Members of Blair’s inner circle arrested in “cash for honours” inquiry
Chris Marsden | 01.02.2007 13:51 | Analysis | Other Press
The arrest for the second time of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief fundraiser Lord Levy once again brings the “cash-for-honours” investigation to the door of Number 10.
Levy, who has also functioned as Blair’s Middle East envoy, was first arrested and questioned under caution by Scotland Yard in July concerning allegations that Labour had effectively sold peerages to rich supporters in return for loans to the party worth millions. This week he was detained on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice for allegedly breaching the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is understood that he was questioned for more than four hours before being released on bail.
Levy is the second key ally of Blair to be arrested under suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. On January 19, Ruth Turner, director of government relations, became the fourth person to be arrested in the cash for peerages investigation—after previously being questioned four times. She was arrested at her home in the early hours of the morning. It was subsequently reported that John McTernan, the prime minister’s political secretary, was questioned under caution by police officers prior to Turner’s arrest. Blair’s chief of staff and right-hand man, Jonathan Powell, has also reportedly been questioned under caution.
Blair was questioned by police on December 14. He is the first serving prime minister to be questioned during a criminal investigation. Rumors are rife that he will face questioning again in the near future, and even possibly under caution.
The raising of possible charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a significant turn in the inquiry.
The criminal investigation headed by Assistant Commissioner John Yates centres on whether millions in secret loans from a number of wealthy businessmen were secured through promises of seats in the House of Lords, Britain’s second chamber comprising hereditary peers and life peers nominated by the government and opposition parties.
In the run-up to the 2005 general election, Labour secured around £14 million from rich benefactors as commercial loans. It is alleged this was so as to bypass legislation requiring donations above £5,000 to be declared. The investigation also affects the Conservatives, who borrowed £16 million from 13 wealthy backers, and the Liberal Democrats, who borrowed £850,000 from three backers.
In order to prove a breach of the law of 1925, which carries a possible two-year prison sentence, the inquiry would have to prove that peerages were directly sold in return for cash pledges rather than being merely political appointees.
But the arrest of Turner and Levy on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice amounts to an allegation that they were involved in efforts to conceal evidence that might prove the cash for peerages allegations. This is far more worrying for anyone accused. The Times cited the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as stating, “It does not matter whether or not the act results in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done.”
In addition, the offence carries a maximum life sentence, though no one has been jailed for more than 10 years in recent history.
Numerous reports have appeared in the media alleging a cover-up, from sources said to be directly involved in the police investigation, “a mole” within Downing Street, or personnel at Number 10 fearful of being saddled with blame by those at the top.
ITV News reported that Labour members working as senior officials in No. 10 had used a parallel computer system, replete with sophisticated encryption software, to send sensitive emails and conceal evidence from the police. Emails had allegedly been deleted. The emails were reported to include references to “k’s” and “p’s”—suggested to be knighthoods and peerages.
The police inquiry is known to be using new US software that scans hard drives and flags up deleted email exchanges and has also been reported to have hacked Downing Street’s computer system. The Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World both reported that police were employing computer experts to search for Downing Street email records.
A report in the Sunday Telegraph also claimed that detectives had discovered a handwritten note from Blair acknowledging the efforts of Labour’s 12 secret lenders who provided £14 million to help the party fight the 2005 election. The note, written in ink on internal government paper and initialled, was described by the Telegraph as the first indication of a “paper trail” leading directly to the prime minister.
Downing Street denied the reports, insisting that there was “no parallel email system inside Downing Street.” But one commentator noted that this formulation left open the question of whether a separate system was being used outside Downing Street. And significantly, Tom Bradby, the political editor of ITV News, challenged the Downing Street spokesman to withdraw his denials.
The Scotsman newspaper stated that it “understands that the only ‘second system’ operating in No. 10 is a back-up facility of archive material. However, it is believed the archive contains copies of messages deleted from computers used by staff in No. 10.”
Interviewed by the BBC on the “Politics Show” at the weekend, Blair repeatedly declined to answer questions on the investigation, stating, “Let the thing run its course and then we will see.”
The cash-for-peerages investigation has become the centre of a major political crisis for Blair personally and his government and one that even threatens to become a constitutional crisis.
There have been numerous calls for Blair himself to resign amidst comparisons between the cash for peerages investigation and the Watergate scandal that led to the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. These have mainly come from the opposition benches, but Labour MPs and pro-Labour newspapers have made clear that the scandal at the very least confirms Blair’s status as a political liability. And a senior Labour peer, former QC Baroness Kennedy, has stated, “I’m sure that if you have criminal charges made against people inside Downing Street who you have direct authority over, then the prime minister would absolutely have to go.”
The investigation will in all probability be ongoing during the local elections and elections to the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly in May. This has led to accusations that the police are dragging things out in order to influence the outcome of the election.
The investigation has already resulted in a clash between government and the police, with each side claiming undue political interference is being exercised by the other.
Government spokesmen have repeatedly implied that the police investigation is a politically motivated attack. Responding to the ITN report, one said, “People should question why they are being given wrong information.”
The prime minister’s official spokesman told the press, “You really have to start questioning who is spreading this information, because it is wrong.”
Another government source said of the investigation, “This has now been going on a year and questions need to be asked whether there is or isn’t sufficient information.”
The arrest of Ruth Turner sparked protests from senior Labour figures, including Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and former Home Secretary David Blunkett.
In response, Metropolitan Police Federation Chairman Glen Smyth complained to BBC News 24, “You get government ministers and senior members of the Labour Party criticising the inquiry, which has frankly not even given a report to the Crown Prosecution Service yet. What sort of undue pressure are they trying to bring? If that’s not what they are intending, it’s certainly the impression that they are leaving.”
His remarks were backed up by Len Duvall, the Labour politician who chairs the Metropolitan Police Authority, who called on others not to try to “manipulate or pressurize” officers, adding that “no one in this country is above the law.”
Lord Falconer is the Lord Chancellor and Constitutional Affairs Secretary, the cabinet member responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts. He was prompted to warn colleagues not to get involved in public discussion about the cash for honours investigation, stating, “I think we should just stay out of it.”
Lord Falconer is also involved in a conflict with Attorney General Lord Goldsmith over the allegations.
As attorney general, Goldsmith, a close political ally and appointee of the prime minister, will advise the Crown Prosecution Service over whether to bring charges in the cash for peerages inquiry. He has refused to excuse himself, despite complaints by MPs and the police that his impartiality is compromised.
Goldsmith was previously criticized over his final advice on the legality of the Iraq war, in which he withdrew previously stated reservations and was accused of succumbing to political pressure.
He will in any case advise on what will inevitably be seen as political criteria—whether a prosecution is in the “public interest” given that it would damage confidence in Britain’s two main political parties. His interpretation of what is in the “public interest” was last exercised on December 15, when he announced the calling off of the three-year-long investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into the alleged bribery of the Saudi ruling family by British Aerospace (BAe). He stated publicly, “It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest.”
Goldsmith’s role in the cash for peerages inquiry highlights what the Guardian described as “the historic tensions in the attorney general’s different, and some say incompatible, functions”—of advising the government and “taking legal action to safeguard the public interest.”
Lord Falconer suggested to MPs that Goldsmith would step aside on the cash for honours inquiry. This prompted Goldsmith to send a letter to the Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee, dismissing Falconer’s assurances and stating, “No other minister, however distinguished or senior, has the ability to bind the attorney general in how he exercises his role.” On January 18, the committee took the extraordinary decision to not only publish Goldsmith’s letter but to announce an inquiry into the role of the attorney general.
Falconer has since explicitly called for a change in the role of the attorney general, during a private lecture at Brasenose College, Oxford, and then in an interview with the Observer on January 28. He told the newspaper, “I’m conscious of the fact that some of the things that an attorney general does are, in fact, conclusive on particular issues, such as whether a prosecution stops, which is a matter that has to be done independently of political considerations.”
The longer the scandal continues, the more public confidence is eroded—not only in the government but in a political set-up that is viewed as a corrupt plaything of the rich and powerful from which working people are excluded from all influence.
On January 14, Lakshmi Mittal, the steel tycoon, offered Labour £2 million, a sum that will in all probability be used to pay off some of its previous loans from businessmen. Blair said in a statement, “I am delighted that Mr. Mittal, who is one of the world’s most successful businessmen, has made such a generous donation.”
Levy is the second key ally of Blair to be arrested under suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. On January 19, Ruth Turner, director of government relations, became the fourth person to be arrested in the cash for peerages investigation—after previously being questioned four times. She was arrested at her home in the early hours of the morning. It was subsequently reported that John McTernan, the prime minister’s political secretary, was questioned under caution by police officers prior to Turner’s arrest. Blair’s chief of staff and right-hand man, Jonathan Powell, has also reportedly been questioned under caution.
Blair was questioned by police on December 14. He is the first serving prime minister to be questioned during a criminal investigation. Rumors are rife that he will face questioning again in the near future, and even possibly under caution.
The raising of possible charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a significant turn in the inquiry.
The criminal investigation headed by Assistant Commissioner John Yates centres on whether millions in secret loans from a number of wealthy businessmen were secured through promises of seats in the House of Lords, Britain’s second chamber comprising hereditary peers and life peers nominated by the government and opposition parties.
In the run-up to the 2005 general election, Labour secured around £14 million from rich benefactors as commercial loans. It is alleged this was so as to bypass legislation requiring donations above £5,000 to be declared. The investigation also affects the Conservatives, who borrowed £16 million from 13 wealthy backers, and the Liberal Democrats, who borrowed £850,000 from three backers.
In order to prove a breach of the law of 1925, which carries a possible two-year prison sentence, the inquiry would have to prove that peerages were directly sold in return for cash pledges rather than being merely political appointees.
But the arrest of Turner and Levy on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice amounts to an allegation that they were involved in efforts to conceal evidence that might prove the cash for peerages allegations. This is far more worrying for anyone accused. The Times cited the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) as stating, “It does not matter whether or not the act results in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done.”
In addition, the offence carries a maximum life sentence, though no one has been jailed for more than 10 years in recent history.
Numerous reports have appeared in the media alleging a cover-up, from sources said to be directly involved in the police investigation, “a mole” within Downing Street, or personnel at Number 10 fearful of being saddled with blame by those at the top.
ITV News reported that Labour members working as senior officials in No. 10 had used a parallel computer system, replete with sophisticated encryption software, to send sensitive emails and conceal evidence from the police. Emails had allegedly been deleted. The emails were reported to include references to “k’s” and “p’s”—suggested to be knighthoods and peerages.
The police inquiry is known to be using new US software that scans hard drives and flags up deleted email exchanges and has also been reported to have hacked Downing Street’s computer system. The Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World both reported that police were employing computer experts to search for Downing Street email records.
A report in the Sunday Telegraph also claimed that detectives had discovered a handwritten note from Blair acknowledging the efforts of Labour’s 12 secret lenders who provided £14 million to help the party fight the 2005 election. The note, written in ink on internal government paper and initialled, was described by the Telegraph as the first indication of a “paper trail” leading directly to the prime minister.
Downing Street denied the reports, insisting that there was “no parallel email system inside Downing Street.” But one commentator noted that this formulation left open the question of whether a separate system was being used outside Downing Street. And significantly, Tom Bradby, the political editor of ITV News, challenged the Downing Street spokesman to withdraw his denials.
The Scotsman newspaper stated that it “understands that the only ‘second system’ operating in No. 10 is a back-up facility of archive material. However, it is believed the archive contains copies of messages deleted from computers used by staff in No. 10.”
Interviewed by the BBC on the “Politics Show” at the weekend, Blair repeatedly declined to answer questions on the investigation, stating, “Let the thing run its course and then we will see.”
The cash-for-peerages investigation has become the centre of a major political crisis for Blair personally and his government and one that even threatens to become a constitutional crisis.
There have been numerous calls for Blair himself to resign amidst comparisons between the cash for peerages investigation and the Watergate scandal that led to the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. These have mainly come from the opposition benches, but Labour MPs and pro-Labour newspapers have made clear that the scandal at the very least confirms Blair’s status as a political liability. And a senior Labour peer, former QC Baroness Kennedy, has stated, “I’m sure that if you have criminal charges made against people inside Downing Street who you have direct authority over, then the prime minister would absolutely have to go.”
The investigation will in all probability be ongoing during the local elections and elections to the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly in May. This has led to accusations that the police are dragging things out in order to influence the outcome of the election.
The investigation has already resulted in a clash between government and the police, with each side claiming undue political interference is being exercised by the other.
Government spokesmen have repeatedly implied that the police investigation is a politically motivated attack. Responding to the ITN report, one said, “People should question why they are being given wrong information.”
The prime minister’s official spokesman told the press, “You really have to start questioning who is spreading this information, because it is wrong.”
Another government source said of the investigation, “This has now been going on a year and questions need to be asked whether there is or isn’t sufficient information.”
The arrest of Ruth Turner sparked protests from senior Labour figures, including Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and former Home Secretary David Blunkett.
In response, Metropolitan Police Federation Chairman Glen Smyth complained to BBC News 24, “You get government ministers and senior members of the Labour Party criticising the inquiry, which has frankly not even given a report to the Crown Prosecution Service yet. What sort of undue pressure are they trying to bring? If that’s not what they are intending, it’s certainly the impression that they are leaving.”
His remarks were backed up by Len Duvall, the Labour politician who chairs the Metropolitan Police Authority, who called on others not to try to “manipulate or pressurize” officers, adding that “no one in this country is above the law.”
Lord Falconer is the Lord Chancellor and Constitutional Affairs Secretary, the cabinet member responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts. He was prompted to warn colleagues not to get involved in public discussion about the cash for honours investigation, stating, “I think we should just stay out of it.”
Lord Falconer is also involved in a conflict with Attorney General Lord Goldsmith over the allegations.
As attorney general, Goldsmith, a close political ally and appointee of the prime minister, will advise the Crown Prosecution Service over whether to bring charges in the cash for peerages inquiry. He has refused to excuse himself, despite complaints by MPs and the police that his impartiality is compromised.
Goldsmith was previously criticized over his final advice on the legality of the Iraq war, in which he withdrew previously stated reservations and was accused of succumbing to political pressure.
He will in any case advise on what will inevitably be seen as political criteria—whether a prosecution is in the “public interest” given that it would damage confidence in Britain’s two main political parties. His interpretation of what is in the “public interest” was last exercised on December 15, when he announced the calling off of the three-year-long investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into the alleged bribery of the Saudi ruling family by British Aerospace (BAe). He stated publicly, “It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest.”
Goldsmith’s role in the cash for peerages inquiry highlights what the Guardian described as “the historic tensions in the attorney general’s different, and some say incompatible, functions”—of advising the government and “taking legal action to safeguard the public interest.”
Lord Falconer suggested to MPs that Goldsmith would step aside on the cash for honours inquiry. This prompted Goldsmith to send a letter to the Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee, dismissing Falconer’s assurances and stating, “No other minister, however distinguished or senior, has the ability to bind the attorney general in how he exercises his role.” On January 18, the committee took the extraordinary decision to not only publish Goldsmith’s letter but to announce an inquiry into the role of the attorney general.
Falconer has since explicitly called for a change in the role of the attorney general, during a private lecture at Brasenose College, Oxford, and then in an interview with the Observer on January 28. He told the newspaper, “I’m conscious of the fact that some of the things that an attorney general does are, in fact, conclusive on particular issues, such as whether a prosecution stops, which is a matter that has to be done independently of political considerations.”
The longer the scandal continues, the more public confidence is eroded—not only in the government but in a political set-up that is viewed as a corrupt plaything of the rich and powerful from which working people are excluded from all influence.
On January 14, Lakshmi Mittal, the steel tycoon, offered Labour £2 million, a sum that will in all probability be used to pay off some of its previous loans from businessmen. Blair said in a statement, “I am delighted that Mr. Mittal, who is one of the world’s most successful businessmen, has made such a generous donation.”
Chris Marsden
Homepage:
http://wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/peer-f01.shtml
Comments
Hide the following comment
Blair is the most corrupt and deceitful elective dictator in living memory...
13.02.2007 18:38
Who cares what ordinary people think?
Not Labour, that’s for sure.
Nor Labour prime minister, Tony Blair…
Nor Labour Lord, lord chancellor, Charles Falconer…
[Good friend and ex flate mate of Tony]
Nor Labour Lord, attorney-general Peter Goldsmith…
[Good friend, no, best friend of Tony]
Nor Labour Knight, DPP, Sir Ken Macdonald…
[Good friend and best friend of Cherie Blair who recommended Ken – both Cherie and Ken were previously in trouble with the authorities (Cherie does not like paying for train tickets you see…)]
Nor Labour Lord, Lord Michael Levy…
[Good friend and tennis partner of “Princess Tony” – he can for businessmen to enjoy a Labour Party contract turn ‘grants’ into ‘loans’ to avoid parliamentary accountability and public scrutiny and avoiding democratic transparency – in return, compromising middle east diplomacy…]
Nor all the corrupt Blairite Labour politicians…
Any friend of Tony does NOT get prosecuted in the Alice in Wonderland world of Labour Party grandees of Britain…
{Consider the Labour Party paedophile politicians and the one hundred (100) year secrecy rule – deemed to be “OFFICIAL SECRETS” imposed by “Princess Tony”?}
{Consider the dodgy small firms of solicitors that are prepared to be corrupted by supporting the Labour Party, betraying their professional code in return to selling their souls to the D-EVIL?}
Over Seven Million [7,000,000] British households are now dependent on benefits for half of their income – that’s one in three.
Not including the astronomical figure of single-parent families, the figure of those dependent on benefit rises markedly.
There are way over one million people (1,000,000) on the public payroll. More than half the country is living off the State. Or rather living off the other half.
Why no debate?
This is no accident. It has happened deliberately, unconscionably. It is Tony Blair’s deliberate policy. The betrayal by Blair - the lasting legacy.
Tony Blair set out deliberately in 1997 to build a client state, utterly dependent on New Labour largesse – but in truth, the money and benefits in kind are being paid for, by him but by others, to encourage a deliberate policy of imploding society by the tidal wave of immigrant labour, many self-employed so they are not recorded on Labour’s leaking sieve of misleading phoney plans, crackpot charts and spurious statistics.
Herbert Morrison (the grandfather of Peter Mandelson – CIA agent? Made EU Trade Commissioner by Tony Blair in order to compromise EU Trade policy?), the leader of the old London County Council (LCC – predecessor of the London Assembly – designed specifically to have few meaningful powers and to be weak so that Tony Blair could have absolute control as the ELECTIVE DICTATOR of Britain), promised to build the Tories out of London with a massive subsidized housing programme. Gerrymandering on a ginormous scale!
This is where the Labour party flagship Housing Association (HA) or flagship Registered Social Landlord (RSL) that has perverse housing policies comes in. Priority in housing now bears no relationship to the Housing Register of the local authority. Priority bears no relationship to the points that most British people had accrued on the points system for British people. No, all that is no discarded.
Priority under Blair’s Britain goes to the tidal wave of immigrant people who have been encouraged by the “no questions asked and you’re in” policy of Blair’s Britain. We’ll give you a job. But no work for British people who desperately want to work!
Tony Blair gave priority to the flagship Housing Association in London to what had previously been an excellent housing association set up by Reverend Bruce Kenrick (who also set up the admirable ‘Shelter’ charity founded in 1966) based in Notting Hill, called not surprisingly Notting Hill Housing Trust – a charitable trust (founded the exempt charity, an Industrial and Provident society IP 16558R, in 1963). It is not allowed to involve itself in politics. Ye it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance of the law.
Yet with NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST – it is indirectly controlled by Tony Blair, all its directors and senior management are fully paid up members of the Labour Party. Indeed, cronyism and nepotism reigns supreme in all the Blairite Housing Associations that are trying to gerrymander the vote as fast as they can against the interests of all their tenants and against the interests of all British people.
WAKE UP BRITAIN – VOTE BLAIR OUT – TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR HOUSING – INSIST ON MANAGING YOUR OWN HOME – INSIST ON
P - PROPER
A - ACCOUNTABILITY
C - CONSULTATION
T- TRANSPARENCY
Britain’s housing crisis and its absolute poverty and destitution could easily be sorted, but the person that stops the end of poverty in Britain is none other than Tony Blair – instead he pours unaccountable taxpayers money into short-term schemes and supports the tax avoiders like “Bono” (Paul Hewson of Dublin, Ireland, who ‘sensibly’ puts his royalties offshore into Holland to avoid British tax, with the great support of Tony Blair) whilst he goes on about throwing away other people’s money to places like Africa, whilst Britain strips the raw materials out of the many countries it controls and in return sells arms a plenty to the vast dark continent filled with such a treasury of raw materials and totally ignores the penury of far too many poor people in Britain – all deliberately orchestrated by Blair’s pathetic party policies – all thinking in terms of the short term).
There has been a massive transfer of money to Labour’s client constituencies in the North of England, Scotland and Wales. Why?
Tony Blair is concerned about 3 MAY 2007 – election and accountability time
The blame lies squarely with the Prime Minister. He has frittered away billions of pounds on public services to support a tidal wave of immigration at the expense of the indigenous people. He has managed to chalk up a huge trade deficit and a massive borrowing requirement. He has stolen our security for old age. He has raided all our pensions that won’t be there when we had previously hoped to retire.
In Blair’s Britain, accountable Council housing is being privatized – why? – to avoid Proper Accountability, to avoid Consultation, (the reason for greater confrontation) and to avoid Transparency - like the unaccountable Housing Associations that are not answerable to Councillors and evade the truth in response to questioning from accountable MPs.
Blair (and his plotters) supports Insecure tenancies that deny life-long security of tenure.
Blair supports Disrepair properties to facilitate evicting tenants to substitute immigrant tenants.
Blair supports Unaccountable Housing Associations not accountable council housing.
Blair supports central government bullying and blackmailing council tenants to accept privatization.
Blair supports deregulating public sector and housing association tenancies to market forces
Blair supports removing rent ceilings to what the market can bear to tenants on the poverty line
HOUSING MEETING
ATTEND House of Commons meeting on Tuesday, 29 FEBRUARY 2007, 6pm – 8pm, Boothroyd Room, Portcullis House, Bridge Street, opposite Clock Tower (east side of Big Ben) London SW1A 2LW (020-7219-3000) to have your say.
PROPERTY
Central London is made up of huge tracts of land owned by a few families from past patronage
1)Crown Estate [Based at 16 New Burlington Place, Regent Street]
2)Duchy of Cornwall Estate [10 Buckingham Gate]
3)Duchy of Lancaster Estate [next to Waterloo Bridge]
4)Church of England Commissioners [1 Millbank]
5)Grosvenor Estate [Gerald Grosvenor, Duke of Westminster]
6)Portman Estate [Viscount Portman]
7)Howard de Walden Estate [Mary Czernin, Baroness Howard de Walden]
8)Cadogan Estate [Earl Cadogan]
9)The Ilchester Estate [Charlotte Morrison, heiress to Earl of Ilchester]
UK owners land windfall in ruling -
Dominic Prince
Friday, October 28, 2005
Owners of large London landed estates such as the Earl of Cadogan, the Duke of Westminster and Lord Portman are to see billions of pounds added to their property wealth.
After a legal decision last month, estates in London and all over the UK will see the value of their property rise dramatically because landlords can now charge far more for extending a lease or selling a freehold.
"It will, in one stroke, add billions to the value of these estates," says enfranchisement expert Tom Jefferies, a barrister at Landmark chambers.
But the decision will leave many tenants bitterly disappointed.
"The landlords will see it as redressing the balance, but don't forget that a lot of tenants have bought their flats on the assumption that they will be able to acquire an extension on the cheap, and that is no longer the case," Jefferies says.
The value of leasehold flats in central London is bound to fall in percentage terms at least. After the Labour Party 2002 Commonhold Act, virtually everyone has the right to enfranchise a lease, that is extend it or acquire the freehold {from the days when voting was linked to property ownership}. Previously, the price of leasehold properties has gone up considerably, as the value of the right to enfranchise has gone down, but that has all changed now.
"This ruling has put a disproportionate amount of ammunition into the landlord's pocket," says Notting Hill-based Nick Mahony, of Nick & Co, an independent estate agent specializing at the top end of the market. "For people who have recently acquired a property, it is not good. In general, people pay far too much for short leases anyway and this should make them think twice. If this ruling is applied across the board, then we are looking at an increase of about 200 percent."
The legal case, which was brought by Earl Cadogan against several tenants, meant that they had to pay between 22,000 (HK$302,940) and 460,000 more for their properties in Cadogan and Chelsea Squares. The earl is estimated to be worth 155 billion HK$ and the ruling is thought to add 25 percent to the value of his entire portfolio.
"This ruling will affect nearly all of the residential properties on the estate," says Stuart Corbyn, the chief executive of Cadogan Estates, which owns huge swathes of Chelsea. "Before the 2002 Act we used to get two or three enquiries a month from people wanting to enfranchise their properties and extend leases or acquire freeholds. Now we get about a dozen a month."
"The values of short leases have been very badly affected by this," says Robert Orr-Ewing, of Knight Frank & Rutley. "If a freehold flat is worth 1 million and the same flat on a 25-year lease is worth 500,000, the premium to extend the lease has risen from 370,000 to 420,000, more than 10 percent. This will have an adverse affect on people wanting to extend, but freeholders will be delighted."
Tenants on the Grosvenor estate include Margaret Thatcher, Roman Abramovich and Nigella Lawson.
Their landlord, the Duke of Westminster, stands to benefit enormously from the ruling and is worth some 56 billion (56,000,000,000) HK$. He is encouraged to avoid tax.
THE HOWARD DE WALDEN Estate owns the freehold (permanent interest) of a swathe of ninety two (92) acres of London’s Marylebone. The lady who now owns the freehold, Mary Czernin, Baroness Howard de Walden is a Catholic. It is understood she detests Blair. It is further understood she detests Blair policies. More than 3,000 medical practitioners work in the Harley Street district and there are more than a million square feet of clinics including the private hospitals of the London Clinic, the Harley Street Clinic, the King Edward VII (used by the royal family and government ministers).The estate is owned by the descendants of Edward Harley, the man who laid out the area at the start of the 18th century.
The sensible chief executive [unlike the foolish so-called chief executive of the confrontational oriented NHHT housing association in west london] who consults with tenants, insists that the decision was taken (by Mary Czernin) to ensure Harley Street focused on areas such as cancer and heart disease. As Harley Street had become too associated with cosmetic surgery and other ‘lifestyle’ treatments. The new rules would introduce the reputation of the area, rather than to be about controversial medicine.
The Howard de Walden Estate is working with the London Clinic to build a cancer centre which it hopes will become a world leader once it opens in 2009.
The Estate is one of London’s richest landlords, controlling property between Oxford Street and Regent’s Park (owned by the Crown Estate), and from Harley Street to Marylebone High Street. It was recently valued at 1.5 Billion pounds by the Estates Gazette.
The 9th Lord Howard de Walden was one of London’s richest landlords. One of his grandsons shared a flat with David {“Call me Dave”} Cameron of west London after university. Peter Czernin, made a donation to his friend, David Cameron’s campaign for the Tory leadership.
The greatest claim to fame was held by the 9th Lord Howard de Walden, when as a german language student, he was driving his car when he hit a pedestrian. His companion said: “I don’t suppose you know who that was? He is a politician and he talks a lot. His name is Adolf Hitler!” {The place was Munich, the date was 1931.} Pity it wasn’t Tony Blair!
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (DPP)
Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
The DPP is based by the Old Bailey and St Paul’s Cathedral at 50 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7EX {Tel: 020 7796 8653}
Ken{neth Donald John} Macdonald (4/1/53) is the DPP. He earns 145,000 pounds a year. He has a partner (Linda Zuck, the MD of ‘Illuminations’, an independent TV and media production company for Channel 4 - Tony Blair’s friend – Luke Johnson - was appointed chairman of Channel 4) and Ken and Linda have three pleasant children (girl of 25, and two sons of 22 and 13). He lives at 22 Dartmouth Park Road, London NW5 1SX.
Ken is the 54 year old lawman at the heart of Tony Blair’s flag waving Labour Party legal executive, a key figure in the cash-for-honours controversy and co-founder of Matrix Chambers, located at Griffin Building, Gray’s Inn, WC1R 5LN, (020-7404-3447) near Chancery Lane, a crony of Cherie Booth-Blair, where she works.
Ken’s female friend is vivacious legal blonde barrister Kirsty Brimelow (37) who has confided in friends that she is in a serious romantic relationship with a ‘married senior legal figure’ (and flag waving friend Labour Party friend of the prime minister who controls the destiny of the Labour Party).
The DPP, as CPS chief, has never prosecuted a case in his career, is set to face the biggest cross examination of his life, from his partner of twenty seven (27) years and the mother of his three children, Linda, 51, a TV producer. {Perhaps she should team up with Peter Czernin a film producer, to produce a factual realité of Labour lusting over legit ‘leg-over’? legal briefs!}
Ken Macdonald has been giving Miss Brimelow (from Chorley, Lancashire, based in the chambers of Anthony Trollope QC at 187 Fleet Street, very close to the offices of the DPP at 50 Ludgate Hill) extra legal tuition during overnight stays at her flat alongside the trendy up-market south bank Thames riverside.
There are many new laws and legal precedents that Ken needs to take care to teach the requisite legal leanings from the benighted barrister. {"Lash'd into Latin by the tingling rod?" [Gay].}
As head of the state’s prosecution service, a relationship with a barrister who regularly practices in the Crown Courts could or should lead to accusations that Ken Macdonald is compromising his professional position.
A secret relationship might leave the DPP open to attempts to influence him in his post as head of the CPS, the agency responsible for prosecuting criminal cases in England and Wales.
Ken Macdonald’s appointment in 2003 provoked accusations of ‘rampant (rod curdling) cronyism’ from Tory MPs. Despite his defence experience there were concerns that he had no prosecution experience.
When at Oxford (like Tony Blair) he was fined 75 pounds for sending cannabis through the post.
The Labour Party knighthood bestowed on Ken at the turn of the year for being one of ‘Cherie’s cronies’ raised fresh questions about the independence of any criminal prosecutions in the cash-for–peerages affair.
Labour party Ken Macdonald (tall with white balding hair at 54) is in regular contact with Labour Party Peter Goldsmith, the attorney general and good Labour friend of Tony Blair, who attends all Labour cabinet meetings chaired by Tony Blair, has provoked uproar by continuing to insist that he will make the ultimate decision on whether there should be (‘Labour Party’?) prosecutions (we don’t think so!!! – Labour is corrupt, after all).
The head-turning attractive blonde (Kirsty Brimelow at 37) is a spokesperson for the Criminal Bar Association. She regularly appears on TV and radio as well as behind-the-scenes legal adviser to soap East Enders (in which Ross Kemp is an actor, the partner of Rupert Murdoch’s ‘Sun’ editor, Rebekah Wade, filmed at Elstree studios). {Rebekah Wade is the one person who can be sure - when flame-red haired Rebekah says JUMP - 'Princess Tony' Tony Blair's immediate response is: "how high!"}
Miss Brimelow shares Sir Ken’s (selective?) interest in human rights, acting as a lawyer for 'Liberty' and providing free legal aid to a Bosnian charity. {Serbs and Croatians appear not to be represented – in this selective representation against the Bar’s ‘cab-rank’ rule of fairness for all potential litigants!}
She has featured in the ‘Lawyer of the Week’ and has voiced ambitions to become a {nother Labour Party supporter} Recorder (a part-time judge, like Cherie Booth-Blair). {Law can be so tied up with politics in the Alice in Wonderland world of Labour Party politics. QCs, Judgeships, preferment in Law is no different to preferment in Labour Party Politics.}
During an interview in the 'Daily Mail' in 1999, highlighting sexual harassment in the City and legal circles, Miss Brimelow recalled some unwanted attention from a senior legal colleague.
She received an unexpected present from a male admirer: a carefully wrapped package containing a negligee and a note inviting her to spend the night with him.
She barely knew the man, but was married with children, was nearly 20 years her senior and was an influential figure at the chambers where she was working.
As history now seems to repeat itself, she seems to have no misgivings about the attentions of Ken Macdonald. News of the relationship is likely to stun his colleagues at the CPS offices at Ludgate Hill.
A source at the Bar Council said: “As far as I know, nobody at the CPS has had any inkling about this”.
When asked about his relationship with Miss Brimelow, Ken would only say: “No, no… Oh, I’ve got… I’m not going to talk about things like that. I’m off to work (in his Labour Party government provided chauffeur driven car).’
Miss Brimelow was equally non-communicative. All questions about her friendship with the DPP were met with a firm: “No comment”. She seems far more interested in a man deeply enmeshed in party politics, close to deciding key matters of Labour Party politics, than some lawyer involved in mere matters of law.
WELCOME, now, to the Alice in Wonderland world of modern British democracy {the sleep-walking along the Blair elective dictatorship – distracted by an everlasting so called ‘war-on-terror’ and distracted by dossiers of deceit and Weapons of Mass Deception that never ever did exist - provided by unelected political apparatchiks like John Scarlett and Jonathan Buchanan of MI6}. The enemy are mere illusions and scapegoats and those encouraged to come to the UK after our troops have bombed ther homes and suipporte their alient culture to act as a 'terror within' and our own deceitful corrupt politicians are wanting to crucify us every day of our lives!
Taxes, mortgages, loans, bills, penury a plenty as a Blair political prisoner.
WAKE UP BRITAIN – VOTE BLAIR OUT – TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR HOUSING – INSIST ON MANAGING YOUR OWN HOME – INSIST ON:
P - PROPER
A - ACCOUNTABILITY
C - CONSULTATION
T- TRANSPARENCY
errol