I'm not surprised he's said he'll resign. If she's charged Blair's position will be untenable. Given that she's an advisor, it's hard to believe that he didn't know what she was doing. The political shit-storm would blow him away in pretty short order anyway so he might as well resign and get it over and done with.
Key No 10 aide arrested in Cash for Honours affair
- Thread starter Bernie Gunther
- Start date
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
The Al-Capone analogy is a good one. A mass killer brought down for fiddling the books. Not that I'll shed a tear to see our Dear Leader escorted down the local cop-shop, regardless of the charge. (Sadly that Trial of Tony Blair image of his hypocritical horror at being forcibly DNA-ed remains fantasy: he gave samples to the database years ago. He needs to believe his own spin. A truly strange man.)
Actually, in a way, a tawdry corruption trial would be the perfect end. A war crimes tribunal would feed into Blair's delusions of martyrdom. He is not a fearsome tyrant; he's an insignificant void who mistakes power gained through others' weakness for courage. He just doesn't justify the epic dénouement.
Flushed away like a rat into a sewer of his own making. That feels right.
Actually, in a way, a tawdry corruption trial would be the perfect end. A war crimes tribunal would feed into Blair's delusions of martyrdom. He is not a fearsome tyrant; he's an insignificant void who mistakes power gained through others' weakness for courage. He just doesn't justify the epic dénouement.
Flushed away like a rat into a sewer of his own making. That feels right.
Do they? Last time I looked they were still troubled by the need to, er, actually find some evidence ...Azrael said:
And if (as here) the evidence is likely to either come from the suspect in interview or need to be put to / explained by the suspect in interview, how exactly do they do that?TAE said:
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
only prob; if blair is a mass killer, so is LBJ, so is (say) balfour, so was prez McKinley....they took us into a war on shameful grounds, but it's still a eway short of himmler & coAzrael said:
I was not being completely serious ... only about 60% serious.detective-boy said:
However, if the evidence needs to be put to / explained by the suspect, they should certainly get it before arresting the suspect.
If various sources are to be believed (and generally they should not) then the police did get the evidence before arresting her.
teqniq
DisMembered
It seems that some of the evidence that led to the arrest was obtained by hacking into #10's computer systems:
More here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/21/npeers21.xml
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Unless they've changed it, charge comes automatically with arrest in Scotland. The Scottish coppers can detain someone for six hours' questioning before an official arrest, but apparently arrest/charge often follows straight away. And of course there's also post-charge questioning before a magistrate/procurator fiscal (I forget which) to gain further evidence. They certainly don't have to meet the CPS ("conviction more likely than not" isn't it?) standard to charge.detective-boy said:
Not that I'm bothered much either way here, I just want this tawdry saga to decide which way it's heading! UK's been in political limbo since that failed Labour coup last Autum: I want to start sizing up the new order. (Which, given the size of him, will take some time.
)
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Talking about interviews, how do the police decide to arrest as opposed to interviewing under caution without arrest (as they've done with the vast majority of the cash-for-honours suspects).detective-boy said:
Is this special consideration for members of the elite who don't fancy having their prints/DNA filed away, or standard procedure?
The law is that a caution is required if the officers have any grounds to suspect the person may have committed an offence. If they interview without caution (i.e. simply as a witness) and the person makes admissions then they may be ruled inadmissible if a caution has not been administered. There are no hard and fast rules about this - it is a professional judgement decision for the officer.Azrael said:
If, however, an officer decides that a person may have committed an offence and, hence, they caution, they must also provide other information about legal advice, etc. including the fact that they are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time. If the officer has formed the opinion that (a) they have a power of arrest (and they may not have for some minor / consequential offences which rely on the conditions required to permit the use of the power of arrest in s.24(5)) and (b) that if the person trieds to leave then they will arrest them then the law obliges the arrest to be made at the outset.
The changed power of arrest (brought in by SOCPA s.110) allows arrest only where a variety of conditions apply. The vast majority of these would not arise in relation to the edges of this type of enquiry (as they involve absconding, harm to people, loss of property, etc) and so it is now even more common practice (and it has been pretty common for years in fraud and similar enquiries) for bit part players to be interviewed under caution but not under arrest.
The other issue which will be considered is whether or not the additional powers which come with arrest (such as the taking of samples to ID or the bringing of powers to search, seize property, etc.) are required in the particular case. Again, around the edges of this type of enquiry the answer is usually not.
I suspect the arrest of Kelly has been because of suspicions that evidence has been destroyed / hidden and so the powers would be needed (as cooperation was now considered unreliable) and the arrest condition of it being necessary under: "s.24(5)(e) - to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question" now became justifiable.
I think the suggestions that there has been an attempt at a cover-up has very, very significantly increased the chances of evidence sufficient for charges being found. Computer based communication is exceptionally prone to leaving an audit trail despite the best attempts at attempting to clear it up. Not only does the originating machine have to be comprehensively "cleaned" to remove all traces but so do all servers that e-mails have passed through, all recipients machines, etc., etc., etc. IF any e-mails have been "lost" then I would be extremely optimistic that some proof of their existence and, probably their content, will be found. There has been a suggestion that an informant suggested the existence of the e-mails the police are now seeking - if such an informant is in communication with the police (i.e. can be asked questions, is not anonymous) then they are likely to be able to provide more than sufficient information about where to look.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
The justification being given for the dawn raid is that it makes a cover-up harder to sort out. The irony is that these people are more likely to be exposed to charges for perverting the course of justice, or obstruction, than for breaches of the statute on sale of honours.
teqniq
DisMembered
^^^
True I would imagine - if or when it gets to court I wonder if we'll see parallels with this trial?
True I would imagine - if or when it gets to court I wonder if we'll see parallels with this trial?
It depends what they mean by "hacking". If it's on-line and in real-time then it is Interception of Communications type stuff (very senior officer approval, then to Home Secretary ...TAE said:No search warrant issued by a court needed then?
).If it is using a power of entry and mirroring a hard drive unit, it could be done under a variety of different powers depending on the context, some requiring a senior officers consent, some requiring a court warrant.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
If those powers weren't triggered by arrest, do you think significantly fewer people would be arrested? (Not wanting to re-open that rights and wrongs from that warrant thread, just curious.)detective-boy said:
Thanks for the detailed answer BTW. One point: the retention of samples have made arrest a far more draconian power than procedures written before the change in the law seem to allow. Is the retention ever factored in to the decision to arrest? (Yep, I am digging for more grounds to attack this policy with.
)I don't think so, in the big scheme of things. There are relatively few cases where that is the only reason for arrest (it tends to be in a few, complex, long-running or serious cases like murders where a detailed "arrest strategy" is thought out).Azrael said:
The bit about samples being taken and kept is, however, likely to encourage rule bending / breaking in a small number of cases and it is one of the reasons I believe it is misguided as well as a breach of natural justice.
Keeps getting 'better'
While I distrust 'sources' on principle, this would be quite a story.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/dome...enies-secret-email-honours-claims-$464336.htm
Downing Street are denying everything.
While I distrust 'sources' on principle, this would be quite a story.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/dome...enies-secret-email-honours-claims-$464336.htm
Downing Street are denying everything.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I'd imagine it's the normal media sensationalism - easy enough to 'hide' content on your pc and require a password to access stuff people don't know is there anyway. Journo's would certainly turn that into some Hollywood high tech thriller scenario.
Be interesting to know the dates Ruth Turner and others started deleting emails - whether 'hidden' or not - as that would have quite a bearing on any 'Intention to Pervert the Course of Justice' . . .
Be interesting to know the dates Ruth Turner and others started deleting emails - whether 'hidden' or not - as that would have quite a bearing on any 'Intention to Pervert the Course of Justice' . . .
It sounds to me like they had a second e-mail server (for internal communications only) and while there's nothing wrong with that in itself, the article says that the find is linked to the aid's arrest on suspicion to pervert the course of justice - so the deletion dates might be highly significant. But like I said, I distrust these kinds of journalistic 'sources' on principle.
Similar threads
- Poll
