RIGGING THE 2005 GENERAL ELECTION.//
From The Times for Wednesday the 5th of April 2006.//
"The Spanish government has dissolved the Marbella City Council as part of a £1.7 billion corruption investigation, involving the arrests of 23 people including the town's mayor. This was announced after an emergency cabinet meeting of the Spanish government. Maria Fernandez, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that the Spanish government would neither protect nor tolerate the corrupt. She continued, no Spanish government had ever acted in such a way before, but the measure had been necessary to defend public progress and to restore faith in civic integrity.//
Madrid acted after the Mayor of Marbella, the Deputy Mayor, town councillors, developers, lawyers, businessmen and the local Police Chief were all arrested for their alleged roles in a racket said to have been organised by Juan Antonio Roca, the Chief of Urban Planning. Police raided the Town hall and also seized property including cash, artworks, thoroughbred horses and a helicopter.//
Senor Roca faces charges of corruption and money laundering and he is one of eleven suspects being held in prison awaiting trial. He is accused of organising a gang that obtained at least £1.7 billion in cash, valuables and property as bribes for permitting thousands of illegal property developments."//
The £1.7 billion, yes billion, mentioned in the charges against the various public officials in Spain is an indication of the scale of the corruption involved. However the £1.7 billion refers only to the ten per cent share that a particular group of corrupt officials charged for facilitating various corrupt property transactions in a particular town. Making the total of the allegedly corrupt transactions in the one town £20 billion. Several other towns and the regional government are rumoured to have similarly corrupt involvements.//
The allegedly corrupt transactions were not complicated. The alleged perpetrators seemed to have thought that they would not be prosecuted because the vast amounts of money, which were apparently sloshing around, would be likely to produce a win win situation for all concerned.//
The situation in Spain is comparable to the CASH FOR HONOURS allegations in Britain, because the two situations are on a grand scale. And both groups of alleged perpetrators seem to have thought that what would be good for them as individuals would be likely to be good for people in general. The CASH FOR HONOURS allegations in Britain certainly are on a grand scale. They involve THE RIGGING OF THE 2005 GENERAL ELECTION.//
The MILLIONS allegedly involved in the British corruption would have influenced BILLIONS being moved around in the British economy, including the BILLIONS being used to finance the Iraq War and the BILLIONS being used to organise the ever increasing house prices, which are of course being maintained by CONTINUOUS IMMIGRATION.//
The authorities in Spain can rightly feel pleased with themselves that they have faced up to such large scale alleged corruption. However the situations in Spain and in Britain have a significant basic difference. In Spain it can reasonably be suggested that the alleged corruption involved clumsy fairly stupid provincials. In Britain the alleged corruption involves the ruling political elite.//
The Labour Party somehow or other attracted large donations for the purpose of keeping themselves in office. If they had been unable to attract such donations, Blair and his cronies would have been rejected by the electorate, rejected because of the dissatisfaction with Blair's Holy War in Iraq and rejected because of the vast scale of immigration into the UK. As it was, in order to ensure a Labour victory Blair had to state clearly that he himself would step down soon after a Labour victory. And even then Labour only just scraped back into office.//
They were able to do this by using the allegedly corrupt donations to present themselves as THE PARTY OF STABILITY. They were able to present opposition to the Iraq War and opposition to Immigration as somehow ignorant of large scale and long term political and economic considerations. The press played along with this because journalists, like all voters, vote for stability.//
In fact a good case can be made that the leaders of the Labour Party are fairly uninterested in political and economic considerations. They seem to be interested in little more than personal financial gain. That is however a secondary matter, secondary to the basic allegations about the corrupt procurement of party funding.//
How exactly was the allegedly corrupt procurement of party funds organised. We can be fairly sure it did not involve forms in triplicate and receipts such as, 'Further to yours of the 25th I have received with thanks the peerage for which I paid £2 million.'//
However the transactions clearly took place. If buying bread was made illegal, and one walked into a supermarket and was given a loaf of bread for ones services to the community and at the same time one donated £1 to Tony Tesco's favourite charity, it would be fairly clear that an illegal transaction had taken place. //
So where is the problem with prosecuting Tony Blair? Apparently the problem is with establishing exactly how Blair collected at his end of the transactions. The matter is simple enough. The donations were used to keep Labour in office. In office Blair allotted to himself and his cronies vast amounts of public money. The full circle of motive, opportunity, method of operation and everything else is complete, certainly complete enough to get a successful prosecution if the will is there.//
And of course the ACTS OF PARLIAMENT prohibiting corruption in public office don't just refer to financial motives. There are prohibitions against the corrupt procurement of honours and influence. Has Tony Blair maintained his influence? Have donors to the Labour Party been nominated for honours? Isn't money always a medium of exchange? What exactly has been exchanged for all the MILLIONS which have been sloshing around?//
Government corruption is not a victimless crime. Voters always vote for stability. Voters were duped into supposing that voting for Labour was a matter of voting for stability. There is overwhelming evidence that the Labour Party is not a party of stability.//
THE LABOUR PARTY IS A PARTY OF CHAOS AND CORRUPTION.//
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME.//
Tom Smith, 15th November 2006.//
From The Times for Wednesday the 5th of April 2006.//
"The Spanish government has dissolved the Marbella City Council as part of a £1.7 billion corruption investigation, involving the arrests of 23 people including the town's mayor. This was announced after an emergency cabinet meeting of the Spanish government. Maria Fernandez, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that the Spanish government would neither protect nor tolerate the corrupt. She continued, no Spanish government had ever acted in such a way before, but the measure had been necessary to defend public progress and to restore faith in civic integrity.//
Madrid acted after the Mayor of Marbella, the Deputy Mayor, town councillors, developers, lawyers, businessmen and the local Police Chief were all arrested for their alleged roles in a racket said to have been organised by Juan Antonio Roca, the Chief of Urban Planning. Police raided the Town hall and also seized property including cash, artworks, thoroughbred horses and a helicopter.//
Senor Roca faces charges of corruption and money laundering and he is one of eleven suspects being held in prison awaiting trial. He is accused of organising a gang that obtained at least £1.7 billion in cash, valuables and property as bribes for permitting thousands of illegal property developments."//
The £1.7 billion, yes billion, mentioned in the charges against the various public officials in Spain is an indication of the scale of the corruption involved. However the £1.7 billion refers only to the ten per cent share that a particular group of corrupt officials charged for facilitating various corrupt property transactions in a particular town. Making the total of the allegedly corrupt transactions in the one town £20 billion. Several other towns and the regional government are rumoured to have similarly corrupt involvements.//
The allegedly corrupt transactions were not complicated. The alleged perpetrators seemed to have thought that they would not be prosecuted because the vast amounts of money, which were apparently sloshing around, would be likely to produce a win win situation for all concerned.//
The situation in Spain is comparable to the CASH FOR HONOURS allegations in Britain, because the two situations are on a grand scale. And both groups of alleged perpetrators seem to have thought that what would be good for them as individuals would be likely to be good for people in general. The CASH FOR HONOURS allegations in Britain certainly are on a grand scale. They involve THE RIGGING OF THE 2005 GENERAL ELECTION.//
The MILLIONS allegedly involved in the British corruption would have influenced BILLIONS being moved around in the British economy, including the BILLIONS being used to finance the Iraq War and the BILLIONS being used to organise the ever increasing house prices, which are of course being maintained by CONTINUOUS IMMIGRATION.//
The authorities in Spain can rightly feel pleased with themselves that they have faced up to such large scale alleged corruption. However the situations in Spain and in Britain have a significant basic difference. In Spain it can reasonably be suggested that the alleged corruption involved clumsy fairly stupid provincials. In Britain the alleged corruption involves the ruling political elite.//
The Labour Party somehow or other attracted large donations for the purpose of keeping themselves in office. If they had been unable to attract such donations, Blair and his cronies would have been rejected by the electorate, rejected because of the dissatisfaction with Blair's Holy War in Iraq and rejected because of the vast scale of immigration into the UK. As it was, in order to ensure a Labour victory Blair had to state clearly that he himself would step down soon after a Labour victory. And even then Labour only just scraped back into office.//
They were able to do this by using the allegedly corrupt donations to present themselves as THE PARTY OF STABILITY. They were able to present opposition to the Iraq War and opposition to Immigration as somehow ignorant of large scale and long term political and economic considerations. The press played along with this because journalists, like all voters, vote for stability.//
In fact a good case can be made that the leaders of the Labour Party are fairly uninterested in political and economic considerations. They seem to be interested in little more than personal financial gain. That is however a secondary matter, secondary to the basic allegations about the corrupt procurement of party funding.//
How exactly was the allegedly corrupt procurement of party funds organised. We can be fairly sure it did not involve forms in triplicate and receipts such as, 'Further to yours of the 25th I have received with thanks the peerage for which I paid £2 million.'//
However the transactions clearly took place. If buying bread was made illegal, and one walked into a supermarket and was given a loaf of bread for ones services to the community and at the same time one donated £1 to Tony Tesco's favourite charity, it would be fairly clear that an illegal transaction had taken place. //
So where is the problem with prosecuting Tony Blair? Apparently the problem is with establishing exactly how Blair collected at his end of the transactions. The matter is simple enough. The donations were used to keep Labour in office. In office Blair allotted to himself and his cronies vast amounts of public money. The full circle of motive, opportunity, method of operation and everything else is complete, certainly complete enough to get a successful prosecution if the will is there.//
And of course the ACTS OF PARLIAMENT prohibiting corruption in public office don't just refer to financial motives. There are prohibitions against the corrupt procurement of honours and influence. Has Tony Blair maintained his influence? Have donors to the Labour Party been nominated for honours? Isn't money always a medium of exchange? What exactly has been exchanged for all the MILLIONS which have been sloshing around?//
Government corruption is not a victimless crime. Voters always vote for stability. Voters were duped into supposing that voting for Labour was a matter of voting for stability. There is overwhelming evidence that the Labour Party is not a party of stability.//
THE LABOUR PARTY IS A PARTY OF CHAOS AND CORRUPTION.//
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION IS NOT A VICTIMLESS CRIME.//
Tom Smith, 15th November 2006.//
No comments:
Post a Comment