Without alleging any impropriety, the CPS is, ultimately, a branch of the executive, headed up by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who's in turn answerable to the Attorney General. It's a legacy of criminal prosecutions, which used to be conducted by victims or their families, being taken over ad hoc by the state.

The only way to have truly independent investigation is to have something like France's fearsome juge d'instruction, an investigating magistrate separate from the executive and protected from political pressure. No wonder the French legal establishment threw a fit when Sarkozy tried to abolish 'em a few years back, alleging that the establishment was trying to cover its culs. Given what's happened to him since, their reaction was well-founded.

Byron wrote:Without alleging any impropriety, the CPS is, ultimately, a branch of the executive, headed up by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who's in turn answerable to the Attorney General. It's a legacy of criminal prosecutions, which used to be conducted by victims or their families, being taken over ad hoc by the state.

The only way to have truly independent investigation is to have something like France's fearsome juge d'instruction, an investigating magistrate separate from the executive and protected from political pressure. No wonder the French legal establishment threw a fit when Sarkozy tried to abolish 'em a few years back, alleging that the establishment was trying to cover its culs. Given what's happened to him since, their reaction was well-founded.

My understanding is that the CPS declined to launch prosecutions, because to do so they needed not only to demonstrate the existence of erroneous or fraudulent accounting returns, but intent to commit fraud on the part of those signing the documents, and it's on this latter issue that the CPS decided they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute.

But, I'd suggest that the mere fact that the Tory Party obstructed the Electoral Commission at every turn, to the point of the EC having to launch High Court injunctions to force the Tories to hand over the data, on its own smells suspicious in the extreme. The Tory Party's conduct is strongly suggestive of having a lot of dirty linen to hide. If there was nothing to hide, then the Tory Party could have dealt with this matter swiftly, by simply handing over the data and saying "have at it". Instead, they behaved exactly the way you'd expect fraudulent miscreants to behave.

However, it's important to point out that the CPS have not said they were unable to demonstrate the existence of erroneous or fraudulent accounting returns, merely that a prosecution could fail on the basis of 'reasonable doubt' about intent (read: the Tories could lie through their teeth about it all being a collection of "mistakes" instead of deliberate planning, and get away with it). From the CPS website, we have this:

Under the Representation of the People Act, every candidate and agent must sign a declaration on the expenses return that to the best of their knowledge and belief it is a complete and correct return as required by law. It is an offence to knowingly make a false declaration. In order to bring a charge, it must be proved that a suspect knew the return was inaccurate and acted dishonestly in signing the declaration. Although there is evidence to suggest the returns may have been inaccurate, there is insufficient evidence to prove to the criminal standard that any candidate or agent was dishonest.

The Act also makes it a technical offence for an election agent to fail to deliver a true return. By omitting any 'Battle Bus' costs, the returns may have been inaccurate. However, it is clear agents were told by Conservative Party headquarters that the costs were part of the national campaign and it would not be possible to prove any agent acted knowingly or dishonestly. Therefore we have concluded it is not in the public interest to charge anyone referred to us with this offence.

So, basically, the assertion being presented, is that because Tory Central Office told the local agents that the costs in question were part of the national campaign, and all the agents have to do is say they had no reason to think otherwise, then launching a prosecution isn't likely to lead to results. Which, in the light of the recently documented newspaper blitz above, which appears to be deliberately engineered to circumvent the law, suggests to me that the Tories are as guilty as fuck, and getting away with it simply because they're in a position to blag and bullshit their way out of it.

Won't surprise me in the least if an increasing number of people think that the French solution to this problem is warranted.

Hint: I'm not talking about your French solution either, Byron ...

Byron wrote:Without alleging any impropriety, the CPS is, ultimately, a branch of the executive, headed up by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who's in turn answerable to the Attorney General. It's a legacy of criminal prosecutions, which used to be conducted by victims or their families, being taken over ad hoc by the state.

The only way to have truly independent investigation is to have something like France's fearsome juge d'instruction, an investigating magistrate separate from the executive and protected from political pressure. No wonder the French legal establishment threw a fit when Sarkozy tried to abolish 'em a few years back, alleging that the establishment was trying to cover its culs. Given what's happened to him since, their reaction was well-founded.

But then we'd be more like the French, and the English have such an aversion to the French, that somehow the collective English mind remembers Napoleon as that French guy who attempted to destroy the British, rather than that guy who kicked a bunch of toffs around.

The two legal systems are totally different. The English system is very bad at investigation. The idea of the Napoleonic investigation judge with absolute power to ask and demand anything he wants to see or hear is so alien to the English justice system of old boy networks that it would never be accepted (also it is French). Our legal system also has this position as well. Searching for the truth hardly pays a part in the English adversarial system.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The two legal systems are totally different. The English system is very bad at investigation. The idea of the Napoleonic investigation judge with absolute power to ask and demand anything he wants to see or hear is so alien to the English justice system of old boy networks that it would never be accepted (also it is French). Our legal system also has this position as well. Searching for the truth hardly pays a part in the English adversarial system.

England used to employ investigative magistrates: the magistracy only lost its investigative functions in the mid-19th century. In Scotland, the Sheriff only lost 'em this year, after they faded from use. The Procurator Fiscal, however, is similar.

No system's entirely adversarial or inquisitorial (France has introduced adversarial elements like cross-examination into her trials). England could certainly adopt either an investigating judge, or judicialize her prosecutors.

Calilasseia wrote:My understanding is that the CPS declined to launch prosecutions, because to do so they needed not only to demonstrate the existence of erroneous or fraudulent accounting returns, but intent to commit fraud on the part of those signing the documents, and it's on this latter issue that the CPS decided they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute.

But, I'd suggest that the mere fact that the Tory Party obstructed the Electoral Commission at every turn, to the point of the EC having to launch High Court injunctions to force the Tories to hand over the data, on its own smells suspicious in the extreme. The Tory Party's conduct is strongly suggestive of having a lot of dirty linen to hide. If there was nothing to hide, then the Tory Party could have dealt with this matter swiftly, by simply handing over the data and saying "have at it". Instead, they behaved exactly the way you'd expect fraudulent miscreants to behave.

However, it's important to point out that the CPS have not said they were unable to demonstrate the existence of erroneous or fraudulent accounting returns, merely that a prosecution could fail on the basis of 'reasonable doubt' about intent (read: the Tories could lie through their teeth about it all being a collection of "mistakes" instead of deliberate planning, and get away with it). From the CPS website, we have this:

Under the Representation of the People Act, every candidate and agent must sign a declaration on the expenses return that to the best of their knowledge and belief it is a complete and correct return as required by law. It is an offence to knowingly make a false declaration. In order to bring a charge, it must be proved that a suspect knew the return was inaccurate and acted dishonestly in signing the declaration. Although there is evidence to suggest the returns may have been inaccurate, there is insufficient evidence to prove to the criminal standard that any candidate or agent was dishonest.

The Act also makes it a technical offence for an election agent to fail to deliver a true return. By omitting any 'Battle Bus' costs, the returns may have been inaccurate. However, it is clear agents were told by Conservative Party headquarters that the costs were part of the national campaign and it would not be possible to prove any agent acted knowingly or dishonestly. Therefore we have concluded it is not in the public interest to charge anyone referred to us with this offence.

So, basically, the assertion being presented, is that because Tory Central Office told the local agents that the costs in question were part of the national campaign, and all the agents have to do is say they had no reason to think otherwise, then launching a prosecution isn't likely to lead to results. Which, in the light of the recently documented newspaper blitz above, which appears to be deliberately engineered to circumvent the law, suggests to me that the Tories are as guilty as fuck, and getting away with it simply because they're in a position to blag and bullshit their way out of it.

Won't surprise me in the least if an increasing number of people think that the French solution to this problem is warranted.

Hint: I'm not talking about your French solution either, Byron ...

Juges d'instruction followed hot on the heels of the national razor, so that's one route to change, though not one I'll be marching behind.

The CPS' self-imposed charging burden's notoriously high (police call 'em Couldn't Prosecute Satan for good reason), much higher than the reasonable cause they need to lay charges, so anything but a slam-dunk was always likely to fall short.

Byron wrote:Juges d'instruction followed hot on the heels of the national razor, so that's one route to change, though not one I'll be marching behind.

The CPS' self-imposed charging burden's notoriously high (police call 'em Couldn't Prosecute Satan for good reason), much higher than the reasonable cause they need to lay charges, so anything but a slam-dunk was always likely to fall short.

A truly mischievous thought has just crossed my mind on reading this. Namely, that the same charging burden wouldn't apply to a private prosecution.

Which would be sweet to see - not least because of the spectacle of seeing the Tories whinge and bleat if someone decides to act on their privatisation fetish in such a manner. Perhaps we should give Gina Miller a call?

Calilasseia wrote:A truly mischievous thought has just crossed my mind on reading this. Namely, that the same charging burden wouldn't apply to a private prosecution.

Which would be sweet to see - not least because of the spectacle of seeing the Tories whinge and bleat if someone decides to act on their privatisation fetish in such a manner. Perhaps we should give Gina Miller a call?

Unfortunately for would-be citizen prosecutors, thanks to a 3-2 Supreme Court judgment in 2012, it now does. In any case, the attorney general has the absolute right to take over and discontinue a private prosecution, which I expect would be exercised so fast in this case you wouldn't see the application for smoke.

Byron wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:A truly mischievous thought has just crossed my mind on reading this. Namely, that the same charging burden wouldn't apply to a private prosecution.

Which would be sweet to see - not least because of the spectacle of seeing the Tories whinge and bleat if someone decides to act on their privatisation fetish in such a manner. Perhaps we should give Gina Miller a call?

Unfortunately for would-be citizen prosecutors, thanks to a 3-2 Supreme Court judgment in 2012, it now does. In any case, the attorney general has the absolute right to take over and discontinue a private prosecution, which I expect would be exercised so fast in this case you wouldn't see the application for smoke.

Which would only increase the suspicion that the Tory Party had criminality to hide on a grand scale.

It would be worth finding someone to do this, specifically to embarrass the fucking crooks and liars.

I am amazed that politics has that amount of influence over the judiciary in England.

It doesn't: English judges are notoriously reluctant to get involved in anything that could be labeled political. The 2012 Supreme Court case was unrelated to government intrigue (it involved alleged assaults and threatening behavior), and was decided on narrow points of law.

Calilasseia wrote:Which would only increase the suspicion that the Tory Party had criminality to hide on a grand scale.

It would be worth finding someone to do this, specifically to embarrass the fucking crooks and liars.

If someone had money to burn, I guess they could do it as a piece of political theater, though they'd have to be careful not to get accused of abuse of process.

We could have a whip round...

So ... who is voting for this then?

The Tories could probably re-introduce slavery, workhouses and public floggings and still win at this rate.

'Theresa May, children's lunch-snatcher'. Nah, there has to be a catchier label. Any ideas?

ronmcd wrote:So ... who is voting for this then?

To be fair, ending a promise not to raise taxes is a very logical move. You can't promise to cut the government's main source of income, because you need money to achieve projects.

Mind you, if you raise taxes, you won't need to scrap free meals and winter fuel payments, or at least, hopefully you won't need to so long as you don't splash out on ridiculous ego projects.

Preparation for third world status.

The Tories' latest wheeze ... rigging the electoral system to stop poor people from voting.

In short, the Tories want to introduce "pay to vote". So that none of their rich friends are affected, but millions of the plebs will be shut out of democratic politics.

Spread this far and wide, and make it known that the Tories are intent on destroying democracy itself in order to cling to power.

Calilasseia wrote:The Tories' latest wheeze ... rigging the electoral system to stop poor people from voting.

In short, the Tories want to introduce "pay to vote". So that none of their rich friends are affected, but millions of the plebs will be shut out of democratic politics.

Spread this far and wide, and make it known that the Tories are intent on destroying democracy itself in order to cling to power.

Yes, because as we all know, voter fraud is rife! How else would the Tories get so many votes?