Crown Prosecution Service Colludes in Tory Election Fraud 426


In a ludicrous statement, the Crown Prosecution Service argues that Conservative Party agents and candidates did not dishonestly submit false returns – because the Conservative Party told them it was legal.

That really is what the decision says. I quote:

“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 the Conservative Party broke electoral law, that is not in question and they have been fined for it by the Electoral Commission. But no individual may be prosecuted because Conservative Party HQ told them to do it? Their defence was that they are collectively all crooks, and this was accepted by the “independent” Crown Prosecution Service?

On top of which, the Crown Prosecution Service also colludes with the Tory Party by repeating the lie the Tories have assiduously spread that the allegations only related to the “Battlebus”. Of course for generations every Party Leader has campaigned from a “Battlebus”, singular, and the public are familiar with it. The Tory meme then goes everyone does that, why is it illegal?

In fact this was about something much bigger. Not one bus, but scores of buses, bussing activists and campaign directors in to marginal seats where they were also in paid for accommodation. The CPS statement refers to no allegations at all except a “Battlebus”, singular. By repeating this Tory lie in presenting the issue, the Crown Prosecution Service prove beyond any doubt that they are directly in collusion with the Tory Party.

Liked this article? Please consider sharing (links below). Then View All Latest Posts


426 thoughts on “Crown Prosecution Service Colludes in Tory Election Fraud

1 2 3 7
  • reel guid

    In that case why doesn’t the CPS prosecute people at Tory Central Office?

    • John Munro

      Obvious and logical to any intelligent person. If Tory agents are claiming the Nurnberg defence of ‘only obeying orders’, go for those issuing the orders.

  • C Roberts

    the excuse just following orders is not acceptable for the nazi soldier , but is for a Tory politician , with state propaganda machine and billionaire media owners – a quasidictatorship is assured..

    • Sheena Maclean

      I don’t think it would be accepted from any soldier and what about the “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” as we are constant!y being reminded

  • Theresas EU pawn

    banana republics top prosecutors is legitimising bias and electoral manipulations, how quaint is that. Another crass reminder that the whole electoral system and our parties are rotten to the core.
    No wonder people are leaving, the mother of all democracies turns out to be a manipulating b…h

  • AdrianD

    That interpretation occurred to me the moment I read the CPS’s preposterous explanation. The clear implication now being that as long as Tory HQ tell their candidates and agents that it’s national spending, they can do whatever they like.

  • Manda

    No surprise to me. Parties involved in alleged crimes investigating themselves or investigators accepting their word as truth is all the rage these days at home and in world affairs. Of course the new rule only applies to western states and their allies.

  • Carole josling

    Yet another example of how this government has control of anything that could remotely interfere with their illegal and corrupt management. I wonder just how much it cost to bribe those concerned. Disgusting doest come close

    • D_Majestic

      BBC had a little bit of reporting on 10 O’Clock News last night. At once I thought-do they know the result already? The ending of Bill and Ben from the early ‘fifties-‘And I think the Little House knew something about it-don’t you?’ Rofl.

  • Ann Ford

    If this is correct then the CPS should also be charged with breaking the law. Is it the Crown Prosecution Service of the Conservative Protection Service?

    • Rob Doughty

      Ann Ford – ” Is it the Crown Prosecution Service of the Conservative Protection Service?” You have to ask?????

  • Frank hocking

    The crown prosecution service is in cahoots with the Tories. They know fine they broke the law. If buses from down south come anywhere near Scotland in the next election.with English supporters they will need to bring ambulances with them to take them back. Because they won’t be able to take them back on a bus.

  • Scott Allan

    The Union rotten at its very core. “Befehl ist Befehl” – the new slogan of the tory ubermensch?

  • John Sinha

    This statement raises more questions than it answers. HQ must have known what they were doing was illegal namely, a deliberate circumvention of the rules to get around local spending limits

  • woodsy

    Imagine if a benefit claimant had been in the same position and been equally unco-operative with the investigatingauthorities; s/he would have been treated to the full displeasure of the system.

    Double standards are alive and well in the Banana Monarchy known as the United Kingdom.

  • Sharp Ears

    As I said, I never held my breath.

    Who appointed Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions?

      • Martinned

        Dominic Grieve was the Attorney General at the time. And I would suggest we lay off him, because he’s just about the only ethical Tory left. (Which is one of the reasons why he’s no longer the Attorney-General.)

        • John Brace

          Well if he’s standing in this general election as a candidate to be a Member of Parliament, I see nothing wrong with pointing out a decision he appears to have made whilst in office. I’m just pointing out that that appears to be a factual answer to the question posed.

          The point however I will make, is that it was seen as partisan during the US Presidential election last year when the FBI Director during the election made public statements about one of the candidates as it was seen as influencing the result.

      • Sharp Ears

        Oh yes Dominic Grieve, the AG who fought an application for judicial review of the decision not to grant an inquest for Dr David Kelly. Following the death in highly suspicious circumstances, an inquest was opened and immediately closed and then subsumed into the Hutton Inquiry by Falconer for Blair. The papers in the case are locked away for 70 YEARS.

        Apart from his membership of the Conservative Friends of Israel, he is a director of the Ditchley Foundation, hang out of war criminals and war mongers and others of the gangsters-in-charge variety. You can read the list here. There are also other lists of governors, members, meeting details and so on. They are very open with the info whilst they laugh in our faces as they are doing in this CPS case.

        http://www.ditchley.co.uk/the-foundations/the-ditchley-foundation/the-council

        http://www.ditchley.co.uk/the-foundations/the-ditchley-foundation/the-council

  • Eric Davies

    So who is guilty and will they now be punished. It does not alter the fact that the Tory victories in the seats in question should be withdrawn. We all know what this about. When Jeremy is in power things will change we will have openness and fairness for all.

  • NMac

    It was said it was “not in the public interest” to prosecute. I would suggest it was very definitely in the public interest to put the evidence and witnesses before the courts to publicly air and to examine and cross examine the evidence so that a jury could decide. Instead we have the evidence suppressed and a decision made behind closed doors by government paid lawyers. Corruption and cover-up on a grand scale. It’s as simple as that.

  • Martinned

    To be fair, this seems to fall under the culpability prong of the public interest test in the code: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

    I’m not up to speed on all the details, but I can see how one might arrive at the conclusion that a Conservative Party staffer or volunteer who reasonably relied on the interpretation of the law given by HQ lawyers is not very culpable, suggesting that there is little public interest in prosecuting them.

    • Gulliver

      David Allen Green has an interesting take on the legality of this issue: –

      https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/862251147553366016

      As I understand it (I’m no lawyer) the Electoral Commission decided that the Tory party was guilty of breaking national electoral rules and were duly fined £70,000 (a small sum for the Tory Party) but on local decisions it’s not so clear cut. Basically the Law as it stands doesn’t make the distinction between national and local spending clearly enough and as such the CPS would have had a hard time proving intent.

      I think an important point to make is, the Tory’s were guilty of breaking Election rules and were fined a record amount by the Electoral Commission (an independent body), it is disingenuous of the likes of Patrick McLaughlin to claim it was some sort of politically motivated attack on the Tory Party, unless of course Patrick McLaughlin thinks independent bodies should not investigate Tory party wrong doing.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    I vos only obeyink orders…Befehl ist Befehl!

    (und Ba’al ist Ba’al)

  • CameronB Brodie

    The nature of this decision is only surprising to those who think that law is impartial. The law is normatively bias in favour of the culture from whence it originates. Liberal Britain gave birth to “blood and soil” nationalism and fascism, so no surprise there then, as fascism abhors the rule-of-law.

  • reel guid

    Alison Saunders predecessor as Director of Public Prosecutions was Keir Starmer, now a very right wing Labour MP.

    Starmer also decided not to prosecute any Tory MPs over the 2009 expenses scandal. Some Labour MPs were prosecuted however.

      • reel guid

        He makes left wing noises sometimes, same as Andy Burnham who Starmer supported in the leadership contest in 2015. Unlike some of the more crazy New Labour types they continue to work with Corbyn. But they’re still right wing that’s for sure.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    I believe the Crown Prosecution Service’s statement is not in accordance with the law on this matter. I will have a look at it further, but on the face of it I think it’s false.

    “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.”

    It’s not. It’s an offence to sign it if you knew or ought to have known that the declaration was false. It is an offence to knowingly or recklessly sign such a declaration. Recklessness would probably be a great deal easier to prove than knowledge, but the CPS does not seem to have considered this.

    “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.”

    I don’t think it is normally a defence if you’ve signed something you are taking responsibility for to say “well, So-and-so told me it would be all right.” You are supposed to satisfy yourself that it’s all right and if you don’t, that is what reckless means.

    “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.”

    No, it must be proved that a suspect knew or ought to have known that the return was inaccurate. The CPS is not giving the law correctly in its statement.

    • Hmmm

      couldn’t agree more. When you are asked at an airport if anyone else has packed your luggage… Same kind of thing. One law for them…

  • Thomas Sinclair

    This illustrates what a corrupt country we live in. Independence for Scotland is our only hope!

    • PhilE

      You are kidding yourself if you think independence will make any difference to the corruption in Scots prosecutors. You only have to look at the case recently dropped of the gamekeeper flushing a hen harrier off its nest and shooting it, all caught on film in the Highlands, to see the prosecutors are under the landowning elites thumb and will remain so unless there is a complete draining of the cesspool.

  • Isabel

    It is truly sickening when the CPS cannot be trusted to uphold and defend laws which are meant to ensure a just and fair election. Disappointed, angry and a little surprised at this decision. Surprised, because I live in hope and try not to become too cynical about the “Institutions” that run the country. Why would Scotland want to remain part of this inherently corrupt system!

  • Roger Shutt

    I was under the impression that training courses for agents are run by central offices of the major political parties, with the aim to avoid any mistakes. How can conservative central office say it was a mistake when they should be informing others how to avoid mistakes ?
    I do not believe it was a mistake. IF it was, it is one of gross incompetence and negligence. If it was a genuine mistake why did they seek not to provide the evidence until threatened by a court order. In my opinion it was a case of deliberately ignoring the rules and taking a chance on getting found out. The advantages far outweighing the penalties.

  • Rennie

    I thought the whole ‘I was instructed to do it’ excuse was discounted in law after the Nuremberg trials but obviously that was just for them, foreigners you know..,.not the tories!? The CPS should be petitioned to release all the files

  • Yemach Shemo

    Someone within the Conervative Party issued the order and spoke, or wrote, the words. Someone is therefore guilty and someone therefore should be stood before the law and tried for the crime.

    It is an outrage that the CPS has acted thus in such dire circumstances when the very same departments, even in wide majority Conservative held areas of the country, are in dire need of funds after drastic cuts to their funding, from both central government Conservative policies and county Conservative policies.

    When CPS officers are arriving in courts an hour or more early and still delaying court cases while they queue to use court printers due to their own being either broken or out of date or out of toner, then something has to be done. NOt to mention staggering backlogs of court files to be ordered and dealt with, let alone errors.

    How much worse does the CPS imagine it will get when the Conservatives get away with criminal acts in order to retain their place in the seat of power?

1 2 3 7

Comments are closed.