The police will want to get in before they hit the delete button – if the software records that David Abrahams is in fact the donor for Kidd et al the scandal is institutional and systematic. Guido wonders what the software will record for the proxy donors. If the records go missing in a cover-up attempt it would indicate a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – again!UPDATE :
Deleting records could be difficult for anyone at Labour HQ contemplating perverting the course of justice according to a co-conspirator “I work for a charity (have done for many years, I am the token right winger in the room, kind of minority tokenism, but anyway…) and have been using Raiser’s Edge™ for many years, and if their system works anything like ours, not only will/should every contact be recorded, but they cannot be deleted, for audit purposes. And should someone be naughty and not record info, it will probably be reconstructable through the context of the other information on the system.”
Jon Mendelsohn has gone to ground and is not answering questions from the media.
He released a statement claiming that when he learnt from Peter Watt that Abrahams was behind a string of proxy donations he was “unhappy with the arrangement… very concerned that these arrangements did not meet the strict transparency test that I wished to see in place… I did not discuss this with the officers of the national executive committee or party leadership… I decided to tell Mr Abrahams that his method of contribution was unacceptable.”
He sticks to the party line that Peter Watt the General Secretary thought it was legally correct. So despite his suspicions he still kept schtum, told no one and intended to put a stop to it. Do you believe this highly successful spin doctor is telling the truth?
- Why didn’t Mendelsohn immediately inform the Electoral Commission?
- Why given that he told Peter Watt of his concerns, didn’t he also report his concerns immediately to the NEC or his party leader, Gordon Brown?
- On appointment as Director of General Election Resources, it was stated that he would report to Douglas Alexander, the General Election Co-ordinator. So why did he report this to Peter Watt instead?
- In the letter to Abrahams he refers to “the priorities that we are assigning to our resources”, isn’t that actually a softening up phrase for a bid for more money?
There seems to be a smorgasbord of potential offences committed in this illegal funding operation for the Labour party. Money laundering, fraudulent misrepresentation, numerous offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the list goes on.
So all you loafing lawyers and amateur barrister wannabees, lets see if we can compile a list of potential charges to be faced in the comments. Should make pleasant reading…
They would not be drawn to comment on how it might run in the very likely event that the police begin a criminal investigation.
Nobody is taking the investigation into Harriet Harman that is reporting to Harriet Harman very seriously. Possibly because it is being carried out by Labour’s former general secretary, Lord Whitty, under the advice of the former bishop of Oxford and veteran Thought for the Day platitude peddler Lord Harries, and the former Labour Scottish Solicitor General, Lord McCluskey.
Everyone keeps repeating the same joke about “all we need now is an actress”. But we already have Ms Harman…
UPDATE : Peter Oborne in tomorrow’s Speccie :
‘Get me a Bishop. Get me a f—ing Bishop!’ Peter Mandelson, then Labour’s political strategist, yelled these words across the floor of Labour campaign headquarters at a rare moment of crisis before the 1997 general election. Inquiries were made, soundings taken in ecclesiastical and other circles. With surprising speed, lo and behold! there emerged out of pontifical obscurity the austere figure of Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford. The ecclesiastical potentate obligingly anathemised John Major and his works.
