Goldsmith, Blair, Prescott and Bathurst

The Attorney General, is “keeper of the public interest” and supervisor of the Crown Prosecution Service. He’s also the legal advisor to the Government (when TB wanted to know if it’s legal to go to war with Iraq, it was the AG who said yes).

Couldn’t resist dragging up old bones (hat-tip to Theo Spark) this is the letter Lord Goldsmith won’t be writing to Blair over the “Cash for Honours” bizniz.

History repeating itself ? It’s also the sort of letter he wasn’t going to write to John Prescott, when our friend George Bathurst asked the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate his Prevention of Corruption Act breach.

For a taste of gov't stonewalling at genius level check out our interview with George...

One of the problems facing the Misrepresentation of the People Act, is you need to get the Attorney General’s go ahead to proceed with a prosecution. Most recently the Board at BAE were relieved to find out that the Attorney General deemed that it was not in the public interest to continue investigating claims of bribery and corruption by BAE.

So, if you want to prosecute someone in government, you need the blessing of - the governments legal advisor. Imagine if you wanted to take a company to court but to do so you needed their solicitors approval ?

We’ve asked for an interview with the man. We will be denied. Have no doubt.

The Real Deal

What started off as a simple question to the Citizens Advice Bureau - "I'd like to prosecute an MP for lying" has turned into a real eye-opener. Here's the real deal...

There is a simple fact obscured by a very sophisticated, highly evolved set of smoke and mirrors which lead the casual observer to believe there are healthy checks and balances keeping Parliament (especially Government) honest and accountable. Numerous Codes of conduct, Committees and Commissioners (we've got 'em coming out of our ears). Many of them are staffed by dedicated individuals of the highest integrity - the problem is they all report back to Parliament or Blair - the guys they've been appointed to investigate.

The need for the smoke and mirrors is simple : We, the people, are sovereign.

We elect a set of MPs to represent our sovereignty in Parliament at a general election. Those with the majority form a government and run the country on our behalf. Their obligation is to legislate in our best interests.

That means ;

1) Our transfer of sovereignty to MPs at a general election is based on two things - party manifesto and past performance.

and it follows...

2) We can’t accurately assess past performance or promises if they can mislead us and misrepresent the facts (lying is an un-parliamentary word).

However, as we've discovered…

• There are no truly independent organs (such as the judiciary) which we can invoke to hold them to account for misleading/misrepresenting to us.

and...

• A general election - is our only legal means of redress if MPs or Government lie.

So ...

How the hell are we supposed to seperate the good guys from the bad ? More importantly, without the threat of direct redress from the electorate, where's there incentive to be honest ?

These thoughts will be keeping us busy over Xmas.

Our question has shifted focus, but still remains gloriously simple...

“Why can't the electorate prosecute their representatives for lying to them ?"

We’ll be researching hard for some kind of legitimate answer.

Tomorrow will be our last post until the New Year.

the Man who shopped John Prescott

Reporting the Deputy Prime Minister to the Police is not for the faint of heart - but George Bathurst, a Windsor-based businessman was so pissed off with the Right Honourable Two Jags refusal to answer questions in Parliament (over gifts and hospitality he received from US tycoon - Mr Anschutz - angling to put a super-casino in the Millennium Dome) he decided to do something about it. In our quest to find out how we can hold MPs to account for economy with the truth, we interviewed Mr Bathurst.

If you're expecting some cigar-chomping ego-maniac behind an over-sized desk, you'll be... well... you'll see what we mean...

"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.)

So far, so shit.

As far as lying to the electorate goes - it looks like there's no law requiring honesty from an MP. Anybody else (especially a corporation) makes a misleading or mis-representative statement purporting to be a statement of fact, they're knee deep in the brown smelly stuff - any one of us can walk into a Citizens Advice Bureau and take them to court. If you're a shareholder in Great Britain PLC, and one of the directors/board members you've voted for lies - there's bugger all you can do that resembles anything like legal redress.

However, there is a small ray of light...
George Bathurst - a Windsor-based business man instigated proceedings (under the Prevention of Corruption Acts) against the Right Honourable John Prescott over the hospitality and gifts he received from Philip Anschutz, the Guvnor at AEG who wants to build a Super Casino at the veritable Millenium Dome. Prescott's department are handling the future of the site and it appears honourable John failed to declare the trip to Anschutz's ranch or the gifts he received there and subsequently refused to answer questions in Parliament on the issue.


Not only did Bathurst report Prescott to the Police, he's also instigated proceedings against Mr Anschutz in the US. It occurs to us Anschutz may well have a legitimate defence with "that cowboy outfit wasn't a gift, it was a statement."

We've tracked down Mr Bathurst to find out what he's got against two Jags (two shags) and exactly how you go about prosecuting an MP for telling porkies.