Since that little embarrassment over the reporting of postal votes in Ealing Southall, the Telegraph’s Little & Large blog has gone silent. The last posting was a week ago.

If Guido shut up shop every time a writ was threatened…

Guido is particularly enjoying the court reports about the loon who gave £10 million to the Tories to fight satanic forces. Branislav Kostic believed there was an international conspiracy of more than 100 people masterminded by sexually perverted pharmaceutical company executives to destroy “freedom, democracy and human purity”. His son is in court fighting the will. The counsel for the Tories argues Kostic might have been mad, but it was rational to fight satanic forces by giving cash to Margaret Thatcher’s Tories. After all, who was it who defeated those Godless atheist Soviet Communists?

Over the years Guido has enjoyed his chemically-enhanced, international sexual frolics and would like to extend his gratitude to the pharmaceutical masterminds who made it possible. Would rather they left freedom and democracy alone mind you.

Benji Wegg Prosser, has started a blog. Well he started it last month and he seems to have managed to make one post per month. It does have one revelation, the “Blue Peter” memo about Blair “leaving with the crowds wanting more” was not as Guido speculated. The product of Philip Gould, it was all BWP’s own work. Benji says it all came to pass as he predicted in the bunker…

As of now 145 people on the PledgeBank website have indicated they want to financially support a private prosecution. You can also pledge via Facebook and even text ‘pledge cash4prosecution‘ to 60022 from your mobile phone. Old fashioned email works as well.

Boris has tidied up his campaign website a little. There is no interactivity (as yet) or compelling proposition to return you to the site once you sign up and subscribe for the email. We are told to expect more bells and whistles.

Victoria Borwicks site is actually better, Warwick Lightfoot’s is busier and has podcasts and videos. Andrew Boff’s site asks you to be patient with just a tear dropping. Was he surprised to get through?

Melissa Kite’s Telegraph story claiming that “At least two MPs, and possibly as many as half a dozen, have written to Sir Michael Spicer, the chairman of the 1922 Committee, to call for a vote of no confidence, it can be revealed today” is a little less precise than her much derided prediction of a “senior treasury role for David Ruffley“ in the Tory reshuffle.

Who are the two who want Dave to go?

Since yesterday pledges of support for a private prosecution have come in thick and fast on the main PledgeBank website and a few via Facebook. You can even text ‘pledge cash4prosecution‘ to 60022 from your mobile phone. One substantial financial pledge via email will hopefully not be the last.

At this preliminary stage the intention is to convene a legal conference before the end of the month and go through the issues and examine the possible approaches including the establishment of a vehicle with a legally qualified advisory committee.

Guido is keenly aware of potential hurdles and risks. Surely the Attorney General will not be able to argue that the public interest is best served by turning a blind eye to what was manifestly an attempt to circumvent the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Act? How will the public interest be harmed by testing in a court before a jury the legality of the Loans for Lordships scheme?

One example will give you a flavour of the Loans for Lordships scheme – Gulam Noon has publicly stated that he made a £250,000 donation to the Labour party, which he correctly submitted (via Downing Street) on his vetting papers for the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Two days later on October 5, 2005 Lord Levy, Gulam Noon reportedly claims, telephoned him and referred to the £250,000 donation as a “loan” which need not be disclosed on his vetting papers. The Levy-intercepted and revised vetting papers were submitted to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, now without mention of the £250,000 “loan” / donation. When the Commission independently discovered the existence of the “loan” / donation they blocked the peerage – as presumably Lord Levy knew they would – why else would he intervene in the process? What was the Labour party’s chief fundraiser doing intervening in the honours process anyway? Prima facie there is a case to answer. If the CPS won’t bring it, they should at least not attempt to block others from doing so.

UPDATE : The first target of one hundred people making pledges of financial support for a private prosecution has been met in less than 24 hours.

Guido has been in discussion with some of m’learned friends after a careful reading of the CPS statement. The CPS has decided on a bar set very high to justify not prosecuting under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 (‘the 1925 Act’).

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000 (‘the 2000 Act’) was dealt with far too perfunctorily in the CPS statement. More than one legal authority consulted by Guido thinks that there are avenues open to a private prosecution via the 2000 Act which have the advantage of not requiring the proving of a conspiracy.

The weakest part of the CPS statement is point 30:

In relation to possible breaches of the 2000 Act, we are satisfied that we cannot exclude the possibility that any loans made – all of which were made following receipt by the Labour Party of legal advice – can properly be characterised as commercial.

There are a number of related suspected offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 governing the evasion of restrictions on donations which provide a firm and clear basis for action. Crucially, a prosecution on this basis would avoid the difficulties of having to prove a conspiracy. It would also have the advantage that there are statements from donors already in the public domain which, contrary to the stated view of the CPS, exclude the possibility that the loans were made, or intended to be made, on a commercial basis.

The attempt by Levy et al to portray themselves as the victims of an over zealous policeman are contemptible. They deliberately subverted the law in a secret attempt to cover up donations made by persons they later put forward for honours. A fact they deliberately and disingenuously hid from House of Lords Appointment Committee. If you want to see justice done and the law upheld, pledge your support for a private prosecution here.