Category Archives: uncategorised

The midnight email that set off the rebellion against Hague’s dirty tactics to dump Bercow

Posted on by
Bercow supporter Julian Lewis. MP for New Forest East, warned colleagues of the plot in this email

Bercow supporter Julian Lewis. MP for New Forest East, warned colleagues of the plot in this email

Once you write a story you often get new information sent to you. Now an MP has sent me the email sent out by Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East and a supporter of John Bercow, to hundreds of  MPs at midnight warning them of the ambush that William Hague had set up to get rid of the Speaker.I thought it worth publishing as a little bit of Parliamentary history to go with the earlier story. I see the Spectator has also picked up the email.

Dear Colleague,
At the start of this Parliament, the Procedure Committee undertook an investigation into elections for positions in the House. As part of this, the Committee looked at methods for electing the Speaker and identified two routes: (i) an open ballot as at present, or (ii) a secret ballot.
It was the view of the Committee, in bringing forward its recommendations, that NO CHANGE be made. However, it recognised that there might be an appetite in the House to debate this. Consequently, it made it clear – in two  letters to the Leader of the House, on 7 February 2013 and on 3 February 2015 – that any such debate should take place in prime time “and should not be tucked away on a Thursday”.
Today (Wednesday), at 5.45pm, Conservative colleagues received our first ever notification that, at 10.30am tomorrow, there will be an hour-long Debate “on various Procedure Committee recommendations, including on the re-election of a Speaker”. The notification added that Motions “are in the name of William Hague”.
I understand that one of these Motions will recommend changing the method of re-electing a Speaker from an open ballot to a secret one – despite the fact that only 2 Members of the Procedure Committee have supported this in the past and the Committee as a whole has not recommended any such change.
Astonishingly, even though the notification explicitly referred to the debate being “on various Procedure Committee recommendations”, the first the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, Charles Walker, knew about this Business being tabled by the Leader of the House, was when I told him after reading the notification at about 6.30pm today.
Neither the daily guidance circulated to Conservative Colleagues at 11.48am, nor the Reminder about an “important pre-election meeting of the Parliamentary Party at 10.30am tomorrow”, circulated to colleagues at 11.51am today, made any mention of bringing this controversial matter before the House on the very last day of this Parliament.
Therefore, we find that large numbers of Conservative Colleagues will be attending an important ‘Strategy meeting’ in Portcullis House at the very same time as this highly contentious matter is being debated in the Chamber. The Division Bell will then ring and Colleagues will stream over to the Division Lobbies without any awareness of the issues involved in this so-called “Free Vote”. Instead, they will be likely to support whatever it is the Leader of the House has tabled.
One need not be a particular admirer of the Speaker to realise that this is no way for decent people to behave.
I trust that Members of all parties will not allow themselves to be manipulated in this unworthy fashion, and will make the effort to attend and vote appropriately tomorrow, by rejecting the proposal to re-elect the Speaker secretly rather than openly.
Yours sincerely,
Julian Lewis

William Hague’s shabby and botched attempt to unseat a great reforming Speaker

Posted on by
John Bercow, the Speaker Image credit: bbc

John Bercow, the Speaker
Image credit: bbc

The Speaker of the House of Commons is someone the public recognise. Every week while Parliament sits he is seen on TV controlling the bear garden that is  Prime Minister’s Questions.. His role is like a strict disciplinarian headmaster trying to control overgrown adolescents shouting down and jeering their opponents like kids in a school playground.

But John Bercow is more than that. He is probably the best known speaker since  former Tiller girl Betty Boothroyd  became a hit in the United States with her unique smack of authority in a British Parliament. And he has made big changes that are good news for democracy and the public.

It was therefore deeply depressing  early on Wednesday evening when I was rung up by a very trusted source to tell me about a shabby plan to unseat him by changing the election rules for the next Parliament in May without people realising what was going on.

The master minds behind the plans appear to be William Hague, leader of the House and Michael Gove, the chief whip aided and abetted by Greg Hands, the deputy chief whip, and Cameron’s nasty Aussie election strategist, Lynton Crosby. The Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg also agreed to the ruse.

My source told me that throughout the day Tory MPs had been sent three texts by the whips designed to ambush Labour and push through an arcane rule change in Parliament which would mean curtains for Bercow. It told them that a plan to send hundreds of Tory MPs to canvass voters in the marginal seat of Hastings and Rye, held by Amber Rudd, had been cancelled and they all had to turn up  on a three-line whip ( Parliament’s on pain of death) to hear Lynton Crosby outline their general election strategy in Portcullis House at 10.30 am.

What it didn’t tell them was that the order of business had been changed at the last moment and an obscure report changing the election rules of the next Speaker – traditionally elected by a public vote – would be debated in the Chamber. They proposed to change this to a secret ballot so ministers could get rid of him without their votes being recorded.The plan was for the  debate to take place while Crosby was briefing Mps  and the vote to take place at 11.30 am just as all Tory MPs  were leaving the briefing. They would march in the lobby to vote on William Hague’s motion without really knowing what it said. And Labour MPs would know nothing about the shabby deal – most having returned to their constituencies- and government would  have got rid of Bercow.

But then my trusted source got to work – and I tweeted and briefed a few papers and broadcasters- and it began to unravel. For a start the very independent minded  Tory MP, Charles Walker, who chaired the procedure committee found his report had been hijacked by Hague. Furthermore it did not recommend voting changes in the election of a Speaker –  the two Tories on the committee who wanted it  – Sir Roger Gale and James Gray  – had been soundly defeated.  They then agreed to accept  the status quo  and the report was unanimous agreed. So Hague was being dishonest as well as sneaky. by proposing the change as it was not recommended by the report. And James Gray, to his credit, appeared so disgusted with Hague’s behaviour that he voted against the government.

Then it is clear that Angela Eagle,shadow leader of the house got wind of the deal and started summoning Labour Mps back and stopping the rest leaving. And Mr Bercow realised what the plot was about and suddenly granted two urgent questions on matters of policy which delayed the timing of the debate and the vote.

By the time it was debated yesterday the sneaky little proposal fell apart as there enough Labour Mps back in Parliament and enough Tories and Liberal Democrats rebelled to defeat the government by 26 votes.. But it had been a close run thing. Some 23 Conservative and 10 Liberal  Democrat MPs revolted. Scroll down this to see the debate and vote.

This is scandalous for two reasons. Parliament’s committee of MPs are independent of government and had proposed a completely different motion to be debated.. Hague had no business changing the findings of an independent committee.

And  Bercow himself is a good thing. He has made ministers far more accountable for their actions by forcing them to come to Parliament to justify decisions – on one issue we have had on this blog Theresa May has been far more scrutinised by MPs on the  child sex abuse inquiry because Bercow forced her to come to Parliament  by accepting urgent questions from MPs.

The coalition ministers hated this aspect of democracy because it was last minute and inconvenient They much preferred a  supine Parliament. On that issue alone people should think about how they cast their vote on May 7.

Blair Inc: What Tony and Cherie did after Downing Street

Posted on by

Blair INCToday is the eve of the publication of a new book by me, Francis Beckett and Nick Kochan which pulls together the life of Tony and Cherie Blair since they left Downing Street in 2007. It is the first account of what happened since Tony Blair ceased to be PM.

In one sense it is a surreal moment. It is the second book Francis and I have written on Tony Blair – the first originally titled The Blairs and their Court dealt with his time in office- and we have never interviewed him or Cherie as he did not want to see us. And most of  the Blairs’ close friends are equally nervous of telling us anything.

Never has a man who still wants to dominate the world stage and charges – we are told – £500,000 for making a speech – been so determined to hide away from public gaze and go to such lengths to hide his income, his  business dealings and his philanthropic and religious work. Both he and Cherie even wanted to keep secret where their business premises were located in London.

What this book puts together is  a picture of man and a woman   who are as  his once close friend Peter Mandelson famously said is ” intensely relaxed with the filthy rich…”.

It tries to analyse his labyrinthine company structure that both generates his wealth and hides who pays him. It looks at his property empire – which allows him to replicate his life as PM with a  Georgian town house in the heart of London  and a historic house in the country.

It traces his less than effective role as a Middle East envoy and looks at his business deals with dictators across Central Europe, Africa and the Middle East. It examines the roles of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and his role in African governance and looks at how Cherie – once a  proud feminist and human rights lawyer – is now much more keen on business dealings and setting up a property empire with their eldest son, Euan.

Altogether people – particularly Labour voters – may not find this a particularly attractive story. Apologists for him say he was the most successful PM in modern times and we will have omitted the great work he has done in improving the governance of African nations and his religious role through the Faith Foundation.

The extraordinary fact about Blair is how he has become loathed not only by the Labour left – over Iraq and calling for military intervention in Iran- but by the wider public and the Right for what they see as his hypocrisy as a Labour politician interested almost entirely in amassing wealth and not particularly bothered who was bankrolling him.

We have had three ex PMs who did not need to go into retirement homes. The other two – John Major and Gordon Brown – tread different paths and have escaped criticism. John Major simply did go into business to make money but does not spend his time lecturing the rest of us on political issues. Gordon Brown took another route and is devoting his life to charitable work – education in Africa – and not making millions.to have a luxury lifestyle.

Blair seemed to want everything ,wealth, rich friends, money, influence – and ended up a toxic brand. But if you go to enormous lengths  to cover your tracks people have every right to be suspicious of your motives.

You can get our book directly from John Blake Publishing or from all good bookshops. It is also being published in Australia – more details to follow. You can also see extracts of the book on Mail On Line, articles in the Independent, the Guardian  and a riveting lobbying story about what Tony Blair wrote to Hillary Clinton on Exaro news website.

Child Sex Abuse Inquiry: A little step in the right direction

Posted on by
New Zealand dame Justice Lowell Goddard pic credit: http://www.teara.govt.nz/

New Zealand dame Justice Lowell Goddard pic credit: http://www.teara.govt.nz/

Today’s announcement by Theresa May, the home secretary, and Justice Lowell Goddard, the New Zealand judge, heading the  child sex abuse inquiry, on the structure of the inquiry shows at least that both of them have listened to MPs on the Commons  Home Affairs Select Committee.

The welcome news is that both have realised that there needs to be some continuity on the new panel of the inquiry and that  it was not a good idea to throw everybody off the inquiry except for its QC, Ben Emmerson.

Particularly welcome is the promotion of Alexis Jay, who did so much to expose the appalling grooming scandal in Rotherham, to a panel member. Her voice and contribution to its work will be invaluable.

Also the reappointment of Dru Sharpling, one of the sharper minds, I am told,  on the Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, is a good one – someone with knowledge of child sex abuse and dealing with the Official Secrets Act.

The third re-appointment,another barrister, Ivor Frank, I will reserve judgement as his speciality seems to be more in the field of child abduction rather than child sexual abuse.

While the appointment of Professor Malcolm Evans , appears to duplicate a rather crowded United Nations presence – since the chair, the QC  himself are all connected to UN human rights and torture issues.

As expected survivors will have no role to play in writing the report or the detailed hearings. Justice Goddard makes it clear she was doesn’t want them present at the inner workings of the inquiry – taking a view often expressed by lawyers  ( including those who defend paedophiles) that anyone who has been sexually abused is biased,can’t be objective about anything and can’t come to any independent conclusions.

She puts a bit more politely in her statement: “ the appointment of victims or survivors to the panel will not, in my view, be consistent with the objectivity, independence and impartiality that is required of members of an independent panel who are required to act in a quasi-judicial capacity in the course of the Inquiry. Secondly, because it became clear to me during my consultations with representatives of victims and survivors groups that they reflect a wide range of divergent experiences and views. “

Instead she proposes two advisory committees.

“I have decided instead to establish a Victims and Survivors Consultative Panel (VSCP) which will be closely involved in the work of the Inquiry and will provide advice and guidance to myself and the panel as the Inquiry proceeds. There will be eight members of the VSCP, nominated by victims and survivors, who will bring a representative cross-section of experience and opinion. The VSCP will be funded out of the Inquiry’s overall budget and those appointed to the VSCP will receive an honorarium for their contribution to the work of the Inquiry and will be entitled to reimbursement of travel and other expenses.”

The good thing is that she has listened to MPs about the advisory body having funding and a role -but I am to be convinced that they will have a real say. On top of this there appears to be an  “also ran ” category- people who self select themselves to be involved if they fail to meet the criteria to sit on the main advisory board.

She has  not fleshed out exactly how this is going to work – and  the person who should have handled press inquiries had left her telephone on answer- so no guidance was available. Hardly very transparent.

The good  thing is Theresa May has avoided the pitfall of leaving the inquiry in limbo- and got this announcement out in time before election purdah comes into play. But I shall remain sceptical – given the mess surrounding the creation of this inquiry – until more information is released.

Alastair Morgan to @RupertMurdoch “You are in a unique position to help us finally lay Daniel to rest.”

Posted on by

This comes at a time when the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel , chaired by Baroness O’Loan has made a fresh appeal for people to come forward -particularly journalists – with fresh information which should be supported. No one should have such a hideous crime on their conscience.

peterjukes's avatarThe Criminal Media Nexus

1DMAM1Today, on the anniversary of his brother’s brutal murder in 1987, Alastair Morgan makes an impassioned appeal to Rupert Murdoch to fully co-operate with the Independent Panel Inquiry into the murder of Daniel Morgan, chaired by Baroness O’Loan.

The full text of the letter Alastair just hand delivered to Rupert Murdoch is here . But the personal appeal towards the end is particularly striking:

The work of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel is almost entirely dependent on disclosure and I am appealing to you today – on the 28th anniversary of my brother’s murder – to ensure that News Corporation discloses all relevant material in confidence to the Panel.

Daniel’s murder, the police corruption and the ensuing years of failed investigations have been agony for the whole family. Daniel’s children have grown up without a father and my mother is now 86 years old. We need to know the truth about what…

View original post 2,262 more words

Judge bans a Facebook page exposing paedophiles and awards £20,000 damages to convicted sex offender

Posted on by

An extraordinary ruling by a Northern Ireland judge will lead to a chilling effect on people using the internet to expose convicted paedophiles and give hope to sex offenders that they can make money from people and organisations attacking them for their crimes.

The  Belfast case has been picked up by the excellent Inforrm blog which gives a detailed legal analysis of what happened from Lorna Skinner ,a barrister at Matrix Chambers.

The facts appear to be these. Joseph McCloskey set up a Facebook profile page called ” Keep Our Kids Safe from Predators 2 ” which posted information about a convicted sex offender called CG. A similar page was set up by RS the father of one  of CG’s victims.

CG’s lawyers complained about the postings on both sites.

Inforrm says: ” Broadly speaking, each consisted of the publication of a photograph of CG together with information identifying him as a sex offender. This was followed by further posts and/or comments from viewers of the material consisting of verbal abuse, threats, and information as to identification and location.”

None of the information published  by McCloskey was private, It was all in the public domain at the time of CG’s conviction. CG’s solicitors complained to Mr McCloskey  who immediately removed all postings relating to CG. The postings on RS’s page were removed by Facebook, in each case some time after receipt of a complaint. The posts are said to contain threats of violence against the paedophile which judge took particular exception.

But the lawyers weren’t satisfied and went to court claiming the sex offender had been harassed on Facebook and his human rights breached by the publication on Facebook.

As Inforrm reports his lawyers said” the material posted amounted to a misuse of private information, was in breach of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR, amounted to harassment of him contrary to the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and that each of them were guilty of actionable negligence. For good measure he also asserted that Facebook was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.”

What is extraordinary is the ruling from Mr Justice Stephens, the judge. Even though the site had been taken down the judge approved an injunction against to protect the privacy of other sex offenders and paedophiles who had been named by contributors to the page.

As Inforrm reports ( my emphasis): “The Judge found that Mr McCloskey’s purpose in setting up the profile/page, which on his evidence had 25,000 friends, was to destroy the family life of sex offenders, to expose them to total humiliation and vilification, to drive them from their homes and expose them to the risk of serious harm.”

Inforrm adds: “As a result, CG was awarded damages totalling £20,000. An anti-harassment injunction was made against Mr McCloskey and a mandatory injunction was made against Facebook requiring it to terminate the entirety of the “Keeping our Kids Safe from Predators 2” profile/page including all material referring to other sex offenders as it “is doing damage to other individuals and is clearly unlawful”.

The full judgement is here for those who want to read it.

Quite rightly the wide terms of such a ban – particularly in relation to the Data Protection Act – is questioned by the Matrix barrister. She points out : “The obvious fallacy of this approach is that sensitive personal data covers areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, for example: “David Cameron is the Conservative Prime Minister, who comes from a traditional English background”. Similarly, it is difficult to see how, absent the application of a DPA-style [data protection act] analysis, CG could sensibly have argued that his image, or the fact of his conviction for sex offences was, or had become, private information.”

I regard this ruling as excessive and dangerous. While the threats of violence against the paedophile seem to have contributed to the judge’s findings, a complete  ban on the site is out of proportion. Also the judgement reveals that Mr McCloskey’s own mother was the subject of repeated child sexual abuse, which led him to set up the site. The site was  comprehensive in tracing all N Ireland paedophiles.

Suppose for example, to take a current case, Tony McSweeney, just convicted  for indecent assault, is sent to prison and subsequently let out on licence. Should the Roman Catholic Church have the right to remove everything from websites about him which was revealed at the time of his conviction? And should he get damages if people reveal this information, I think not.

Tony McSweeney abuse trial: The shame of Richmond Council

Posted on by
-tony-mcsweeney

Tony McSweeney: A paedophile priest. Pic Credit:rapevictimsofthecatholicchurch.files.wordpress.com

Update: Father Tony McSweeney was sentenced to three years in prison  for his crimes on March 27.

While the latest horrors over Jimmy Savile dominated the headlines,a Roman Catholic priest became the first person to be convicted as a paedophile under the Met Police’s Operation Fernbridge.

The investigation into both the notorious Elm Guest House and a Richmond Council children’s home, Grafton Close, saw Father Tony McSweeney convicted on a specimen charge of indecent assault and three charges of making indecent images of children on his computer. He was cleared of three other charges of indecent assault.

The trial would have been much bigger if not for the death of his co-accused John Stingemore had not died just before facing prosecution. Stingemore,as my colleague Tim Wood who reported the trial for Exaro shows, was portrayed by McSweeney as a paedophile. and it emerged in court that Stingemore had already been convicted as paedophile for the sexual assault of Peter Bornshin, a resident of Grafton Close home.

The trial reveals two shocking facts. First it shows that yet another paedophile Roman Catholic priest  has escaped justice for some 35 years and been able to work as a pillar of the community across the East of England. He has even gathered a  bit of celebrity stardust- marrying the boxer Frank Bruno – and when caught with child  sex abuse images he made on his computer he was a member of the scouting movement and worked with the Norwich City youth football team.

Second is the shame it has heaped on Richmond Council which failed to act at the time to halt these crimes and has been in denial ever since this investigation began. It is quite clear from the court proceedings that Stingemore when in charge of Grafton Close was able unchecked to take boys out of the children’s home to his Bexhill flat where they were abused and employ his paedophile friend McSweeney – who also accompanied boys to his flat – without anyone taking much notice. One might be tempted not to heap blame on the authority if it was not for the attitudes of leading political figures and officials to recent  events. Sir David Williams, the former Liberal Dem leader in the wake of this scandal told me he did not believe there was any child sexual abuse in Richmond and it had all been got up by the press. Tell that to the jury at Southwark Crown Court.

Two other prominent Liberal Democrats  councillors at the time now peers Tim Razzall and Jenny Tonge appeared to be in denial or did not want to talk about it. And  Louis Minister, then Richmond’s  director of social services, now retired in Malta, denied he had ever heard of Elm Guest House and said he knew nothing of what happened at Grafton Close. Only with a trial imminent did he recover his memory loss. A

nd there are leading Richmond Tories who knew at the time- an issue I am still investigating. Contrast the last 35 years. These ambitious councillors, a number of whom I have met as a lobby journalist in Parliament, have led comfortable, prosperous lives heaped with honours and public recognition. While the survivors – the people unfortunate to be sent to be protected at Grafton Close – whom I have met  as an investigative reporter at Exaro, have in the main led fractured, impoverished lives. Many have difficulty coping, relying often on benefits only to be hounded by the DWP. One,Peter Borshin, the worst case scenario,  sadly committed suicide after his experiences which went on to him being committed to Broadmoor. No peerages or honours for them.

I would hope after this tragic saga Richmond will have the grace to review its procedures to ensure that there is not a current repetition of those events 35 years ago. Perhaps the judge who  in this case has indicated that ,McSweeney will get a  custodial sentence will instruct them to do so.

There is a full report in the Daily Mail into the background of McSweeney’s career and the questions it raised about the Roman Catholic Church. The link is here.

Richmond Council issued this statement after the trial:

Gillian Norton, Chief Executive of Richmond Council, said:

“The Council is sorry that a child in its care was indecently assaulted. The assault happened 35 years ago and clearly the service leadership and management laid bare in court were totally unacceptable.

“The situation today is completely different. Most looked after children are in foster homes. Only those children needing very specialist services are placed in children’s homes. All placements are subject to rigorous checks and controls within a statutory regulatory framework and this includes senior social workers who are independent of the child’s worker.

“The system today puts much greater emphasis on the views of children and staff are employed specifically to help children to give their views.

“Sadly experience has shown us of the horrors adults continue to inflict on children and it is difficult to say it can never happen here. But I am confident that services now are well led and managed, that officers are held to account by elected Members and the Local Children’s Safeguarding Board so that children in Richmond are as safe and well looked after as possible.”

The release is here.

Cameron: Bash the Russians, send in the troops but keep out the Ukrainians

Posted on by
Ukraine in crisis Pic credit: http://media.worldbulletin.net/

Ukraine in crisis
Pic credit: http://media.worldbulletin.net/

As the crisis in Ukraine deepens David Cameron is taking an increasingly belligerent line against the Russians. He is now sending a token number of troops and promising  greater European Union  economic sanctions unless Vladimir Putin backs down.

This policy may well be right and is likely to be  popular, though people might be wary of armed involvement. As he is reported in the Daily Mail on Friday telling Govan shipyard workers :”In terms of what Britain has done, we were the first country to say that Russia should be thrown out of the G8, and Russia was thrown out of the G8. We have been the strongest adherent that we need strong sanctions in Europe and we’ve pushed for those, achieved those and held on to those at every single occasion.” Now we are the first to send some troops.

Not so well reported has been Britain’s views on the  £2.2 billion support  package agreed by the EU including the UK to help Ukraine. As well as agreeing this large sum of money to help the Ukraine the package included measures to cover one of the most controversial areas of EU policy – the relaxation of immigration controls.

As I report in Tribune this week Britain actually signed up to deal which allowed the abolition of visa requirements for Ukrainians across 26 countries in Europe..

Among the measures the EU agreed is to abolish all visa requirements for Ukrainians seeking to come to the EU for any 90 day period in the Schengen zone. This covers 22 countries in the Eu and four others, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein ,Only the UK and Ireland have a permanent opt out.

The agreement said: “Mobility is an important area where the Commission believes meaningful, visible, short-term steps should be taken.

“While a number of them depend on the political decisions of the Member States, the Commission is willing and ready to pro-actively facilitate swift and efficient coordination in this area.

It added : ” The Commission fully recognises the importance of mobility and people-to-people contacts for Ukrainian citizens and will support Ukrainian efforts to move forward the visa liberalisation process as quickly as possible in line with the agreed conditions of the Visa Liberalisation Action Plan.”

For other countries the EU agreement says: A “ Visa Facilitation Agreement is in operation between the EU and Ukraine and the Commission encourages Member States to fully exploit its potential. It gives Member States the possibility of choosing from a series of measures, including waiving visa fees for certain categories of citizens. In addition, the Visa Code gives the Member States additional options to waive the visa fees for further categories, such as, for example, children.”

When questioned the Home Office was adamant that it need not follow any of these guidelines. A spokeswoman said the agreement was equivalent to “a memorandum of understanding” between the EU and other member states outside the Schengen area and the UK need not implement anything.

At present the Home Office charges 129 US dollars (nearly £84) for a basic visa for Ukrainians to enter the UK for up to six months including children. Students are charged 234 dollars (nearly £152) and anybody seeking 10 year visa are charged 1150 dollars (nearly £747 ).

What is interesting about this is how David Cameron and Theresa May in the pre-election frenzy  have already  implemented a very tough policy on immigration to rival UKIP.

Such a move might well be popular – and there are real concerns – not least by unions like Unite – that fruit farmers were very keen on having Ukrainians over here as a source of cheap labour.

However I think we should know that Cameron’s warm words to help the desperate plight of the Ukrainians do not apply to having a single poor Ukrainian in Britain. The clampdown has begun and the troops, a token 75, are going in.

Theresa May: The courteous assassin

Posted on by
Theresa May: Pic courtesy: The Guardian

Theresa May: Pic courtesy: The Guardian

The description of how Theresa May handled the demise of the child sex abuse panel  – reported by me on Exaro at the weekend- shows the ruthless home secretary at her most combative and courteous rolled into one.

Determined to put months of indecision and  two mistaken  chair appointments behind her-  she took the most radical and surgical action she could do. She sacked the lot of the panel and started again. She had already.heavily hinted in her letter to the panel last year that this could happen.  But she softened the blow  with pleasantries and hand shakes and some genuine kind words.Never have so many people been so thoroughly stuffed in such a courteous way.

This streak of ruthlessness is why Theresa May is now  a serious contender for the leadership of the Tory Party.You can read a good profile of her here by Guardian journalist Gaby Hinscliff. Her famous statement that they were the ” nasty party ” may have stuck  a sour note with some supporters. But she know how to be nasty  and nice simultaneously.

She made sure they didn’t feel the blame ” You have done nothing wrong” she told them. But she didn’t spare them the pain – they heard they were going in shocked silence.She said they could re-apply but I will be amazed if any do. And it was followed up with the disclosure  after they left that Ben Emmerson, the QC to the inquiry, was staying and a tough email warning everybody on the panel to shut up or be sued.

In three months time there will be a general election. David Cameron may or may not win.But Theresa May already has her eye on the leadership. She is not yet in poll position – but she is making sure  she will be a challenger by secretly organising the ground work and also instructing her staff to keep very quiet about who will support her..Not even to tell a soul over a drink in the pub – so I hear.

Then I suspect her track record at the home office will be a big issue – taking on the police, setting up this child sex abuse inquiry and taking hard lines on popular right-wing issues like immigration.

If anyone knows how to wield a knife – while being kind and courteous to the victim – Theresa knows. David Cameron better watch his back.

Revealed: How the Daniel Morgan Inquiry got nowhere for a year

Posted on by
Daniel Morgan: A lesson for other inquiries

Daniel Morgan: A lesson for other inquiries

While the future of the child sex abuse inquiry dominates the news agenda the media has missed an extraordinary dispute that plagued another independent inquiry – the investigation into the brutal murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan.

The independent panel also set up by home secretary, Theresa May, has until recently been deadlocked for almost a year because of a fractious argument between the retired judge appointed to run it and the panel member responsible for examining the police.

As I report on exaro news  the saga ended with both the chairman and the panel member resigning from the inquiry but nobody in the media noticed even though the murder of Daniel Morgan has been one of the most high-profile scandals for years.It involved allegations of corruption by the Met Police, dodgy involvement of the media, and a bloody killing.

Despite five police investigations into the case, nobody has been convicted for Daniel Morgan’s murder. The co-founder of a private-detective agency, Southern Investigations, he was found with an axe in his head in 1987 in the car park of a pub in south London..

The dispute is significant because it is relevant to the problems facing the child sex abuse inquiry – and crosses a fault line, that if not corrected by the Home Office, will make the work of future independent panels very difficult.

Surprisingly when I contacted both the retired judge who resigned, Sir Stanley Burnton, and the panel member, Graham Smith,from Manchester University, both were willing to talk.

Graham Smith couldn’t believe that no one wanted to know his views which were blunt to say the least. He said “The panel was behaving like a lot of Sherlock Holmes’s, and wanted to re-investigate the murder rather than research the documents”…. it was “like working for a judicial inquiry without the safeguards of being held in public”.

The judge, while not wanting to go into detail about his resignation, made it clear that he  didn’t want to negotiate by himself with Scotland Yard about handing over all the files, he nevertheless wanted to establish some rules just like judicial proceedings.

He wrote in an email:“A possibility was to emulate the manner in which claims for public-interest privilege are dealt with in litigation, when disputes as to relevance and disclosure are determined by the judge.”

“I would not regard the refusal of the other members of the panel to agree to such a machinery as a resignation issue.”

It turns out both of them have complained about their experience. Graham Smith has written a strongly worded memo to Theresa May and the retired judge has written to the  lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about running independent inquiries.

So here’s the nub of it. Appoint a judge and it is likely he or she will want to run an inquiry rather like a court – taking advice from expert witnesses, sifting through information and writing his or her own report.

Appoint someone else to chair a panel and the atmosphere will be more collegiate and the panel will discuss issues and have an input into the final report which is what the child sex abuse inquiry was supposed to do.

Melding the two views of an inquiry together is very difficult  and requires great skill – and in some cases like the Daniel Morgan inquiry it won’t work and it falls apart. I am sure  Sir Stanley and Graham Smith are decent people – but the way the Home Office constructed the inquiry did not work.

Fortunately a new head and new people have now been appointed and the hope must be that the Daniel Morgan inquiry – which has a huge duty to the distraught Morgan family to find out what really happened – can now get on with the job.

But a valuable year has been lost and lessons need to be learned before a new person heads the child sex abuse inquiry.It points to not having a judge to chair it.