Much has been said about the injunctions, or attempted injunctions, against the BBC and Guardian, to prevent the publication of information relating to Lord Levy’s alleged attempt to pervert the course of justice in the cash for honours enquiry.

For the benefit of bemused non-British readers, in the UK the media are not allowed to publish the details of any potential evidence in a criminal trial, in case the jury are prejudiced by media reports before they enter the jury box.

Most other countries see no need for such restrictions. I have mixed thoughts about the system, though like all media restriction it is in danger of being made redundant by the internet and other new technologies. It is no longer a question of controlling a handful of presses and broadcast channels.

But what is undeniable is that in Britain today there is no attempt at fairness in the application of this principle. Senior New Labour figures are entitled to the full protection of this law. Is the same consideration applied to Muslims accused of terrorist offences?

The answer is a resounding no. Instead we receive a constant drip-feed of supposedly terrifying information, from police, Home Office and security services, sometimes open and sometimes just named as, for example, “Police sources”. So in the case of the so-called “liquid bomb plot”, such sources were only too keen to tell us under whose bed suicide videos had been found, near whose home were bottles containing hydrogen peroxide, who had a map pf Afghanistan, and a whole welter of such information. This was spun all over our front pages for a fortnight.

Where was Lord Goldsmith and his concern for the right to a fair, unprejudiced trial then?

I heard Louise Christian, a lawyer involved in the defence of a number of such cases, speak on precisely this point in January. She recalled a local newspaper printing a front page photo of two of her clients the day before their trial, with the banner headline “Terror sisters”. That is not permitted under our law – but it is one of the many protections of the rights of citizens that no longer in practice applies to Muslims in the UK.

Meanwhile, I am stunned that last week Sir Ian Blair, head of the Metropolitan police, shared the top table at a Jewish community dinner with Lord Levy. Blair is the head of the police force that has arrested Levy, removed his passport and, from the actions of Lord Goldsmith this week in seeking to suppress information that may be used at the trial, is likely to charge him shortly with an imprisonable offence.

It cannot possibly be right for the head of the Metropolitan Police to be hobnobbing socially with a prominent alleged criminal. And this is the ultra-sensitive Ian Blair, whose concern for social form is so acute that he demanded an offical report when a female Muslim police officer refused to shake hands with him. The report presumably explained that many Muslim females do not shake hands with men.

Ian Blair and Levy are of course both close members of the Prime Minister’s social and political circle. It is by no means the first time that they have dined together. In July 2005 the two of them ran up a ‘140 ($270) bill at a London restaurant, which Sir Ian Blair charged to the taxpayer. There was no investigation into Levy at the time, but his being dead sleazy was hardly a secret.

Ian Blair’s explanation of that charge to the taxpayer was that Levy was a representative of the Jewish community. Now, there are many eminent and worthwhile people in London to whom that description applies, but I don’t think that Levy holds any community posts. He is no more a representative of the Jewish community than I am of the Scottish community. Besides, how many one to one ‘140 meals has Ian Blair had with a representative of the Muslim community? Or the Irish, Iranian, Kurdish, Turkish, Polish, Palestinian or Greek communities? Other than ultra-rich New Labour supporters who happen to have that background?

So Ian Blair and Levy have form. In current circumstances it was a gross error of judgement for Ian Blair to sit at a top table with Lord Levy. Levy should have realised that himself and made his excuses, but nobody could mistake Lord Levy for a gentleman. Therefore Blair should have made an excuse and left. As it is, some of the smell has rubbed off. Ian Blair should resign.

George Bush is just following John Reid in ensuring any trials following today’s arrests are irretrievably prejudiced.

It is a fact that only the closest Blair circle bothers to deny, that if young British Muslims are turning to terrorism, it is the Blair-Bush foreign policy of war on Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine that has driven them to it. The majority of British people share their outrage at our foreign policy. That is not to condone the response of irrational violence. Terrorism is plain wrong. But it is Blair who has, through his evangelical embrace of the neo-con foreign agenda, massively increased any current threat of terrorism to the UK.

But let us do what none of the 24 hour news channels are doing; draw breath and count up to ten. What has actually happened so far?

There have been, reportedly, 21 people arrested. There have been no terrorist attacks, no explosions. US sources are reported as saying that explosive devices have been found, but no news from the Police as yet.

I am reminded of the Forest Gate arrests and the notorious “Chemical weapon vest” which was threatening London and required 270 policemen and a four mile air exclusion zone to deal with. The media was shoving that out just as uncritically as it is shoving out this air attack, even though it made no sense. Anyone who knows anything about weapons knows that for a chemical weapon you want maximum dispersal – the last thing you are going to do is wrap it in fabric around a human body. And why the air exclusion zone? Were they going to throw the vest at a passing jet? The media never did ask any of those questions.

Similarly, I recall the famous ricin plot, where again police and the professional pundits said millions could have been killed. In the event, of course, it turned out there was no ricin and no plot.

And I remember Jean Charles De Menezes, the “suicide bomber”, with his “bulky jacket”, with “wires sticking out”, who “leapt” the ticket barriers and “raced” onto the tube. All lies.

So I am waiting with a little healthy scepticism to see the truth of this “al-Qaida plot” bringing “Mass murder on an unprecedented scale”.

Of course, it helps New Labour look Churchillian, and explains why Israel had to be supported in the ethnic cleansing of South Lebanon, part of the “Arc of extremism”. it is interesting that the timing of these arrests exactly today, after “months” of surveillance, was determined by the Prime Minister – the CO in COBRA, the operational command, stands for Cabinet Office.

The political timing could not have been more convenient – a junior minister had resigned over arms to Israel, and the backbench rebellion demanding a recall of parliament over Lebanon will now be containable in the name of standing together in the War on Terror. And the news agenda has been seismically shifted. The public mood is instantly tilted from sympathy for the people of Lebanon, leading to questioning of the War on Terror, to renewed fear that “Islamic fascists” are planning to kill us all.

So to recap: Blair’s crazed foreign policy has made us a genuine potential target for terrorist attack. The government manipulates and spins that threat to political advantage.

We wait for the court system to show whether this was a real attempted attack and, if so, it was genuinely operational rather than political to move against it today. But the police’ and security services’ record of lies does not inspire confidence.

Sky News has a viewers’ vote which shows 88% believe that Tessa Jowell should resign. However they have two guests to discuss the issue with Adam Boulton. One was her friend and former ministerial colleague Baroness Jay and the other her junior minister! They are featuring nobody who thinks she should resign.

The BBC is still worse. The streamer under BBC News 24 regularly tells us that the separation is not a ploy to save her political career. I listened to Radio 4, watched Andrew Marr’s political programme and BBC New 24 from 9.55 to 10.40. Not a single critic of Jowell has appeared on the BBC, even though it is the headline story on all these outlets. They are simply deluging us with pro-Jowell propaganda.

For anyone who ever doubted the existence of the “Establishment”, this is a real lesson. The views of the people can’t get on to the media at all.

BBC – Tessa Jowell splits from husband

The latest move in the Jowell scandal is the most cynical bit of media manipulation. Tearful Tessa, lower lip trembling, eyes welling, torn apart from the man she loves. Altogether now: Aaah! But wait – there is hope. The couple need time to “rebuild” their relationship. So they will get back together after all, in a happy reconciliation, probably just after the local elections.

Who could be so stupid as to buy this crap? Well, the BBC has been reporting it all morning without the tiniest touch of irony. Even the saintly Martin Bell was wheeled out to say that Tessa is now out of the woods.

This answers none of the questions about the money laundering and the corrupt payment she has already received, and is plainly a ploy to divert attention from the continual lies she has told about her involvement in the family finances. Her story yesterday wouldn’t stand up to a moment’s genuine scrutiny – so let’s divert the scrutiny.

It is as if Fred and Rosemary West had said: “OK, we’ve separated now. We’ll see if we can rebuild our relationship. So there is no longer any need to dig up the garden or the cellar.”

I now learn that Tessa Jowell not only claims that she did not know that her husband had received $600,000, but did not know that her own mortgage had been paid off.

I simply do not believe her. Let me be perfectly plain. I am calling her a liar. Go on, sue me.

I recently paid off my mortgage. That involves paperwork. It also involves the deeds of the house being sent from the mortgage company. This is a very careful and important transaction, and the mortgage company will make absolutely certain that it has the agreement of all parties to the mortgage as to where the deeds are being sent. Paying off a mortgage in your name is simply not the sort of thing you can miss happening.

Presumably she also didn’t notice for four years she wasn’t receiving any mortgage statements.

Who does believe her? I should be most grateful if anyone who does believe her could sign in and leave a comment. In fact, please sign in and tell me whatever you think. (I am sorry about the signing in, but it isn’t painful and has reduced the porno spam in which we would otherwise be drowning).

One last thought. If you do believe her, do you think that a woman who does not know if her own home is mortgaged or not, who does not know her family income within the odd 600 thousand dollars or so, is a sensible person to put in charge of an Olympic Games?

Sir Gus O’Whitewash has ruled. Tessa Jowell did not break the rules because for four years David Mills did not tell her he had received what he then believed was a gift of $600,000.

How nice it must be to be so fabulously wealthy that a gift of $600,000 is so unimportant to you that you do not even bother to mention it to your partner!

Actually, I have a lot of experience of the very rich, and they are much more obsessed with money than the poor, and certainly talk about it more. I just don’t believe Jowell.

This is particularly true as the money was used to pay off a large remortgage which she herself had just taken out. She is now saying that she didn’t have any idea, or apparently ask, where all the money to pay off the mortgage came from.

There is also a peculiar bit of reasoning by Sir Gus O’Whitewash. Jowell alleges that she did not know about the money for four years, and by that time tax was paid for it, so it had become earnings, not a gift.

Actually, that doesn’t follow. If you receive a large cash gift it is still classed as income, and taxable.

Of course, what we still do not know, is who this money came from, and why. If it did not come from Berlusconi or from another illegitimate source, show us the paper trail. It is inconceivable that such a large sum from any legitimate source is not documented.

That money was used to pay off a mortgage which was 50% in Jowell’s name. So to accept it is only her husband’s business is simply nonsense.

Whitehall’s whitewash has become so watery as to cover up nothing.

It is a sign of our appalling times, and the arrogance of New Labour, that Blair clings on to his loyal muppet Jowell, while Sir Gus O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary, earnestly enquires whether there is anything in the Code of Conduct for Ministers that specifically precludes multiple acts of money laundering. (link)

Well, Sir Gus, there is certainly this; the Code precludes acceptance of gifts. That is what Mills claims this money was. As this “Gift” (note the use of a capital ‘G’) went to pay off a mortgage which was 50% in Jowell’s name and which she had signed, she also accepted it. She should be out. But doubtless the Cabinet Office are working overtime on how to Hutton their way around this one.

In the meantime, the Blairite cheerleaders in the media bravely try to save her. In particular Britain’s worst journalist, the wholly odious Michael White (Political editor of the Guardian), argues against all the evidence that Jowell and Mills’ finances are separate. (link)

That man White is so far up Jack Straw’s rectum that for years he hasn’t had any daylight to report by. He also seems not to know that the ministerial code specifically covers gifts to family members.

Two more shockers…

1. Jowell had remortgaged her home to launder money not just once, but five times. (link)

Does she still claim this is “Normal”? On one occasion she had paid it off again in just 19 days.

2. Finally, yesterday I reported a fact that the mainstream media still does not dare to print; that Mills was under Serious Fraud Office investigation (and his office was raided as a result) at around the same time that New Labour came to power. I also reported that some of the SFO staff on the case were confused and concerned that no prosecution arose.

The mainstream press are too scared of this story to tackle it properly, but I’m sure you’ll excuse my own caution as I state this next bit very, very carefully:

I have seen no evidence to suggest to me that it was a particular handicap to Mr Mills at around that time that his sister-in-law, Barbara Mills, was the Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Head of the Serious Fraud Office.

I mean no more than appears on the face of that sentence.

Tessa Jowell tells us she did nothing wrong. She merely signed documents to remortgage her home. She strongly asserted today that this was ‘a very normal thing to do, and certainly not illegal.’

It is indeed not unusual to remortgage, though it was unusual that she remortgaged with an offshore bank. It is also unusual to remortgage for as much as ‘400,000. But it is very unusual indeed to remortgage for ‘400,000, then pay off the full loan, within a month, with spare cash.

What sort of people do such a thing? Well, money launderers. If you have ‘400,000 of cash not easily explained, you now have remortgage papers available to show where you got it.

Now, where did the money actually come from? Well, on two occasions, David Mills has said in writing that it came from Silvio Berlusconi. He said so in a signed confession to the Italian police, which he now says was extracted under duress. And he said so in a letter to his own accountant, where he explained that it was not in fact a bribe from Berlusconi for the evidence he had just given in an Italian court to keep Berlusconi out of jail. It was rather a personal gift. Mills now says that this second occasion when he wrote that the money came from Berlusconi was in fact a lie to protect another client. One can believe him or not ‘ he is claiming to be a liar already. What we do know for certain is that, shortly after giving evidence on behalf of Berlusconi, evidence which Italian authorities now allege was perjured, David Mills received a lot of money from an Italian source, which he has difficulty accounting for and claims he needed to disguise. His wife then took out a mortgage for about the same sum, which they almost immediately then paid off again.

It stinks to heaven.

Mills is, beyond dispute, a confidante and adviser of the odious Berlusconi. Mills’ job as an international corporate lawyer is to help the cosmopolitan super rich move their money about and avoid tax, and to disguise their cash flows if necessary. Mills is a long term shyster whose activities and profession should appal Labour supporters. Everything Mills stands for is what Keir Hardie and Clement Atlee were against. So it should be of no surprise that he is close to Blair and a member of his personal circle. The day I decided Blair was calculating and self-seeking, rather than honest and misguided, was the day that Blair first chose to spend family holidays with the Berlusconis, at some of their palaces. But Blair’s friendship with the likes of Mills should have warned all of us sooner.

Now for something else you won’t find in the mainstream media. Mills was under long term surveillance by the Serious Fraud Office for numerous dubious financial transactions. Approximately nine years ago, his office was actually raided by the SFO. As the investigation drew to a close, New Labour came to power. An inside source tells me that SFO staff believed they had a good case, and wondered whether his friendship with the new Prime Minister Blair had any bearing on it not coming to court. A Sunday Times Insight investigation into Mills was spiked by the editors.

So these current peculiar financial dealings do not drop out of a clear blue sky. A lot of taxpayers’ money has been spent investigating Mills before. He is well dodgy.

What will it take for the eyes of the very many decent people still left in the Labour Party to be opened to the appalling people who now lead their party? How many of the current cabinet are not, themselves or their partners, personally millionaires? Blair has a ‘3 million house. Straw has a Cotswold mansion as one of his homes. We recall Blunkett’s dodgy directorships, and Mandelson’s loan from Robinson. Who do these people represent, except a self-serving, cosmopolitan elite? Is it any wonder they are so keen on privatising health and education, when they and all their friends can afford the best? And what does any of this have to do with the aims and origins of the Labour Party, or the hopes of those who elected them?

When you have sold your soul to Mammon, you end up doing things like launching illegal wars that kill over a hundred thousand and cost the taxpayer billions, but bring massive profits to your friends who own shares in oil companies or arms manufacturers. I have no doubt that some of those who have made a killing out of the Iraq War will have paid for Mills’ useful professional advice on offshore money transactions.

Mills and Blair will be close to those making a killing, but not those suffering the killing. It is hard to see that far from the marble terrace overlooking one of Mr Berlusconi’s private beaches.