Goldsmith refuses to stand aside over 'cash-for-honours'
There really are times when the gall of New Labour simply leaves one speechless. And the behaviour of the Attorney General is always a source of open mouthed bewilderment.
He was the man who thought the Iraq war was illegal - according to his staff - until the US and UK failed to win a second UN resolution, whereupon he instantly changed his mind and found the war to be legal after all - based on resolutions referring to Saddam's presence in Kuwait, a decade and a half after Saddam had been driven from Kuwait. It was so outrageous that several of his staff instantly resigned. So he's a man who is known to bend his opinions to suit his masters when needed.
Now, we find the Cash for Honours scandal lapping at the front of the door of Ten Downing Street and Goldsmith has been asked to stand aside from making any decisions over whether any members of the government, of which he is a member, should be charged and Goldsmith is refusing.
It's such a textbook conflict of interests that it is almost surreal that he thinks it is acceptable that he should get to make the final decision over whether or not friends of his have broken any laws. But, bizarrely, that is what he is claiming.
Coming from the man who refused to allow his reasoning for why the Iraq war was legal to even be seen, this is bordering on comedy.Lord Goldsmith insisted he would judge the case for a prosecution "objectively, on the evidence, independently from government". He was unable to stand aside because the law requires his consent before certain charges are brought and because he is the only figure accountable to Parliament for the actions of the CPS.
"It is normal for me to be consulted in sensitive and complex cases," he told Sky News. "I can assure you and everyone else that, if I am consulted, any decision will be taken objectively, on the evidence, independently of government, because my first duty is to the law, not to party politics.
We are now expected to believe that an Attorney General - who has previously adjusted his opinions to suit the prevailing political winds - can put aside personal feelings and impartially decide whether or not his friends should face prosecution. Prosecutions that may very well mar Tony Blair's last days in office. Tony Blair, his mate, the man he once shared a flat with.
It's beyond satire.
There is no need even to make a case as to why there might be a conflict of interests here, as it's so blindingly bloody obvious.David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "He is a politician and he is a peer, he was made a peer by Tony Blair. None of that is wrong but he should not be involved in this decision. It should be made independently by members of the Crown Prosecution Service," he said.
Angus MacNeil, the Scottish National Party MP whose complaint triggered the investigation, said Lord Goldsmith's role in the case was "completely indefensible ... It is simply untenable for him to have any role in this case, and he must step back from that now."
The Liberal Democrats are to table parliamentary questions to Lord Goldsmith about what contacts he has had with Lord Levy.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the party leader, said: "He will do much better for himself and for the credibility of this whole process if he makes sure he takes independent advice and acts upon that independent advice."
Goldsmith is obviously beyond shame if he feels that he can brazen this one out.
Click title for full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment