Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Is Rusbridger trying to help Blair again?

The cash-for-honours scandal rumbles on but it appears that somebody is determined that no legal action will happen despite the determination of the investigating officers. It seems significant that despite requests from police that certain information remain confidential, there have been attempt (now successful) to leak it first by the BBC and then the Gruaniad. The police apparently believe they have enough evidence for charges, including perverting the course of justice. The sources can only have been Downing Street or the police and it is definitely not in the police interest to foil their own case. It is was apparent that the spin doctors would find a way to leak the info in any manner possible. How did his future Lordship, Rusbridger get hold of the information and why did he publish despite knowing that it could prejudice any future case? He and his legal advisors knew, that there was nothing the judges could do if he got the presses rolling on the story. When it came out it was nothing spectacular anyway but suggestions that the governments favourite zionist was also a lying b'stard do show evidence of panic at number 10. Levy has been quick to use the leak to his advantage amusingly claiming 'anti-semitism' and stress:

Lord Levy protested his innocence, claimed he was the victim of a smear campaign and raised doubts whether he would be able secure a fair trial if a criminal case were ever brought. He said the near year-long investigation was placing a huge strain on his family(aawwwww). His rabbi said Lord Levy believed he was being leaked against by the police (not Downing Street despite what the memo says) , and was the victim of anti-semitism.

Nor is he the only one suffering from stress. According to Ruth Turner's mother:

"It is unimaginable to think what she must be going through. She has nobody to talk to at all. As far as we know this must be one of the stresses for her."

Who is doing the smearing? The emails are internal Downing street memo's which were allegedly recovered after police sent in Hackers realising that attempts were afoot to hide or destroy evidence. The same Gruaniad that helped by leaking the email is now publicising Levy's claims that he wouldn't get a fair trial. Surely, this suggests that he really does have a case to answer. And as he was Blair's favourite zionist with his nose firmly wedged up the Blair rectal passage, he can only have received official sanction before doing what he did whatever it was, if he is guilty of it. Blair recommended peerages for four businessmen who made at least £5 million of secret 'loans' to New Labour's election campaign. They were only withdrawn and became 'loans' as opposed to 'gifts' when they became public, much to the anger of the donors. Craig Murray puts the affair in perspective:

What is undeniable is that in Britain today there is no attempt at fairness in the application of this principle [preventing leaking of prejudicial information]. Senior New Labour figures are entitled to the full protection of this law. Is the same consideration applied to Muslims accused of terrorist offences?

The answer is a resounding no. Instead we receive a constant drip-feed of supposedly terrifying information, from police, Home Office and security services, sometimes open and sometimes just named as, for example, "Police sources". So in the case of the so-called "liquid bomb plot", such sources were only too keen to tell us under whose bed suicide videos had been found, near whose home were bottles containing hydrogen peroxide, who had a map pf Afghanistan, and a whole welter of such information. This was spun all over our front pages for a fortnight. Where was Lord Goldsmith and his concern for the right to a fair, unprejudiced trial then?I heard Louise Christian, a lawyer involved in the defence of a number of such cases, speak on precisely this point in January. She recalled a local newspaper printing a front page photo of two of her clients the day before their trial, with the banner headline "Terror sisters". That is not permitted under our law - but it is one of the many protections of the rights of citizens that no longer in practice applies to Muslims in the UK.

He also has some interesting information on the sleazy friendship between Ian Blair and Levy. Let's hope they both get what they deserve.


Post a Comment

<< Home