Thursday, 12 February 2009

Cash for Amendments is going the same way as Cash for Honours - No where.

Police will not investigate 'cash for amendments' allegations





Scotland Yard will not investigate allegations that peers attempted to change the law in favour of companies employing them

* Jenny Percival
* guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 11 February 2009 16.38 GMT

Labour peers accused of attempting to change the law in favour of companies employing them will not be investigated by the police, Scotland Yard said today.

John Yates, assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police, took the final decision not to launch a criminal investigation after reviewing the allegations and discussing them with Lady Royall, the leader of the Lords, the force said in a statement.

The Sunday Times alleged last month that four Labour peers – Lord Moonie, Lord Truscott, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Snape – had discussed amending legislation in return for a fee, which would be in breach of parliamentary standards. The four deny breaking any rules.

The Met said that it had reviewed the original Sunday Times article and other material provided by the newspaper. "In particular, we have carefully examined the position of Lord Taylor and Lord Truscott in the context of a possible investigation for the common law offence of bribery. We have also considered possible offences of misconduct in public office," said a spokesman.

The spokesman said the Met had also obtained written legal advice from the Crown Prosecution Service and spoken to Royall, who had ordered an internal investigation.

The Lords subcommittee on peers' interests had already begun a preliminary examination and had announced its intention to deal robustly with any members who had broken the rules, the police statement said.

The Met concluded: "The application of criminal law to members of the House of Lords in the circumstances that have arisen here is far from clear. In addition, there are very clear difficulties in gathering and adducing evidence in these circumstances in the context of parliamentary privilege.

"These factors, when set alongside the preliminary examination, lead us to the decision that the Metropolitan police will not undertake a criminal inquiry into any of the allegations raised."

The statement added that the Met would reconsider its decision if further evidence or information come to light.

How come that I am not surprised by this?

Well for several reasons.

Given what I have observed about the standards of detective work in the UK, they are lazy, corrupt and incompetent in their role.

If the evidence is clear cut, doesn't need them to actually do anything and the person confesses there maybe a remote chance that the police might take the case to the CPS.

More likely is that they will lose/despoil evidence, then lie to the CPS to cover up their mistakes and then make out that it is all the victims fault.

However, in a case like this, neither the police nor the CPS are going to go against their political masters, provoke a constitutional crisis and undermine the standing of the establishment because that's just not cricket is it?

If these people had been employee's of a small business who had sold out to it's rivals, they would have been charged, but they are not.

They are examples of the bare-face contempt that the 'ruling classes' have for the people of the UK. Untouchable, elitist and privileged.


Police will not investigate 'cash for amendments' allegations | Politics | guardian.co.uk


Sphere: Related Content

No comments: