The Professors passion for "The Science of Deceit" started here...

Employed by the Ministry (in a covert capacity) to help introduce the law ending dishonest politics, you can see his hand all over the posts of past.

Current political circumstances have forced him to reveal himself and as we speak, MPs are signing up to re-introduce The Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill for debate with over 80,000 voters supporting them.

Posts before Jan '08 are purely for the record (with hindsight they make fascinating reading). Posts after May 13th mark the Professor's return.


Meet the Professor

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

"I write to report offences under the 1916 Prevention of Corruption Act"

...So begins the letter to Inspector Yates of the Yard from a George Bathurst, Windsor-based businessman who reported the Right Honourable John Prescott for corruption over the gifts and hospitality he received from Mr Anschutz - the chap who's wants to turn the Millenium Dome into a super-casino. Prescott, having "not yet" declared the gifts/trip/hospitality, refused and avoided to answer questions in Parliament on the issue. This didn't sit well with Mr Bathurst.

In our quest to figure out how we "hold MPs to account" ("stop MPs lying" would be a phrase too unparliamentary) we tracked down George Bathurst who's agreed to an interview (we'll post this shortly). In the meantime he's very kindly let us have copies of the e-mails and letters between himself and the Special Investigations department at Scotland Yard. If we compressed them into a phone call, it may've gone something like this...

(Click on links to see the original correspondence)

GB - Morning Officer, I'd like to report John Prescott, who, by his own admission, is guilty of an offence under the 1889 to 1916 Prevention of Corruption Acts.

[Silence]

GB -
Look, even assuming all the defences Prescott's given in the press were true, he'd still be guilty under Clause 2 of the Act - a favour was received and the giver was seeking a government contract at the time. Both of these facts are now a matter of public record.

Police - Can you hold ? We'll get back to you in the near future.

[ The sound of tumbleweed being blown across a desert plain... ]

GB - What's going on ? I've been holding for two months and just read in the press that you're not taking this any further ? Have you started or do you intend to investigate this matter or not ?

Police - we've taken legal advice and there's a loophole because of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act.

GB - No there isn't.

Police - Yes there is.

GB - No there isn't.

(etc.)....


GB - Are we reading the same Act !!? I've got legal opinions coming out of my arse and all of them say there's a clear breach - the loophole you're talking about doesn't count for shit.

Police - Irrespective of the loophole, Mr Prescott has already denied the allegations under questioning in the House.

GB - No he hasn't, he's either refused or avoided answering the questions and the government spin has been proved false by enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act. So both the government and Mr Prescott have lied.

Police - Loophole and alleged lack of denials aside - this simply isn't good use of valuable Police time - it'd take too long to find evidence.

GB - Are you saying without evidence you can't start an investigation and without starting an investigation you can't get any evidence ?

Police - That is the law.

GB - No it isn't. The evidence required under the Act is now a matter of public record - he's admitted he received gifts and he's a Government official - there's automatically a presumption of corruption and the onus is on him to disprove it !

Police - No it isn't.

GB - Yes it is.

Police - No it isn't.

(etc.)

GB - For Chrissakes !!! Have a look at Section 5 of you're own joint memo with the Home Office from July 2004 - I've already sent you a copy !

Police - Sir, we're not taking this any further - we've consulted at length with the Crown Prosecution Service who say there's no point in pursuing this case.

GB - What, Lord Goldsmith's outfit ? Isn't he a personal friend of the Prime Minister ?

Police - We don't have any evidence of that.

GB - It's a matter of public record !!!

Police -
Sir, with a presumption of corruption, the onus of proof is on....

(etc.)

9 comments:

  1. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=201

    ReplyDelete
  2. your family have spent £12.80 to ensure there is a terrorism problem in the U.K. for ever. How do you feel about that?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wafah Bin Laden20 Nov 2006, 18:06:00

    I feel great. What £12.80 are you referring to ? Do you think it's enough ?

    ReplyDelete
  4. the £7 billion that has been spent on the "war"

    ReplyDelete
  5. lovethekilling21 Nov 2006, 15:43:00

    im not sure we have spent enough on killing yet - cant we spend more on that and less on the health service - oh wait we are killing by doing that too - thats ok then!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lord Goldsmith's about to get his. By refusing to stand aside in the cash for peerages investigation - if he decides there's no need to bring charges there'll be cries of "Fix - the CPS is bollocks". If they decied to go ahead and prosecute - well... we'll see.

    Truth is - everybody gets what they deserve in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Frankie said "Lord Goldsmith's about to get his - everybody gets what they deserve in the end"

    Are you suggesting we introduce a Karmic statute ? Not much of a basis to run a fucking country is it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. orange chelsea30 Jan 2007, 12:18:00

    this bathurst chap is interesting

    anymore bathursts sitting around using their minds and political understandings to bring about chaos.

    or perhaps just to push the fact this blog actually has some weight,

    but remember its all in your grasps??

    "question concerning technology" googal..

    ReplyDelete
  9. What stuns me the most is that they actually have the gall to bring up an Anti-Terrorism act as defence in a straight corruption case. The very fact that they can do so goes to show how dangerous the powers governments now have under anti-terrorism laws are.

    ReplyDelete