A Cash for Honours puzzle
A Cash for Honours puzzle for you. How can it be that No 10 says it is giving "full co-operation" to the police and yet one of the key aides there - Ruth Turner - has been arrested on suspicion of not fully co-operating? She was arrested, you may recall, on "suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" which, in layman's terms, is suspicion of, at worst, a cover-up and, at best, not fully co-operating.
The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, has just told a Commons committee that previously the police had accepted that they were receiving full co-operation and "there's no reason to think that's changed... We've complied fully with all requests." In response, I asked the prime minister's official spokesman whether the PM thought his staff, including Miss Turner, were "fully co-operating". He replied that "there's no evidence to the contrary" but declined to solve my puzzle. He even went so far as to hint that I might ask the police directly adding "it's not been difficult to find out what other people have been thinking" - which is the closest we've come to an official whinge about police leaking.
I can't leave this topic without mention of the - the head teacher whose "indiscreet" conversation with an undercover reporter about honours for sponsors of city academies - kick-started this investigation. Curiously, it seems to me to tell us very little about whether or when charges may or may not be brought against anyone else.
It does remind us though that you're innocent until proven guilty.
I'm 
Comments
Yes, you are innocent until proved guilty, yet the way this matter is being reported in the press (especially) is that, if people are charged, then they will be guilty, and the Prime Minister therefore guilty by association, etc. etc.
Whatever you think of the parties involved, and whatever the truth of the matter, surely anybody actually charged (or their extremely expensive lawyers) will be able to claim that there is no way they can expect to receive a fair trial.
I think I've cracked it - the puzzle, that is. The police said that they had received full cooperation before discovering they hadn't.
For the police to now say that they haven't been receiving full cooperation is probably taking things a little too far, so the only quote you're left with is the original one.
If I could now pull a Stan Laurel smile with hands facing outwards and a little shrug of the shoulders, then you'd be welcome to it.
Good question, Nick. My personal get out of jail free card on this is the Buddhist principle of not-one. Simply, we may have a hazy view of different and, sometimes, conflicting things. One, the other, both, or neither may be true. Western thought tends towards this and is, and Eastern thought tends towards these and maybe. I find both useful.
In many ways, how we’re brought up, educated, and deal with work and society directs and conditions us. At a personal, organisational, and national level, prosperity, crime and punishment, and social exclusion are related in correctness, accountability, and outcomes. Fear and greed, or lack of confidence and anxiety, are key factors.
If you mechanically look at this issue on the surface, there’s plenty of room for chest thumping, foot stamping, waving of arms, and rivers of tears. Personally, I hope, the more informed and compassionate approach that has seen utility in personal, community, and international difficulties may be applied here. To do otherwise is inconsistent.
Broadening this out to how the Conservatives, Liberals, SNP, media, and other commentators have handled the issue; a technicality is easily and rapidly resolved, but the deeper and more darker emotive issues have driven irrationality and abuse. This attachment is a corrosive force and not something anyone should be proud of.
As I’ve commented, before, British society since Queen Elizabeth has been defined by conflict, and this is mirrored in Parliament, industrial relations, and the rude behaviour in society. While situations like this aren’t good, like the Big Brother difficulties, this may help propel the respect and responsibility agenda.
I remain optimistic. Deep down, people know that power, status, and wealth are mere baubles, and that who we are and what we do is important. If we get this right by whatever means that works, economic prosperity and social wellbeing develop of their own accord. Here, both the Stern Report, economic growth theory, and the Tao agree.
Warning: Happiness is contagious.
The solution is an easy one to solve. The civil service are cooperating with the police; the Labour party advisers are not. As some advisers are both that and civil servants then they are both helping and hindering the investigation.
The police have indeed been given the assistance they need and also been hindered by the same people.
Therefore young Gus was correct in his evidence to the committee on behalf of the civil service, who he is responsible for. Labour employees are not covered by his remit and are therefore not his concern.
I think Sir Humphrey is alive and well.
The creepy recitation of the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim by Labour annoys me no end. The public is not condemning anyone as a criminal, nor is it sending anyone down for anything. The public is making a judgement as to whether the Prime Minister and his entourage should be held politically responsible for this scandal. Even by today's much diminished standards of public accountability and ministerial responsibility, we can judge our politicians without a requirement that they be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Let us at least have that.
What a joke. What does one have to do to become a Knight of the Realm these days? Are there no damsels to be rescued? Are there no dragons to be slain? Are there no windmills to be tilited at? Sir Paul McCartney, whose claim to being a hero of the British Empire was that he sold a lot of phonograph records in America. And the justification for the monarchy? It's a good tourist attraction, Americans are willing to spend money in Britain to pretend it's still the 17th or 18th century for a short break from the real world. So what's wrong with donating money to buy honors? It seems entirely consistant to me with the way the rest of the system works.
I wonder if you could enlighten me about the 'loans for honours'case.
1. Were the accounts of our main three parties confiscated at the onset of the investigation?
2. Were the donations in cash or cheque form?
3. Who actually accepted the money & where was it held?
4. When & where were the donations deposited?
5. How long has the account(s) been open?
6. Why was the treasurer not informed.
7. Who did not inform the treasurer?
I recently read that the Police held back from questioning Tony Blair under caution because they were told that to do so, would cause him to resign, due to his position becoming untenable. If this is true, what was the problem? Why did the Police not continue as they saw fit? How would Mr Blair's resignation as Prime Minister have impeded the enquiry?
(Of course this information may have been an 'innacurate', 'distorting' or even 'untrue' type of 'leak'; therefore I am only seeking an answer to a hypothetical question).