Blair's supporters attack police as enquiry nears Number 10.

There are certain members of the British Labour Party - a few of whom have been especially vocal on the issue of law and order - who seem to be objecting now that the police are using their standard tactics against one of their own.

This all follows the arrest of Ruth Turner - known as Blair's gatekeeper - in a dawn raid during the Cash for Honours enquiry. A dawn raid is bog standard procedure where there is a suspicion that someone might attempt to destroy evidence. And, after all, she was being arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, meaning that the police believe they may have been in some way misled, so the arrest at dawn is not unusual in any way.

So, these same MP's who call for the police to be as tough as possible on suspected criminals, would normally be the very same people lining up in TV studios vocalising their support for such police action and promising to possibly get even tougher in the future. However, these MP's have suddenly lost their love of strong police action when the subject of the investigation is one of their own.

Indeed, they appear to be up in arms about it:

The culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, said at the weekend she was "slightly bewildered" by the Met's behaviour and the former home secretary David Blunkett again questioned the police's tactics yesterday, saying Ms Turner had been treated in the manner of a drug dealer. He told ITV: "If there was a danger of someone absconding, if we were dealing with a drug dealer that was going to go through the back window, you could understand why they would have a dawn raid."

Dennis MacShane, a former Foreign Office minister, accused the police of "arriving at the door of a young sincere woman in a bid to make her crack".

You'll notice that Blunkett has no problem with police behaving in this way if they suspected someone of dealing in drugs, as they might "go through the back window". Likewise, McShane's objection appears to be that the police are behaving in this way to "a young sincere woman". Perhaps, if she were not so young or so sincere, he would have no problem with the police raiding her flat at dawn.

Neither seems to have grasped that what is at the centre of this case is the suspicion of the misleading of the police. In such an instance the police will not warn a suspect that they are coming lest the subject takes action and destroys evidence. As I say, this is bog standard police procedure.

However, these same people who make the laws under which the rest of us must live, are strongly objecting when one of their own is subjected to the same "tough on crime" standards that they have been calling for the past ten years.

It is stunningly hypocritical. It could also be said to be an attempt pressure the police into dropping certain aspects of their enquiry.

Such comments led the Metropolitan Police Federation's chairman, Glen Smyth, to tell BBC News 24: "You get government ministers and senior members of the Labour party criticising the inquiry, which has frankly not even given a report to the Crown Prosecution Service yet.

"What sort of undue pressure are they trying to bring? If that's not what they are intending, it's certainly the impression that they are leaving."

Len Duvall, the Labour politician who chairs the Metropolitan Police Authority, called on others not to try to "manipulate or pressurise" officers.

The Labour Party used to say that the police enquiry was based on a bogus interpretation of the law. Now, as the investigation nears Downing Street and has even - with this arrest - entered Blair's inner sanctum, the tone from some Labour MP's has become frankly combative; even as Blair's aides admit that if anyone near to him is charged then he would have to resign.

Ministers said they were certain Mr Blair would not seek to stay until his planned departure date of June or July if any of his immediate entourage were charged.

One senior Labour minister told the Guardian: "He knows he would need to do the right thing for the party."

At the heart of all this is a series of secret loans taken by the Labour Party prior to the last election. A stunning number of those people who gave secret loans have gone on to receive awards from the Queen.

When Blair was questioned by the police over this, a ground breaking moment making Blair the first sitting Prime Minister ever to be questioned by police as part of a criminal investigation, Blair's defence was that they had all been given awards "for services to the Labour Party."

This contradicted the reasons he gave at the time when Blair's "grounds for recommendation" to the House of Lords were the donors' work in the fields of education, health and charity.

This answer caused even the men nominated to question whether or not Blair was telling the truth, and certainly had the ring of a lawyers answer, designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten.

Indeed, from an article I linked to at the time:

There was speculation in Whitehall that Mr Blair's form of words was designed by lawyers. Some think the police may have come to the conclusion, after interviewing dozens of witnesses, that the Labour nominees would not have been credible candidates for peerages had it not been for their huge donations or loans to Labour. All four men's peerages were, after all, rejected by the vetting body that checks if the nominees would be "credible... irrespective of any payments made to a political party or cause".

Ironically, it is another Labour lender, who did not make it to the final peers list, whom Mr Blair was specifically asked about in his police interview. Sir Christopher Evans, a biotechnology millionaire lent Labour £1m.

Police have focused on notes written by Sir Christopher which were seized by police. The notes, which are reported to record a conversation between Lord Levy and Sir Christopher, said: "W'd you like a K or a big P?" - a knighthood or a peerage.

The Cash for Honours enquiry is now getting incredibly close to Blair's inner circle and there are many of us who have long thought that there was something incredibly dodgy about the way people who secretly donated cash have gone on to be honoured.

Blair had hoped to ride out the storm by the simple reasoning that such charges - that there was a link between the donation and the subsequent award - would be almost impossible to prove.

I, like everyone else, have no idea what actual evidence the police have managed to get their hands on. But I do know that a dawn raid on Blair's gatekeeper is not good news for the Blair camp. And the near hysteria from Blunkett and his cohorts only serves to undermine that point.

However, these same people who are always calling for tougher police action, now need to shut up and let the police do their jobs. After all, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Isn't that the line they always trot out to defend their awful identity cards? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Click title for full article.

tag: Blunkett, Blair, cash for honours