Skip to main content

Catz Club - the real issue

The link is to the report on the Charities Commission website about the repayment of the Catz Club's £15,000.

Much less money that Bernie Ecclestone's "loan" of £1m.

From the report:
Findings
The Charity confirmed that it had issued a cheque for a general donation of £7,500 to the Labour Party. However, it explained that ‘the payment to the Labour Party was an administrative error’. The Charity had contacted the Labour Party who had agreed to reimburse the Charity’s donation. The Charity advised that the donation should have been made by the trading subsidiary, Catz Club Services Limited (“the trading subsidiary”).

Our enquiries identified that Catz Club Services Limited was the Charity’s trading subsidiary company. The Commission made clear to the Charity that as the trading subsidiary was a charitable asset owned by the Charity, it was therefore not permissible for the trading subsidiary to make a donation to the Labour Party either.

The Charity advised that in total £15,000 had been paid to the Labour Party, £7,500 of which was a general donation to the Party and separately £7,500 to attend a Labour Party event where the charity engaged with and lobbied senior politicians to encourage increased funding for after school childcare facilities. The Charity explained that they were also engaging and arranging to attend meetings and events with senior Conservative Party Members for similar purposes, although to date it had only done so through one to one meetings.


So basically they paid the money as part of persuading Labour "to encourage increased funding for after school childcare facilities".

Let us not dispute the merits of having more after school facilities. However, a system of lobbying whereby a party gets an argument for a particular policy accompanied by a bung links policy to payment. "Cash for policies".

With Bernie Ecclestone he did get delivery on his objective and probably would have had a return even if the "loan" was a "donation" (as was originally intended).

Still it does show how money is used to get access to the Labour Party.

Comments

PoliticalHack said…
Michael 'Catch Me If You Can' Brown. £2.4 million.

How much has been repaid?
john said…
The money was not paid to obtain the opportunity of talking to the party.

I even talk to members of the Labour Party for free.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…