Wednesday evening catch-up

More Firefox tabs that need closing:

1. the Right Perspective explore the links between Libya's Colonel Gaddafi and the ANC, in particular Nelson Mandela


2. EU Referendum think that they have spotted a hidden agenda behind the defence cuts:

'We are seeing here structural cuts which remove the UK's ability to act independently as a nation, and to project our foreign policy. We have moved from independence to a transitional stage where our capabilities have been removed and there is no replacement.

Soon – as has has been hinted - the real agenda will increasingly emerge: "We will be moving into an era of sharing capabilities with our European allies. The days of being able to do everything are long gone."

Our nation is standing blindfold at the edge of an open grave, its hands bound, with a pistol at its head called European integration. Yet, even as our ruling classes seek to destroy the last vestiges British independence, the media slumbers on, never mentioning that elephant in the room.'

3. James Delingpole in The Telegraph explores 'The real cost of 'global warming'' and it does make me wonder why Chris Huhne and the rest of the advocates of wind power just don't get it.


4. Tim Montgomerie at Conservative Home points out the labour lie re the structural deficit:

'Labour like to blame the world recession for Britain's huge deficit but we had a structural deficit before the recession struck. The structural deficit is the borrowing that persists even when the economy is at full health. It is the best measure of a nation living beyond its means. Osborne notes that Britain went from the second best structural position among the G7 in 2000 to the worst, by 2007, before the world's economic crisis. Britain, in other words, went into the storm unprepared for rainy days. Labour politicians are telling porky pies when they blame the world recession, America or whatever for the underlying deficit.'

5. The Telegraph report that 'Secret research commissioned by Labour ministers warned that the number of immigrants moving to Britain threatened to drive down wages and inflame community tensions'


6. What Don't They Know has not forgotten about Lady Uddin and has been investigating:

'Knowing that Lady Uddin has been found guilty of claiming public funds to which she was not entitled, has she paid back the amount found liable for recovery, i.e. £125,349.10?'

I'll spoil the suspense by telling you that, no she hasn't.


7. The Times of India reports something that I have not noticed being reported in the British media:

'A solution for the Iranian nuclear standoff moved further into the distance on Friday, as international nuclear inspectors reported on new information pointing to recent nuclear weapons work and on Tehran's plans to start a new nuclear facility by summer.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) pointed out in its report that because of "new information recently received", it had further concerns about the possible past and ongoing development of an Iranian nuclear missile.'

More to follow...

So what?

Reading through some old articles I found this Telegraph article about Labour's Baroness Uddin. The bits that struck me were first that:

'New evidence which came to light during the formal parliamentary sleaze inquiry into Labour’s Baroness Uddin is being passed to the Metropolitan Police, who may now consider reviving the criminal case, which collapsed amid recrimination earlier this year.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish Nationalist MP whose complaint to police sparked the original criminal inquiry, confirmed that he would write to the Met asking police to reopen the case in the light of this new evidence.

...

'She was found to have “misled” the subcommittee after suggesting that she regularly stayed overnight at the Kent flat – which she described as a “bolt hole”.
However, police obtained statements from 12 neighbours who all said that she had never been seen there and that they referred to the property as the “empty flat”.
Water bills showed close to zero usage, leading the water company to replace Lady Uddin’s meter, assuming it was broken because levels were so low.
At one point, some shirts blew off a washing line on to the balcony of the flat, and were left to gather mould because no one removed them.
Neighbours said that they could see that there was no furniture in the flat until press reports about her case, and no signs of occupancy other than a single unshaded light bulb, which was set on a timer switch.
Lady Uddin had asked the letting company to forward all correspondence to her London home.
The subcommittee report said: “We find that Lady Uddin deliberately misled us as to the frequency of her stays in Maidstone'

And second that

'Lady Uddin has said that she does not have the money to repay the £125,000 she illegitimately claimed.'

I trust that the CPS will take on board the new evidence regarding Baroness Uddin's non-use of her Maidstone flat and prosecute her accordingly.

I further trust that in reply to the Baroness's squeals that she doesn't have the money, the authorities say "So What?" and ask her to pay in large instalments or even use an 'attachment of earnings order'. If proven, why should Baroness Uddin get away with her illegal claims?

I'm sorry but I don't understand

Could someone please explain how Baroness Uddin was not prosecuted because it could not be proved that she had not visited her 'main' home once a month yet Lord Paul is not prosecuted despite admitting that he had never spent a single night at his 'main' home?

The Telegraph's latest report on Lord Paul confuses me. First we are told that:

"Lord Paul, a major party donor, was told by Scotland Yard last week that he will not face charges over his expenses claims. "

Second we are told that:

"The peer has admitted that he never spent a single night at an Oxfordshire flat that he registered as his main home while claiming money in overnight expenses for a London property. "

How does that work> Earlier this week I reported that:

"Baroness Uddin will not be prosecuted as... threshold that peers must visit their "main home" at least once a month."

It's all in the definition

Baroness Uddin will not be prosecuted as the CPS has apparently decided that expenses rules gave prosecutors a "very real difficulty" when it came to deciding whether to prosecute and that the definition of that residence in the Lords expenses scheme would always have been "critical to any possible criminal proceedings against Baroness Uddin".

So with the Clerk of Parliaments Michael Pownall announcing last November that ultimately "it is up to members to designate an address as their main residence as they see fit" and setting a threshold that peers must visit their "main home" at least once a month. It became all but impossible for the CPS to successfully prosecute Baroness Uddin.

Of course in the real world a person's "main home" would be where they lived the majority of the time, but in Labour "snouts in the trough" Britain: "it is up to members to designate an address as their main residence as they see fit".

How convenient, how cosy, how bloody ridiculous, how unlike the rules that apply to the rest of us; but we are just taxpayers not members of the Labour elite so we have no say in these matters.

Michael Crick investigative journalist

Michael Crick's BBC blog carries the description:

"I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out."

So when I saw a piece headed "An apology" which started "Last Friday I failed to report a pretty big political story - and so did Newsnight" I wondered if Michael Crick was finally going to report on Baroness Uddin's problem with her expenses, I need not have worried for Michael Crick was off on another anti-Conservative story.

Back in February and March Michael Crick just couldn't get enough of reporting on Caroline Spelman and "nannygate" but for some reason he seems less keen to report on any Labour sleaze stories; why?

The BBC finally report the Baroness Uddin expenses story

Just a little behind the rest of the Main Stream Media, the BBC finally get around to reporting that:

"Labour peer Baroness Uddin is to be investigated over allegations that she used a reportedly empty flat to claim £100,000 in public allowances.

The House of Lords authorities are to look into the allegations, relating to a Kent property owned by the peer.

The Sunday Times said the peer stated this was her main residence and claimed a second home fee for a London flat.

Baroness Uddin said she "welcomed" the investigation, insisting that she had not broken the parliamentary rules. "

The BBC report Baroness Uddin's claim that:

"She said she had "regularly" stayed in the two-bedroom Kent "

Of course "regularly" could be a word chosen very deliberately as it makes the leads the reader to think it means often whereas it could just as easily mean once a month every month.

Will Newsnight now give Michael Crick a whole segment on this story as they did over the Caroline Spelman affair, or does the BBC only "investigate" "Tory sleaze" whilst helping to cover up for the Labour government?