'Given the nature of the offence under Section 65 (3) of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which creates an offence of strict liability which is committed regardless of whether it is deliberate or negligent', writes the Huntsman (on whose legal arm Angels would lay their sleeping head), 'he [Peter Hain] should have gone the moment that he admitted failing to comply with the reporting requirements under Section 65 (1) of the Act in relation to the huge amounts of money his campaign received in the latter half of 2007.'
If Hain then, surely Harman too, and most certainly Wendy Alexander (unless it's different in Scotland - it often is these days).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
A reader of Auden, I see. Not faithless, though, I ween.
They may yet do HG bu the delay may have helped. thr Hian resignation and cabimet reshuffle will take the headlines now .
Funnuy thing is that Brown has hated Hain for years..in fact it is the one and only thing I like about him .
We don't know who we all are, do we S? But we make our minds up who we believe. I wish I'd acted when you kept saying 'here we go. be in gold, at least be in cash.' (if I understood correctly). H does law.
Do you ever wish you had been born sooner, so as to know all those Audeny people? Awfully dull, the equivalent current lot. It is a great regret that I only began to get a grip on painting quite recently, after a revelation in Berlin. All those painters in Italy alive and well until the end of the 1980s, ad I didn't understand, and go and look, and speak to them.Such a waste.
It's out of proportion N. He was only a little bit pregnant; sacked for £100,000, but Livingstone - deeply loathed by Brown and the feeling is mutual - is left with the Labour London Mayor nomination without Party contention. And if Brown hates Hain (and so say all of the Party and the country), why give him office in the first place? I wondered what is Hain's constituency; I don't mean Neath, but, forgive me, underneath.
Purnell for Pensions seems a desperate choice, the Leader has abandoned his GOAT policies obviously, and is running out of sheep too; most can make a decent fist of what to do about welfare but nobody can imagine what to do about all those public sector pensions - a decade's worth awarded to the Labour vote - waiting to land on our children's taxes, never mind those already on our own.
Cash isn't safe either, HG.
A message for Paul if I may.
Is there anywhere I can find your interview on 18 Doughty Street ? I've tried googling it.
As for a prosecution of the orange Umpa Lumpa that would be a bonus - humiliation and loss of office is enough to keep me satisfied for now. An indelible stain on his character (pitty it won't show under that tan).
As for him being an Umpa Lumpa - I was only joking.
I DO think he's a right Wonka though.
Ha ha ha ha - neeeeeyahaha !
This is all very typical of a Party that has been too long in power isn`t it . Even the New Statesman has turned on Ken
Curious how Hinks theft isn't being invoked for Abrahams et al; perhaps, this only applies to poor people?
You are right, N, there is so much law and rule-breaking going on because the regime feels it can act as it chooses - so many awful acts hidden, moved on from, ignored, beyond accountability. It's beginning to be hard to keep track, which is why Anon @ 17.40 is too allusive for me to quite grasp, unless you care to expand 17.40?
Hinks was convicted of theft of property which she had received as a gift.
"The certified question before the House is as follows:
Whether the acquisition of an indefeasible title to property is capable of amounting to an appropriation of property belonging to another for the purposes of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968."
....
"It follows that the certified question must be answered in the affirmative."
LORD STEYN
In other words, if those who received gifts from Abrahams were acting dishonestly, then they were in breach of s1 Theft Act 1968. (The test for dishonesty being the Ghosh test, which I would argue they failed, evidence of which being their attempts to evade the provisions of the legislation demanding that they declare said monies).
What's even stranger and without precedent even though logic dictates that it should be so, is that Abrahams should be liable as an accessory.
Note: all of the above depends upon the facts that may arise during the investigation. However, if the above is not a consideration, then facts supporting the contention (that may be present) will not be constructed in such a manner to support the above argument.
10.16:
Is the investigation authoritative? In that it is able to impose a construction of the facts so that, 'an indefeasible title to property' can be asserted?
Or have we an investigation without the requisites for imposing any construction of the facts it chooses, even if those choices do/do not suit the regime?
And, if so, how many other 'investigations' are set up to enable a refusal to answer questions in any other framework because the matter is under investigation ( a sort of subliminal extension of sub judice) and,are yet powerless to impose constructions of the facts that lead to suspicion of criminality and charges?
Is this the mechanism of achieving almost total lack of answerability used by this regime?
'There is an enquiry/ investigation; nothing must compromise its integrity.' Then it has no integrity or capacity.
The conviction for Theft in Hinks isn't intuitively obvious; far from it. If anything the result is contrary to one what would expect. (Being convicted of theft for receiving a gift - note that the gift did and does belong to Hinks). However, that is the law.
"Is this the mechanism of achieving almost total lack of answerability used by this regime?"
I wouldn't argue anything as deterministic as that. Rather, if it isn't within one's purview, then necessary questions will not be asked etc. (I'm assuming that it isn't within one's purview for reasons of innocent ignorance).
As to whether or not this would be sufficient to justify a judicial review further down the line, I would need to do more reading.
HG: I don't miss Auden, but of course there's loads of artists one thinks one would like to have known. But hens don't resemble the eggs they lay. There's the story of the man who married a soprano impetuously, and the next morning looked at her in daylight and said "For God's sake, sing!"
EK: When the currency is unsound, it looks as though nothing is safe. I'm merely thinking cash during the deflationary period.
Post a Comment