Private Eye - No.1256 - Round-up

Official site here

Round-up:

John Terry on the front page of the Sun, and why this is full of double-standards with the full-on stench of set-up, 'my-family-is-happy-now' syndrome*.

*Especially when you consider that Terry is a columnist in the above tabloid pile of shite. This should have been the real John Terry front page though.

-

Lord Hanningfield, former Tory leader of Essex county council, stepped down on 5th February after being charged under the theft act - robbing bastard. There are also other concerns about the deal he signed in Dec. 2009 with computer firm IBM. This came after previous outsourcing private communication deals failed, and cost the taxpayer millions.

-

Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair both used the child deaths in Iraq as a reason to justify the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. George has previously commented on these two 'pre-emptive war criminals'. This time they mess about with the figures about child deaths before the invasion, and claim to have saved the lives of 50,000 Iraqi children since. Google the numbers for yourself - there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, here is one article I found myself.

**Remember to buy issue 1256 to get a full run down on many other stories of interest.

Barclays Bank leader John Varley
Sir Kevin Tebbit with hidden agendas
Nationwide building society refusing to pay tax in the UK (£15million)
The Guardian/Observer somewhat negative attitude to each other
AND MANY MORE...

Terry takes the sting out of the expenses?

So the press is covered from front to back with the England ex-captain. A whole week of sensationalism, speculation and scandal. Who slipped under the radar? The MPs. Yes, they did get a days worth of coverage, yes it was the head story for the BBC and The Times, but seriously, the whole investigation cost more than was paid back. That is by far a more socially relevant story than John Terry having an affair. How did the investigation cost so much? Furthermore we are now hearing there is a little known loophole called parliamentary privilege. It beggars belief.

Politicians have urged the MPs facing charges over their expense claims not to use Parliamentary privilege to try to avoid court proceedings.

Lawyers for Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine have raised the issue of privilege.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said the public would be outraged by the use of the principle - which normally protects MPs from civil actions.

The three MPs all deny charges which they face under the Theft Act.

So does a fourth politician who faces charges - the Tory peer Lord Hanningfield.

The politicians face charges of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. If found guilty they face a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8502026.stm

"Lawyers representing those who have been charged have raised with us the question of parliamentary privilege," Starmer said. "We have considered that question and concluded that the applicability and extent of any parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/05/mps-expenses-criminal-charges-jail

Lord Hanningfield, who is charged with six counts of false accounting between March 2006 and May 2009, said he was "extremely disappointed" and insisted all his expenses claims had been made in good faith. He resigned as frontbench business spokesman in the Lords and from his post as leader of Essex county council, and was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative party.

The three MPs have engaged the same legal firm, Steel and Shamash, who also act as the Labour party's solicitors.

The MPs said in a joint statement: "We are clearly extremely disappointed that the DPP has decided to instigate proceedings against us. We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly."

They added that they believed their cases should have been dealt with by the parliamentary standards commissioner, adding: "We are confident of our position and have been advised by eminent QCs."

Some MPs and legal experts questioned whether a defence of parliamentary privilege could be sustained. David Heath, the Liberal Democrats' constitutional affairs spokesman MP, said: "If there is any question about whether parliamentary privilege gives protection against prosecution for fraud, then parliament should make it very clear by passing a resolution to say that it does not."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/05/mps-expenses-criminal-charges-jail

George wonders that if £1.1 million was paid back, then how can only four MPs be charged with theft? This is one of the biggest, scandals in history and John Terry, bless his little cotton blue socks, has taken the sting out of the expenses story. That is a reason to take the armband off him, not his private life.

Terry - Who cares?

http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2010/02/terry-and-tabs.html

"As I said during the Tiger Woods saga, we don't really learn anything new by all this. I would appear to be in the minority by thinking that people are entitled to their own privacy during these times - though of course that would mean everyone wanting things to stay private. Clearly, someone wanted this to go public, and I don't think it's beyond realms to suspect that a little bit of money has changed hands at some point, via Max Clifford and associates." Taken from above article - Check it out.

George Says:

The issue about the captaincy is a sporting, and rather pointless one. This is and should have stayed a private matter between the families. If Terry has shown a certain level of sporting courage (against Burnley), albeit, again, a rather pointless one; his reaction, as a person, by going and apologising, face-to-face with Wayne Bridge, would show far more character. We know nothing of each of the relationships involved, that level of debate would be far too detailed and balanced for the press, but he has betrayed someone, and he should, privately, do the last decent option left for him.

The important issue for society is the fact that a judge rules it is in the public interest for the press to be allowed to print this story. An individual with character flaws. What they refuse to overturn is the super-injunction of an oil-refinery firm (Trafigura), and its dumping of toxic waste. Or the illness this caused to thousands of locals.

This is not in the public interest, according to the laws of our land.

So we, the public, are interested in this, that is the simple fact, and we should be asking more questions about that, than the above examples of press freedom and censure.

Four Star said:

I hate the gloating that goes on in the red tops when this kind of thing is revealed but by /not/ reporting it they would still affect the lives of thousands of England supporters. You may say football, schmootball but that doesn't mean those people don't want to know.

Slightly devil's advocate, but as Matthew said in the first comment, sporting endeavour is affected by social misdemeanour, and that can't be right.

George Says:

I honestly, could not care less about John Terry's private life more than I would the guy who lives 14 doors to the left of my uncle who lives 45 miles away from my Grandma. The super-injunction is the issue, and it is a ridiculous legal get-out-of-jail for about a million card. It should not exist, and the worst thing about the whole argument, is that a judge thinks it is more in the 'public interest' than polluting peoples breathing apparatus with toxic sludge, which incidentally had just turned a nice little profit. Oh the joys of the rule of law.