Wow! Right on the ball, aren’t we? I believe this interview was last week before Ruth Turner’s? Or is it the old one on 2nd October 2006 as in the article below? (They are referring to Ms Turner’s earlier interview here, obviously.)

What are you so excited about? He and the leader of the Scottish Parlaiment, Jack McConnell, were both interviewed last week.
…………………………………………………………..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2384632,00.html

“John McTernan, the Prime Minster’s director of political operations and one of his closest aides, has also been interviewed under caution by Scotland Yard. Mr McTernan, who was interviewed on the same day as Ms Turner, is thought to have been involved in the preparation of names to be nominated for peerages.”
…………………………………………………………..

Another interviewee at that time, who didn’t get a lot of publicity is Robert Edmiston:

“A TORY multimillionaire businessman, whose peerage nomination was blocked by the House of Lords watchdog, has been questioned under caution by the police as part of the honours-for-sale investigation that has engulfed the Labour Party.

The Times has learnt that Robert Edmiston, who converted a £2 million loan into a donation this year to help to avert a potential funding crisis, is one of a number of rich Tory donors who have been questioned by the police in the cash-for-peerages inquiry.

He was questioned by detectives about the secret loan deal that he struck with the Conservative Party which had the effect of circumventing the law that requires all donations of £5,000 or more to be made public.

The revelation that Mr Edmiston, one of the most influential financial backers of the Tory party, has been interviewed by detectives explains why the Conservatives, who gathered in Bournemouth yesterday for David Cameron’s first conference as leader, have been reluctant to intervene in Downing Street’s difficulties.”

Er…yes.

So, what are your odds? And reasons for the 28th?

And when exactly was the interview to which you refer? Last week?

You’re having SUCH fun. I’ll bet you can hardly sleep, with the excitement of it all ;0)

Are you referring to this Michael White article?

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_white/2007/01/post_949.html

Well, who knows? Certainly if you believe that they are all manipulative and capable of purposely dropping a young woman in it if it keeps the law off their backs, maybe so. Or it could just be that, as Blair’s “gatekeeper”, her home computer would be the one to investigate if the police wanted to do so.

I don’t want to spend the coming days and weeks trying to work out motive and purpose, not even those of the police. By nature I tend to take people on trust. It makes for a more contented life.

Although I have not been too happy with Ms Turner’s treatment, I can accept that it was better for the police to knock THAT door than Number 10’s. In any case, presumably they wanted to check her home computer, since they may already have hacked into those at Downing Street.

I’m still not convinced that pursuing this line of inquiry was necessary at all. Unless we find bodies in TB’s garden, or something equally criminal, I don’t think I’m going to be convinced that it was a good idea. But, as I say to the See-I-Effers, let’s not judge until it’s over.

Btw, you’ll notice I didn’t publish your earlier post, Tony. As you will understand, I really don’t agree with your analysis of how bad everything is in the country, nor the constituency reasons why, and I’m not going to post that kind of opinion here.

I DO appreciate your postings, though, as you are a thoughtful contributor. But these pages could be full of the vitriol and venom of the great unsatisfied elements of the British public if I published everything I received criticising their policies etc.

This blog is specifically to Support Tony Blair. There are hundreds of places for those ultra-critical to have their say. Hope you don’t mind.

My family have had recent NHS experience which I cannot praise highly enough. But as for the NHS, so for Blair - the nays have it!

Life is like that, these police are on this case, and no other I suppose. I am afraid people are that manipulative and self seeking.

These are loans for peerages accusations, and that is a good deal less serious than the at times routine corruption in previous governments. Cash for questions was the most obvious.

At least one lawyer MP even demanded payment in shares in a small company for drafting a bill which only an MP could introduce in Mrs Thatcher’s day, and that was quite legal as I understand it! Scandalous though.

I am perfectly prepared to admit I don’t like NuLabs project, so here goes “I don’t like NuLabs project”. Although I would ask you what is NuLabs project?
Is it to get elected, if so they have been highly successful and should be sadly for me, commended.
Is it to reform our society on the back of their vast majorities, to build a more fair and egalitarian society? If so, they what a let-down, our society is less fair and wealth is less evenly distributed than under the Thatcher or (awful) Major governments.
Is it to reform our public services, to give us an NHS that meets the needs of our people, a criminal justice system that protects the weak and the innocent and punishes the guilty and the criminal. What a joke! In the NHS we have spent epic sums of money yet have a service that is barely acceptable (sadly I can speak from bitter family experience) or a justice system that hands out fixed penalty notices to muggers and street robbers in London?
Is it to protect the poorest members of our society? We end up with half cocked working family credits…..
I digress…..
We are talking about political corruption, let me quote you some Labour examples to see if you will concede any points.
It is a fact that for investment in transport if you are in a Labour held constituency you are far more likely to get additional funding. In the NHS if you are in a labour constituency you are again far more likely not to have your services cut (the source is the Tories so you’ll probably dispute this)…Cuts! After all we have spent on the NHS. The mind boggles!

For me Labour got into power partially (or maybe mostly) because of the petty-corruption of the Major government. In power Labour have indulged in industrial scale sleaze and cronyism (look at the numbers of people excusing themselves from oversight of “Loans” for Lordships investigations because of links to either Tony Blair or the Labour Party! Or the board of the Lottery Commission, not many Tories there! Don’t get me started on the BBC and it’s labour ranks).
With regard to “Loans” for Lordships. Contrary to your assertions, Blair and the Labour Party may have broken four separate laws (ironically two of which Labour introduced).
1. Accepting party finance in return for promises of enoblement is illegal under the 1925 Act Prevention of Abuses (Honours).
2. Failing to declare the loans to parliament is illegal under PPERA 2000…based on the evidence in the media.
3. Failing to declare, er, 14M in loans in the party accounts is false accounting and in breach of the companies act and PPERA 2000 (I believe)
4. And the biggie…hiding or concealing evidence, lying to the police and being obstructive, wearing out the blades on the No.10 shredder. Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice…Your outrage about her being pulled from her bed at 0630 is misplaced. This is a very very serious allegation, with very harsh penalties as it goes to the heart of our criminal justice system.

Finally, do you think Tony could go onto TV tonight and claim to be a “Pretty Straight Kind of Guy”?

Thought it was only politicians who were so inclined!

I don’t know if the Police are really up to something - trying to manipulate public opinion against the government - who, as you suggest are everyone’s fall guys. The police have had their hand strengthened by this government, so they should think twice about this if this is the case.

It just feels to me that Yates of the Yard wants to show off his much-heralded policing acumen and go down in history as the man who got Tony Blair. I could be wrong, of course.

Whatever, Blair will get the blame, either prosecuted or not. I expect we’ll need to wait a few years for his memoirs to disover his take on it all.

I still don’t see this lot as any worse than any previous government, in fact for personal weaknesses and “scandals” over ten years, they seem better than the last Tory government.

Some rich people give to charities and many also to political parties, that much is not at all new. These people have been lending money to political parties, which seems intended to be an evasion of the publicity which ensues from large donations.

That has made the public, and especially the crazies who suffer from Chronic anti-Blair/authority Hyperbolic Invective addiction.

The police seem to have acted in a bullying way to Blair’s aide, perhaps calculatedly to provoke the kind of establishment reaction which occurred. Seems likely they aren’t getting anywhere. When there are no prosecutions the politicians will be to blame - the Attorney General is it? Blair’s cronies they will say.

It can be taken as read that the police, on the whole, want a change of government. The idea that politicians are fair game is almost universal now.

To answer your points:

In 1) you have to believe that the direct correllation between labour donors and lordships is usual in politics (no it is not) and all Labours financial dealings have been totally proper (no they haven’t - in which case why did they give £1M back to Bernie Ecclestone?)”

I believe that the direct correlation between donors and lordships in ALL political parties is as clear as day and always has been. I don’t think it’s a good thing, but it’s nothing new. So how many other PMs and governments are going to be squeezed into the dock with Blair & co?

As to the question of Ecclestone, yes I concede that you have a point there, but they DID return the money when they realised how it was being interpreted. Not good enough for you, though it might be argued, if every case in history was looked at in detail, better than MOST administrations have done in the past.

I have never said that “all their financial dealings have been totally proper”. I, nor you, am not party to that kind of insider information. I should imagine that they use the rules to their best advantage as we all do in life.

I just don’t pass judgement on anyone until they are tried and found guilty. You obviously know better than I and can judge at THIS stage.

Your second point:

“2) Blair & Co. are as guilty as hell and Insp. Yates will hopefully nail them.

In 2) you have to believe that basically Blair is a spiv who whilst not personally corrupt certainly believes that the end justifies the means, so what if he gives out a few peerages, the “loans” enable NuLab to continue in its “project”. This is what I believe.”

A spiv - “Its first known use in print was in 1934: “Spiv, petty crook who will turn his hand to anything so long as it does not involve honest work”.

Blair? I don’t think so. Haven’t seen a PM work so hard, even now, under such personal stress.

The “loans”, “donations” whatever you call them are THE NORM! This money helps ANY and EVERY party continue their projects.

Admit it - you just don’t like New Labour’s project.

As to the cover-up, yes I agree here. I don’t know if you have seen Simon Jenkins’ article from May last year, but for once he was on the government’s side.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1776455,00.html

As for being “above the law”, well, they might be hoist on their own petard if their own recent law, brought in to promote transparency, is used against them. They are obviously NOT above the law. Well, no more than the Police themselves.

I just don’t think this inquiry should have been started in the first place, and for that I blame the ScotNats for instigating it as well as the Police for taking it on. Obviously neither of them have anything better to do than try to bring down a government/PM whose main sin is to have upset some of us.

How petty.

In 1) you have to believe that the direct correllation between labour donors and lordships is usual in politics (no it is not) and all Labours financial dealings have been totally proper (no they haven’t - in which case why did they give £1M back to Bernie Ecclestone?)
In 2) you have to believe that basically Blair is a spiv who whilst not personally corrupt certainly believes that the end justifies the means, so what if he gives out a few peerages, the “loans” enable NuLab to continue in its “project”. This is what I believe

Remember that it’s not the offence that damages governments but the cover-up (see Watergate).

Perhaps you don’t think Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice a serious offence and share the view of Puttnam, Blunkett (a politician with credibility!! Not) and Jowell (the one of the dodgy and tax avoiding multiple mortgages) to think the police are prima-donnas and it’s grandstanding to arrest someone of Ruth Turners importance for a crime she’s clearly innocent of.
Well, if that is the case you seem to believe that Labour is above the law and are in for a big shock.