself, the decision of the Electoral Commission is evident... [bold]unless it abdicates its legislative role.[/bold]
[/quote] Nonsense. The Electoral Commission's responsibilities are set out within the legislation itself, and you have misrepresented them. Anyway, here's a precedent from Q1 2004.
http://www.electoral
commission.org.uk/me
dia-centre/newsrelea
sedonations.cfm/news
/322
or tinyurl.com/2bhn44
“The Electoral Commission has now completed its investigation into the Labour Party's failure to report donations on time for earlier reporting periods. Although the investigation identified areas for improvement in the party's procedures, the Commission is satisfied that the Party Treasurer took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to meet the reporting requirements for the relevant periods. The Commission will take no further action in relation to the late reporting of those donations.”
doonhamer wrote:
AM2 posted,
But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That\'s a crucial distinction.
Quite right, but it is not the role of the Electoral Commission to determine guilt or liability. If they feel their is a prima facae case of a present breach, they have the responsiblity to send the information to the appropriate investigative body ie. the Polis.
AM2, as you have confirmed the breach yourself, the decision of the Electoral Commission is evident... unless it abdicates its legislative role.
Nonsense. The Electoral Commission's responsibilities are set out within the legislation itself, and you have misrepresented them. Anyway, here's a precedent from Q1 2004.
http://www.electoral
commission.org.uk/me
dia-centre/newsrelea
sedonations.cfm/news
/322
or tinyurl.com/2bhn44
“The Electoral Commission has now completed its investigation into the Labour Party's failure to report donations on time for earlier reporting periods. Although the investigation identified areas for improvement in the party's procedures, the Commission is satisfied that the Party Treasurer took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to meet the reporting requirements for the relevant periods. The Commission will take no further action in relation to the late reporting of those donations.”
Posted by: AM2, Glasgow on 9:26am Sun 27 Jan 08
Correction of 9:16am post, last paragraph:
"If you’re consistent, you would think NOT."
Correction of 9:16am post, last paragraph:
"If you’re consistent, you would think NOT."
Posted by: Garry Otton, Glasgow on 9:26am Sun 27 Jan 08
You're right Iain, 'didnae ken' isn't an excuse when the VAT come in and tear The Books apart. It's unlikely they'll want to close the business down though. Same with wee Wendy. When you start seeing politics turn into a parade of MPs resignings and sackings over getting books in a muddle or sleeping with rent boys, then we know Scotland's still got a bit of growing up to do.
You're right Iain, 'didnae ken' isn't an excuse when the VAT come in and tear The Books apart. It's unlikely they'll want to close the business down though. Same with wee Wendy. When you start seeing politics turn into a parade of MPs resignings and sackings over getting books in a muddle or sleeping with rent boys, then we know Scotland's still got a bit of growing up to do.
Posted by: Politically-incorrec
t Man, in despair on 9:40am Sun 27 Jan 08
It all boils down to Laws.
I ask you what is the point in having them.
How can you blame the hard-core career criminal for flouting the law and having some weasel of a solicitor getting them off on " a technicality" when that is exactly what our politicians are doing.
I have always believed that career-politicians in general are parasites and this current raft of financial "irregularities" does nothing to alter my views.
It all boils down to Laws.
I ask you what is the point in having them.
How can you blame the hard-core career criminal for flouting the law and having some weasel of a solicitor getting them off on " a technicality" when that is exactly what our politicians are doing.
I have always believed that career-politicians in general are parasites and this current raft of financial "irregularities" does nothing to alter my views.
Posted by: Emily and The Bishop, Wiat For Justice to Catch Them on 9:49am Sun 27 Jan 08
[quote][bold]tam bones[/bold] wrote:
AM2 u seem more than an ordinary blogger in that you have 2 bits of info close to hand tonight on planning and donor law did u know these stories were on the way into the paper ???[/quote] TAM BONES
Tam, The aforementioned Mr.A .Mackay is the best known, and worst derided, of all of the labour apologists that appear on these posts. They are not truly private individuals, but part of the Brave Old Order that reduced Scotland's towns and cities to being the boarded up wastelands that labour allowed them to become ....and in return for what?....a wee handshake from some Westminster nonentity, and a joab oan a cooncil......oany cooncil....an' a wee bit o' power sic as tae mak shair that THEIR relatives will hae a wee cooncil joab, pension etc. Despicable turds, and quislings...all of them !!
tam bones wrote:
AM2 u seem more than an ordinary blogger in that you have 2 bits of info close to hand tonight on planning and donor law did u know these stories were on the way into the paper ???
TAM BONES
Tam, The aforementioned Mr.A .Mackay is the best known, and worst derided, of all of the labour apologists that appear on these posts. They are not truly private individuals, but part of the Brave Old Order that reduced Scotland's towns and cities to being the boarded up wastelands that labour allowed them to become ....and in return for what?....a wee handshake from some Westminster nonentity, and a joab oan a cooncil......oany cooncil....an' a wee bit o' power sic as tae mak shair that THEIR relatives will hae a wee cooncil joab, pension etc. Despicable turds, and quislings...all of them !!
Posted by: David, East Kilbride on 9:49am Sun 27 Jan 08
Neil, Aberdeenshire on 7:49am.
Neil how true.
If she showed her wears in Blythwood Square I assume she would have not received many donors. Whether legal or illegal.
The £180,000 that NU-Labour received to educate on Donor procedure I'm afraid has been used to find ways around their own legislation. Misuse of public money.
I believe we are only at the tip of the iceberg.
I would go for an independant inquiry. A selection of bloggers from this comment board.
Starting with the UK Labour party MP's and MSP's..
Start with Brown and his cabinet and then Wendy and her cohorts at Holyrood. I don't think we would have to go much further than that.
Neil, Aberdeenshire on 7:49am.
Neil how true.
If she showed her wears in Blythwood Square I assume she would have not received many donors. Whether legal or illegal.
The £180,000 that NU-Labour received to educate on Donor procedure I'm afraid has been used to find ways around their own legislation. Misuse of public money.
I believe we are only at the tip of the iceberg.
I would go for an independant inquiry. A selection of bloggers from this comment board.
Starting with the UK Labour party MP's and MSP's..
Start with Brown and his cabinet and then Wendy and her cohorts at Holyrood. I don't think we would have to go much further than that.
Posted by: David, East Kilbride on 9:52am Sun 27 Jan 08
AM2 and Foulkes have much in common..
AM2 and Foulkes have much in common..
Posted by: Mike ..., Ayrshire on 9:53am Sun 27 Jan 08
AM2 ... in your earlier post, you specifically use the words [italic]"[bold]all[/bold] due diligence[/italic] ", in later posts the word [italic]"all"[/italic] disappears. Why?
As Wendy Alexander sat at her desk, and personally signed her letter of thanks to someone not resident in this country, might "all due diligence" have included asking herself this very simple question"Was this donation within the rules?"
[italic]"All due diligence"[/italic] means asking [italic]"all"[/italic] the requisite questions, even, as in this case, the most simple of all questions.
AM2 ... in your earlier post, you specifically use the words
"all due diligence ", in later posts the word
"all" disappears. Why?
As Wendy Alexander sat at her desk, and personally signed her letter of thanks to someone not resident in this country, might "all due diligence" have included asking herself this very simple question"Was this donation within the rules?"
"All due diligence" means asking
"all" the requisite questions, even, as in this case, the most simple of all questions.
Posted by: Mike MacKinnon on 10:38am Sun 27 Jan 08
Fact, Wendy accepted an illegal donation.
Fact, Wendy wrote to eh illegal donor thanking him.
Fact, Wendy admitted to breaking the law.
We are not talking here about 'ifs,' no matter how much AM2 and his unionista losers dress it up, we're talking FACTS!
No matter how much the unionista sheep bleat on about it, she broke the law! The Electoral Commission can only come out with one verdict and that is what is terrifying the uionista cause!
Fact, Wendy accepted an illegal donation.
Fact, Wendy wrote to eh illegal donor thanking him.
Fact, Wendy admitted to breaking the law.
We are not talking here about 'ifs,' no matter how much AM2 and his unionista losers dress it up, we're talking FACTS!
No matter how much the unionista sheep bleat on about it, she broke the law! The Electoral Commission can only come out with one verdict and that is what is terrifying the uionista cause!
Posted by: William Munn on 10:44am Sun 27 Jan 08
Whether the infraction is against the Revenue laws or not, ignorance of the law - in whatever field it applies - is not an eexcuse.
Whether the infraction is against the Revenue laws or not, ignorance of the law - in whatever field it applies - is not an eexcuse.
Posted by: Charles McGrory, Glasgow on 11:02am Sun 27 Jan 08
Good Morning AM2
Just to briefly respond to your selection from the PPER Act 2000.
Your comment was:
“Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation.
But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction.
We also don't know if the emails between Wendy Alexander and Charlie Gordon demonstrate "due diligence, in the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part IV Chapter III 65 5
“Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any such requirements were complied with in relation to donations received by the party during the relevant reporting period.”
To briefly respond to your selection from the PPER Act 2000. I have bolded my own comments on the applicability of the Act just for clarity.
[bold]Thank you for acknowledging that the law was broken. Wendy also admits the illegality.[/bold]
Here are applicable parts of the ACT including your own quote.
56.—(1) Where— Acceptance or
(a) a donation is received by a registered party, and
(b) it is not immediately decided that the party should (for whatever general.
reason) refuse the donation,all reasonable steps must be taken forthwith by or on behalf of the party to verify (or, so far as any of the following is not apparent, ascertain) the
identity of the donor, whether he is a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation.
[bold]Writing a letter of thanks to a donor in a foreign country is not a reasonable step to exercise due diligence to ensure that any such requirements were complied with..
And
Concealing the true source by misrepresenting the money came from a separate legal personality i.e. commercial firm in Glasgow as opposed to Jersey & why write a letter to Mr Green when it came from this firm; Wendy was thanking the original source[/bold]
Part IV Chapter III
56.—(1) Where— Acceptance or
(a) a donation is received by a registered party, and
(b) it is not immediately decided that the party should (for whatever general reason) refuse the donation,all reasonable steps must be taken forthwith by or on behalf of the party to verify (or, so far as any of the following is not apparent, ascertain) the identity of the donor, whether he is a permissible donor,
[bold]Writing a letter of thanks to a donor in a foreign country is not a reasonable step to exercise due diligence to ensure that any such requirements were complied with.
And
Concealing the true source by misrepresenting the money came from a separate legal personality i.e. commercial firm in Glasgow as opposed to Jersey & why write a letter to Mr Green when it came from this firm; Wendy was thanking the original source.[/bold]
Offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations
61.—(1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) knowingly enters into, or
(b) knowingly does any act in furtherance of, donations, any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor.
[bold]Writing a letter of thanks to a donor in a foreign country is not a reasonable step to exercise due diligence to ensure that any such requirements were complied with..
And
Concealing the true source by misrepresenting the money came from a separate legal personality i.e. commercial firm in Glasgow as opposed to Jersey & why write a letter to Mr Green when it came from this firm; Wendy was thanking the original source.[/bold]
Part IV Chapter II
Forfeiture of certain donations
58.—(1) This section applies to any donation received by a registered
donations made party— by impermissible or unidentifiable (a) which, by virtue of section 54(1)(a) or
(b), the party are donors. prohibited from accepting, but which has been accepted by the party.
(2) The court may, on an application made by the Commission, order
the forfeiture by the party of an amount equal to the value of the
donation.
(3) [bold]The standard of proof in proceedings on an application under this
section shall be that applicable to civil proceedings.[/bold]
[bold]Intentionality is irrelevant[/bold]
65
The treasurer of a registered party also commits an offence if he delivers a donation report to the Commission which does not comply with any requirements of this Part as regards the recording of donations in such a report.
(5) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any such requirements were complied with
in relation to donations received by the party during the relevant reporting period.
[bold]Writing a letter of thanks to a donor in a foreign country is not a reasonable step to exercise due diligence to ensure that any such requirements were complied with..[/bold]
(6) Where the court is satisfied, on an application made by the Commission, that any failure to comply with any such requirements in
relation to any donation to a registered party was attributable to an intention on the part of any person to conceal the existence or true
amount of the donation, the court may order the forfeiture by the party of an amount equal to the value of the donation.
[bold]Concealing the true source by misrepresenting the money came from a separate legal personality i.e. commercial firm in Glasgow as opposed to Jersey & why write a letter to Mr Green when it came from this firm; Wendy was thanking the original source.[/bold]
Offences committed by unincorporated associations
153.—(1) Proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed under this Act by an unincorporated association shall be brought against committed by the association in its own name (and not in that of any of its members) and, for the purposes of any such proceedings, any rules of court relating associations to the service of documents shall have effect as if the association were a corporation.
[bold]The Wendy Campaign was an Unincorporated Association and so Accusation & offence therefore not in name of treasurer or donee but joint and several to all members of the campaign team.[/bold]
(2) A fine imposed on an unincorporated association on its conviction
of an offence under this Act shall be paid out of the funds of the
association.
[bold]All members liable to contribute to fine[/bold]
I think we can see that several sections of the act have been contravened and likely by several in the Wendy Campaign.
Good Morning AM2
Just to briefly respond to your selection from the PPER Act 2000.
Your comment was:
“Not so. We know that the acceptance of the donation to her campaign from a Jersey resident was contrary to the relevant legislation.
But the question of who, if anyone, may be personally liable for that breach is unsettled. That's a crucial distinction.
We also don't know if the emails between Wendy Alexander and Charlie Gordon demonstrate "due diligence, in the context of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part IV Chapter III 65 5
“Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any such requirements were complied with in relation to donations received by the party during the relevant reporting period.”
To briefly respond to your selection from the PPER Act 2000. I have bolded my own comments on the applicability of the Act just for clarity.
Thank you for acknowledging that the law was broken. Wendy also admits the illegality.
Here are applicable parts of the ACT including your own quote.
56.—(1) Where— Acceptance or
(a) a donation is received by a registered party, and
(b) it is not immediately decided that the party should (for whatever general.
reason) refuse the donation,all reasonable steps must be taken forthwith by or on behalf of the party to verify (or, so far as any of the following is not apparent, ascertain) the
identity of the donor, whether he is a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation.
Writing a letter of thanks to a donor in a foreign country is not a reasonable step to exercise due diligence to ensure that any such requirements were complied with..
And
Concealing the true source by misrepresenting the money came from a separate legal personality i.e. commercial firm in Glasgow as opposed to Jersey & why write a letter to Mr Green when it came from this firm; Wendy was thanking the original source
Part IV Chapter III
56.—(1) Where— Acceptance or
(a) a donation is received by a registered party, and
(b) it is not immediately decided that the party should (for whatever general reason) refuse the donation,all reasonable steps must be taken forthwith by or on behalf of the party to verify (or, so far as any of the following is not apparent, ascertain) the identity of the donor, whether he is a permissible donor,
Writing a letter of thanks to a donor in a foreign country is not a reasonable step to exercise due diligence to ensure that any such requirements were complied with.
And
Concealing the true source by misrepresenting the money came from a separate legal personality i.e. commercial firm in Glasgow as opposed to Jersey & why write a letter to Mr Green when it came from this firm; Wendy was thanking the original source.
Offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations
61.—(1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) knowingly enters into, or
(b) knowingly does any act in furtherance of, donations, any arrangement which facilitates or is likely to facilitate, whether by means of any concealment or disguise or otherwise, the making of donations to a registered party by any person or body other than a permissible donor.
Writing a letter of thanks to a donor in a foreign country is not a reasonable step to exercise due diligence to ensure that any such requirements were complied with..
And
Concealing the true source by misrepresenting the money came from a separate legal personality i.e. commercial firm in Glasgow as opposed to Jersey & why write a letter to Mr Green when it came from this firm; Wendy was thanking the original source.
Part IV Chapter II
Forfeiture of certain donations
58.—(1) This section applies to any donation received by a registered
donations made party— by impermissible or unidentifiable (a) which, by virtue of section 54(1)(a) or
(b), the party are donors. prohibited from accepting, but which has been accepted by the party.
(2) The court may, on an application made by the Commission, order
the forfeiture by the party of an amount equal to the value of the
donation.
(3)
The standard of proof in proceedings on an application under this
section shall be that applicable to civil proceedings.
Intentionality is irrelevant
65
The treasurer of a registered party also commits an offence if he delivers a donation report to the Commission which does not comply with any requirements of this Part as regards the recording of donations in such a report.
(5) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove that he took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that any such requirements were complied with
in relation to donations received by the party during the relevant reporting period.
Writing a letter of thanks to a donor in a foreign country is not a reasonable step to exercise due diligence to ensure that any such requirements were complied with..
(6) Where the court is satisfied, on an application made by the Commission, that any failure to comply with any such requirements in
relation to any donation to a registered party was attributable to an intention on the part of any person to conceal the existence or true
amount of the donation, the court may order the forfeiture by the party of an amount equal to the value of the donation.
Concealing the true source by misrepresenting the money came from a separate legal personality i.e. commercial firm in Glasgow as opposed to Jersey & why write a letter to Mr Green when it came from this firm; Wendy was thanking the original source.
Offences committed by unincorporated associations
153.—(1) Proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed under this Act by an unincorporated association shall be brought against committed by the association in its own name (and not in that of any of its members) and, for the purposes of any such proceedings, any rules of court relating associations to the service of documents shall have effect as if the association were a corporation.
The Wendy Campaign was an Unincorporated Association and so Accusation & offence therefore not in name of treasurer or donee but joint and several to all members of the campaign team.
(2) A fine imposed on an unincorporated association on its conviction
of an offence under this Act shall be paid out of the funds of the
association.
All members liable to contribute to fine
I think we can see that several sections of the act have been contravened and likely by several in the Wendy Campaign.
Posted by: westcoast, ayrshire on 11:08am Sun 27 Jan 08
Leaving aside party affiliations, we seem to have a clear cut choice. We can have elected members who are so incompetent they don't understand the rules they themselves created or we can have a more or less dodgy and untrustworthy crew who are pretty much out for all they can get and **** the rest of us. Oh and meantime the hand-wringing about the public losing faith/confidence/int
erest/the will to live in so called democracy. Ye couldnae write this stuff!
Leaving aside party affiliations, we seem to have a clear cut choice. We can have elected members who are so incompetent they don't understand the rules they themselves created or we can have a more or less dodgy and untrustworthy crew who are pretty much out for all they can get and **** the rest of us. Oh and meantime the hand-wringing about the public losing faith/confidence/int
erest/the will to live in so called democracy. Ye couldnae write this stuff!
Posted by: Bruce, Edinburgh on 11:28am Sun 27 Jan 08
It is quite clear that the electoral law was broken. If she resigns then that draws a line under it. If she stays on it is going to run. Wendy Alexander has not proved a match for Del Boy Salmond, Goldie sits on her every thursday. In fact the longer Wendy stays the worse it is going to get. She is not up to the job her brother has proved with the May muckup and the failed election he is not up to the job. The problem is Brown can't make a decision. He is not up to the job. Result is this is going to lead to independence and a Tory government in Westminster Brown Alexander and Alexander are slowly destroying the Labour party. Putting their own personal ambitions before the party of the people is going to destroy it.
It is quite clear that the electoral law was broken. If she resigns then that draws a line under it. If she stays on it is going to run. Wendy Alexander has not proved a match for Del Boy Salmond, Goldie sits on her every thursday. In fact the longer Wendy stays the worse it is going to get. She is not up to the job her brother has proved with the May muckup and the failed election he is not up to the job. The problem is Brown can't make a decision. He is not up to the job. Result is this is going to lead to independence and a Tory government in Westminster Brown Alexander and Alexander are slowly destroying the Labour party. Putting their own personal ambitions before the party of the people is going to destroy it.
Posted by: subrosa on 11:28am Sun 27 Jan 08
I know the following belongs to the Paul Hutcheon thread but it's worth posting here too in my opinion:
Commenting on attacks from the Labour Party on Scottish Government action to resolve difficulties in the Aviemore development, a spokesperson for Alex Salmond said:
“Rapid government action potentially saved hundreds of jobs in the Highlands, and enabled a decision to be taken on an important economic development. To any right thinking person, that is a matter of pride and achievement.
“Ministers responded to urgent concerns raised by a cross-party group of MSPs, and took action to resolve the breakdown in communications between a government agency and a developer that was threatening delay and lost jobs in the Highlands. That was the entire basis and extent of the government’s involvement.
“With the necessary permission of the MSPs and local MP concerned, we will be absolutely delighted to put this correspondence in the public domain, so that everyone can judge the issue for themselves and see the urgency of the position that faced the government.
“The Labour Party have been peddling this story round the media for days, but one of their own MSPs, Rhoda Grant, was one of the local parliamentarians demanding action from Ministers to prevent a jobs disaster in the Highlands, and blaming government agencies for dilatory behaviour.
“This is a government that takes responsibility and solves problems – we don’t moan about them.
“It is extraordinary that when people in government and public agencies work hard, and do their job properly, openly and above board, they should be attacked for doing so.
“The decision was made by the Cairngorms National Park Authority – not by government. Labour’s suggestion that the First Minister was influenced by Mr Donald Macdonald being an SNP donor is absurd. They have never even discussed the issue. Mr Salmond was approached by a cross-party group of MSPs on 6 December and acted to help resolve the issue on 7 December.
“It is not openly declared donors we need worry about in public life – it is Labour’s secret donors.”
Note:
On 6 December, the First Minister was presented with letters on behalf of an all-party group of local MSPs suggesting that Scottish Government agencies were foot-dragging in submitting reports regarding the Aviemore planning application to the planning authority (1).
MSPs from across the parties informed
Comment | Read Comments (119)