Leaks, Leaks & More Leaks …

• Home page
• All Contents of Site – Index
• Brown Stuff
• Tony Blair – VERY Latest

Comment on any of the pages or posts here by scrolling to end

[Pic: The honours saga worried Blair deeply even though he never expected it to turn out any differently than it eventually did.]

Saturday 28 July, 2007

Now that the CPS has finally come to its senses and thrown out the whole silly business of cash-for-honours, is there going to be a re-assessment of the culture of leaking?

Yes, I know it’s hard to stop something like this, partly because it is simply impossible to contain everyone’s actions, but also because some of us feel that “they asked for it”. In other words, for example, if it is the government under fire and being leaked against, THEY STARTED IT!

Alastair Campbell and the ‘spinning’ phenomenon which became the norm seems to take a lot of blame for this. Of course, a lot of the spin culture was as a result of Labour’s previous inability to get its message out. Labour had suffered greatly at the hands of much of the press , e.g. – Neil Kinnock in 1992 – The Sun – “will the last one out of UK, put out the lights” etc.

Campbell, after Blair’s success at getting the support of much of the right wing printed press, notably Murdoch’s, felt the need to manage the situation rather than be managed by it.

Wouldn’t we all prefer to be able to do that?

Much of the current disdain and pretty distasteful treatment and lambasting of Blair and Campbell as “liars” is to do with the fact that they were NOT beaten by the press.

True, Campbell left wounded and exhausted in 2002, but Blair struggled on without his right-hand man and still managed to win a third election. In other words he couldn’t have been seen as a completely untrustworthy individual, despite the press’s best efforts.

Where all the leaking came from is almost by the by. And it may simply be that the belief that a government or leader are only permitted a certain number of years and/or errors of judgement before people begin to think – “enough”.

I just hope that a cosensus is reached whereby it is stopped, and soon. The honeymoon period for the ‘new’ government will not last long. Scribblers will be ata it over August, constructing their arguments as to why GBPM just can’t be trusted. And we will lap it up.
That, folks, is what we’re like.

Sad, isn’t it?

Tuesday 5th June, 2007

Presumably to quell the speculation and rumour mongering as to where exactly the leaks are coming from the CPS has said that they HAVE asked the police to make further inquiries in their investigation of the cash for honours case. A CPS spokeswoman said the development was “a normal part of the review process”, but refused to clarify what additional information was being sought.

This can be interpreted both ways, of course. One, Inspector Yates’ evidence so far is NOT strong enough OR two, it just needs one or two more ‘facts’ to make the whole thing watertight.

So they’ve quelled that ‘rumour’, but what about the other one? The one about the possibility of Blair being a prosecution witness rather than acting for the defence?

REMINDER: Until now, speculation that Mr Blair might be called upon to give evidence envisaged his appearance as a defence – not a prosecution – witness to support his party colleagues. But detectives now hope his evidence will prevent the pair [Levy & Turner] from claiming they were acting “under orders”.

Lord Levy, in particular, has made it clear that he will not act as a “fall guy” for his friend and tennis partner Mr Blair, and has told allies that he expects the Prime Minister to back his account of events.

So are the police going to come clean and admit to this tack too? Or is The Telegraph to contiue to keep its sources secret?

You know what I think and hope. But it looks like we’ll have to wait a bit longer.

Hopefully if the police DO try to strengthen their hand they WON’T pursue Mr Blair for an interview under caution, or provide the ravenous press with some juicy pictures as he leaves Downing Street.

Sunday 3rd June, 2007

CASH FOR HONOURS

Two conflicting newspaper reports today.

The Sunday Telegraph says that detectives are pressing for Tony Blair to be called as a prosecution witness in any trial resulting from the cash-for-honours investigation. It says:

• The surprise disclosure will raise the spectre of Mr Blair becoming the first serving or former prime minister to give evidence to a criminal court.

And the News of The World says the whole case is likely to be dropped.
More leaks?

See an explanation of what it means when someone is quizzed by the police.

Sunday 27th May, 2007

Haven’t posted here for a month because the leakers went under water, I mean under cover while the local elections were running.

Now they’re back. The Independent, with its usual ‘unprejudiced’ editorial take on anything much to do with Mr Blair (!) is telling us that the Police have been asked to look again at the evidence they have presented to the CPS. The Indie says that this is a sign that the CPS HAS something BIG and might be about to question the Prime Minister under caution, perhaps when he leaves office.

It might. It might also be an indication that the CPS does NOT have inarguable evidence, but want to be sure not to leave any stone unturned before filing it away in the “no case to answer” pile. If the Indie had pointed out that this MIGHT be the outcome I’d have more respect for them.

As it is, they are LEAKING again – and I still want to know – WHERE’S THE SOURCE OF THE LEAKS?

Thursday 26th April, 2007

Plug The Leak Dave

Perhaps David Cameron should stop throwing insinuations and thinly veiled accusations at the government. It seems it is more likely to have been the Police than the Home Office who leaked on Birmingham. The Tory leader will have to tune his political antennae a bit if he thinks it is always so obvious who the villains are in life and politics; it seldom is. It could even have been someone closer to home, with the intent of making it LOOK like the Government. Who knows knows. That’s evidently not DC; or is it?

Wednesday 25th April, 2007

Who’s leaking?

At today’s PMQs David Cameron called on Tony Blair for a public inquiry as to where the leaks were coming from, referred to by DAC Peter Clark. The PM replied:

• “Let me make it absolutely clear that I completely condemn any leaks of sensitive information from whatever quarter.”

A bit rich of Mr Cameron to imply that the leaks were coming from government, ministers, civil servants or supporters. Is he also going to call for inquiries into all the other leaks that have been going on over the cash-for-honours business, or does that not bother him quite so much? Or were the Police the guilty party here? And does Mr Cameron want to keep friendly with the constabulary in case they’re thinking of charging Conservatives in the cash-for-honours inquiry?

In any case, who is to know who leaked and on whose behalf in the Birmingham case? It’s all a shady, opaque scene, and not beyond manipulation.

Mr Clarke also re-iterated Mr Blair’s comments about the indoctrination of terrorism, but strangely enough this does not seem to concern Mr Cameron quite as much as dishing the dirt on the government.

Tuesday 24th April, 2007

“LEAKERS beneath contempt”

The head of the anti-terror squad, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, assessing the level of threat the UK faces from terrorist threats, is concerned over leaks. He said the threat from terrorism is “deadly, enduring and to a significant extent targeted at the UK.” People are leaking intelligence to the media over security issues, and no-one is sure who is leaking and to whom. There are many who are in on intelligence these days and several bodies, organisations or individuals with motives to leak. There are deep concerns over the lack of trust in the police and in intelligence. Since the Iraq dossier, it seems, people are mistrustful over external intelligence gathering.

I say – REMOVE the vehicle for the dissemination of leaks, the British press, and the sources will dry up.

Sunday 22nd April, 2007

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith said today that since the CPS had been handed Inspector Yates’s papers on the cash-for-loans investigation the leaks “had not been helpful”.

A bit of an under-statement, I’d have thought, since the no-smoke without fire advocates are once again jumping around in a frenzy of toddler-like excitement. The nationalist parties feel exonerated for instigating this nonsense in the first place and are hoping to cash in on May 3rd when the country goes to the polls in local and Welsh and Scottish elections.

And yet, and yet … the CPS in retort to the leaks, says that no-one (including the police) can ‘recommend’ charges be brought against anyone. The police only have the power to provide their evidence, not to recommend charges.

The Attorney General hinted today that there are questions to be answered resulting from the leaks and allegations which in time should be dealt with, regardless of the CPS’s decisions.

And so they should.

Even if people are charged, tried and thrown in the slammer, I contend that “trial by media” is WRONG for anyone. And trial by media is what we have been getting, notwithstanding the fact that some elements of the media have been better behaved than others.

You really have to question whether this is a concerted effort to blacken the name of a political party and/or politics in general; or even if there is a wider, more sinister motive. If the facts stand up for themselves without leaking – WHY LEAK?

The leaking pollutes the political waters, as coincidentally, in the Firth of Forth sewage problem today.

It also weakens support for the party under investigation, by association with those ‘accused’, and as a result hands support to other parties (possibly the nationalists whose long-term aim is to break up the UK.)

It should make us sit up and take notice. It might be expected that the Tory- supporting Telegraph would be delighted to discredit Labour with accusations of a plan to target high paying donors. After all the Tories don’t want or need Labour treading on THEIR ground!

And it might be expected that the press would love the opportunity to show that ‘purer than pure’ Mr Blair had been a bit stained from the beginning by political polution.

In a strong democracy such are to be expected. What is NOT to be expected or accepted is that the Police can leak to the all-pervasive media the “inside knowledge” that ALL of Mr Blair’s inner circle are to be charged. They do NOT know if anyone is to be charged. Theirs is not the place to make out that they DO know.

We are not yet a Police state, and in the struggle between a democratically elected government headed by civilians and seemingly unaccountable police leakers, give me democracy any day.

The press, and the rest of us should ponder on that.

---

Sunday 25th March, 2007

LATEST LEAK – BLAIR WOULD HAVE RESIGNED IF QUESTIONED UNDER CAUTION It seems that the leakers are at it again according to today’s Telegraph. Other bloggers have extended on this. For example some say it is “an unnamed Blairite, political intermediary, thought to be Lord Goldsmith”, who cautioned the police against their desire to question Tony Blair as a suspect. This unnamed personage stated that the Prime Minister would have to resign if he was questioned, under caution, as a suspect as opposed to merely being questioned as a potential witness.The inference by those reporting this leak is that the police allowed themselves to be subjected to political blackmail.Such critics say that if Tony Blair felt he had to resign – that’s OK with them!

They say, for example, that since “we already know that Tony Blair has been caught out telling lies”, his resignation would have been fine!Rubbish as usual. We DO NOT KNOW that he has been caught out telling lies. Some people, who hate him anyway, have interpreted his words that way. They would, wouldn’t they? The Sunday Telegraph has the story. And Downing Street has a different take on the whole thing from the Met. So, what’s new then?

---

Sunday 18th March, 2007

Sir Christopher Evans, Labour donor arrested last year, says that he and Lord Levy are being made scapegoats. It is presumed that the scapegoaters are the press according to a BBC report. Referring to discussions he admits he had with Lord Levy over honours, he says he was never offered anything by Lord Levy and seems to hint that he will pursue every avenue to clear his name if the scapegoating continues.Tuesday 6th MarchI’ve written it all on other pages. Click here to see what I think about incompetent plumbers and here to see just how much Mr Blair owes me!

Sunday 4th March, 2007

You can never get a decent plumber these days, can you? The leaks have returned. Drip…drip…drip… The police leakers are complaining about the Downing Street leakers. I’ve often been lumbered with that sort of workman – you know the sort – “that other guy is a real cowboy”. See here for the latest on leaks and leakers.

Saturday 3rd March, 2007

Apropos the posting below: The news of the Attorney General’s injunction against the BBC, at the request of the police, NOT Number 10, is a reminder to the leakers to dry up! I have an update to this news on this page.

Thursday 1st March, 2007

If ever we needed proof that the leaking of a few weeks ago was unusual, the evidence is with us now. The great lack of leaking! We, the public, should have been treated like this all the way along. The police, the government and the press should have behaved like this all the way through the honours fiasco. Now that they are playing like grown-ups, the point is made. Many of us were concerned at the time that the leaks were doing great damage to public trust in all three pillars of the state.

This comment by Prospect Magazine echoes this viewpoint and makes some other interesting points too.I just wonder what will be said, or leaked in the next phase of the honours inquiry? We can but wait.

Tuesday 20th February, 2007

Amazingly quiet still! Perhaps the leakers have learned a lesson or two about rights and responsibilities in an open democratic society. Or are they just poking surreptitiously around the pipework in preparation for the next deluge?
Sunday 11 February, 2007

Sunday Papers time again.Today a Guardian report says that it has been revealed that Tony Blair made a private and supportive phone call to Lord Levy just hours after the chief Labour fundraiser had been arrested and questioned about perverting the course of justice in the cash-for-honours investigation. The call to Levy and his wife, confirmed to The Observer by a senior Whitehall source, was made at a time when the Prime Minister was keeping secret, at the request of police, the fact that he had been questioned for a second time by detectives.

Hello! Wasn’t this a “media blackout”? Not a personal freedom to ring friends blackout! I have already stated elsewhere that the Prime Minister is certainly NOT to be treated as “above” the law. But, as a result of the high profile and very public nature of the inquiry, he seems to be treated at times as “beneath” the law. Now he is being castigated for making a call to a friend in his hour of need! How pathetic! I realise that Blair hunters will be looking for any crumb they can. But, Mr Blair will have been informed by the police that they were looking to question someone some time within the next few days. He may have been told who it was, he may not. The understanding was, presumably, that AFTER that interview had taken place, the PM was free to continue life as normal (or as normal as his life must feel at this time).

Surely, since he is in the eye of the storm, as is Levy, it is human nature for them to want to discuss matters. Certainly if they had not been in contact following Levy’s interview, the innuendo already perpetuated by some in the media, that Blair was leaving Levy to sink or swim on his own, would have been exacerbated.

Although the press and public were not aware of the blackout until two days after Levy’s interview, surely it is just as likely as not, that Mr Blair had been informed that he was free to call whomsoever after the said interview had taken place? Wouldn’t you and I have expected the same? Or would you and I have to lock ourselves away in monastic silence indefinitely until the gutter press had got a hold of the story, put their slant on it, and got that into the public domain freely and with no sanctions.

But of course the press would not have done that about you or me. The PM is different. Which is why I am pleased to see that Iain Blair is calling for an inquiry into the whole inquiry and its impact on government, after its completion. And can you imagine if Blair had not rung Levy. The papers would have had a field day. Really, we cannot have a position where there is one law for the PM and one law for the rest of us.

The Yard said the news blackout, which lasted for six days, was requested for ‘operational reasons’, but it is understood that the police did not want Lord Levy to know about the second interview “before he was rearrested.”

So, after he was re-arrested is quite, quite different.

Thursday 8th February, 2007

All reasonably quiet on the Westminster front – more or less.

At the Downing Street press call this morning, the PMOS answered questions on the recently released man arrested in Birmingham and his comments on a “police state”:

“Put to him that it was troubling to someone who had been arrested and then released, who on release discovered that their caricature had to some extent been traduced for the last week by leaks, the PMOS replied by asking the journalist where these leaks came from. People should identify where the leaks came from as they were not in any way approved by Government. On the day of the operation, both the Home Secretary and the Attorney General went on the record to say that the media should avoid unhelpful speculation. He had read that out at Lobby.

Asked that since the Government did not approve these leaks, was there to be a formal investigation into the way in which police information came out, the PMOS replied that it was for the police to regulate themselves, and it was not for him to comment on that. It was important that on this occasion, the Home Secretary and the Attorney General responded to the genuine concern that speculation could either inhibit the investigation, or lead to problems further down the road if these cases went to court. That was why they issued the statement on the day.

Asked if he was calling on journalists to reveal their sources, the PMOS replied that he had seen what he believed to be inaccurate criticism of Whitehall. But it was not for him to say.”

Tuesday 6th February, 2007

News today that the CPS will NOT be charging Des Smith. So that’s one fewer that we can leak about. Wrong-footed the press, eh? Didn’t notice much about THIS in yesterday’s or Sunday’s papers! The plumber’s doing a good job.

Monday, 5th February, 2007

It seems today’s Times has also been at the receiving end of a leak courtesy of who knows who !

It’s a repeat of yesterday’s leak, more or less, saying that Tony Blair may be questioned for a third time, and that three may be charged in the near future.

Whether there is something in this or not, the leaking seems extraordinary. Those in the firing line at the moment, whether the leaks are genuine or not, would be right to feel there is some injustice afoot. Are they being manipulated, cast at each others’ throats to help the Police secure a case where none has been found so far? Reports that Lord Levy said he “will not swing for the PM” are eye-catching; but are these reports true? Who knows?

In such a high profile inquiry, this constant daily search for the latest twists feeds the avaricious press and the prejudiced minds of those who wish the government and/or Prime Minister harm.

It is wrong. But nothing will stop it, and all the rest of us can do is to hope that in the end justice will be done and will be seen to be done.

There may be not the slightest chance of anyone who might be charged receiving a fair trial after all this “evidence of wrongdoing” has been so publicly rehearsed by the media. If the CPS have concerns about that, the “case” may be dropped.

The lesson then might that perhaps the press in this country is sometimes TOO free with its behaviour.

What a thing to learn and what a way to learn it.

I sincerely hope this is not the case, as freedom of the press is vitally important. But, where do freedom and responsibility meet in this kind of high profile situation where such questions are being asked of the political establishment?

I don’t know – I only ask the question.

And all over a gong or two … how ludicrous.

---