10 comments on “Lee Jasper and Ken

  1. Compare this from today’s news before going further:

    “One of the Mayor of London’s advisors will not be investigated by the police over claims of fraud because there is ‘no evidence of criminal activity’. . . ”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7255574.stm

    I’m in no position to make judgements and have to depend on news reports. Grants made by the London Development Agency to various businesses and social support organisations may have been imprudent or even foolhardy and a waste of ratepayers’ money but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the grants were fraudulent. Judging by the reported comments of the Metropolitan Police, the appropriate response of Londoners is more likely to be through the ballot box than through the courts

  2. Lydall suggests based on the piece above that Ken deliberately reported Jasper to the police so that the police would exonerate him (quite why Lydall thinks this doesn’t prove Jasper’s innocence of criminal charges, I don’t know).

    Ballot box rather than criminal charges would be lovely, although it would be better if every single blooody media organisation wasn’t running a vindictive anti-Ken smear campaign…

  3. “it would be better if every single blooody media organisation wasn’t running a vindictive anti-Ken smear campaign…”

    Everyone else is marching out of step to Ken. Except Tommy Sheridan, who apparently is also a victim of a ‘smear campaign’ (recently upgraded to ‘witch hunt’).

  4. Hmmn, the El Grauniad seems to imply the police are not yet going to investigate fraud, given that they are following money trail first. It’s not exactly an exoneration.

  5. “It’s not exactly an exoneration.”

    True – but it will continued to be spun as such unless there are arrests and charges before polling day.

    My intuition is that far too much emphasis is being focused on LDA grants in an effort to “get Ken” when I suspect that the London administration has virtually unfettered discretion in law as to what sorts of businesses or causes the Agency deems worthy of grants.

    By all means investigate the recipients of the grants and the rationales for the various awards (it seemed a good idea at the time to help the brotherhood?) but the fraud tack of this criticism can seriously rebound IMO and the media would be better to focus attention on other vulnerabilities of the Livingstone mayoralty.

    Focusing attention on the legitimacy of how the LDA goes about doing whatever it does could well boost prospects of Paddick’s candidacy with his police connections, which could well be a good thing, given the evident problems of overcoming the downsides of Boris.

  6. Lolz @ 7.

    The best thing that could possibly happen in this election would be a well-funded campaign explaining what the transferrable vote system means: “no, you don’t have to use your only vote on that c*** Boris to keep that c*** Ken out [or vice versa, which is my personal take], you can vote for that non-c*** Brian instead, and then put whichever of the c***s you hate the least second”…

  7. Tim I think that that the charge of ‘a tide of corruption’ made by Richard Barnes on 13 December is a criminal allegation. He should either present evidence to the police for it immediately or formally withdraw it and apologise.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.