More Prescottery

Unity* has been looking into the documents highlighted by Newsnight, as well as a number of other sources, with all of his usual rigour (where does he get the patience?). As he points out

A point seemingly lost on the BBC in the last couple of days is by far the main reason that the Prescott-Anschutz connection is getting so much attention is that the more we look into things, the more we find things that just don’t appear to add up.

One of Prescott's varied denials consisted of the fact that he had not discussed the casino with Anschutz; as Unity has found, this seems to contradict what PinkNews.co.uk say:

“The Deputy Prime Minister has to deal with people that come within his remit. His remit was to meet Mr Anshutz to discuss the regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula and nothing else.”

This spokesperson confirmed that the pair met for dinner and discussed William Wilberforce, the anti-slavery MP who previously represented Mr Prescott’s Hull constituency.
...

So we have Prescott’s spokesperson telling Pink News that his remit was to discuss ONLY the Greenwich Peninsula development - in which Anschutz’s sole interest lies in the two things, the Dome and the casino/hotel, that Prescott denies discussing with him.

But it gets even murkier still...

For one thing, Anschutz donated $1.5 million to the London Olympic bid in addition to sending what the Indy describe as a ‘key lieutenant’ from AEG to advise on the campaign - nothing fundamentally wrong in any of that as having invested in the Dome it makes perfect business sense for Anschutz to try and maximise his prospects of a return by backing a bid that would bring a high profile sporting event to his venue. What this does do, however, is provide more evidence of the extent of his dealings with government and, in particular, with DCMS, which makes it allt he more imperative that his bid for a casino is very carefully handled to avoid conflicts of interest.

However, what also seems to be on the point of emerging is evidence - in the form of e-mails - to back up the allegation that Southend’s local authority were pressured by staff from ODPM to drop their own planned but for the casino licence in order to ensure that the Anschutz bid for Greenwich got a clear run.

Having [eventually] decyphered the interview he gave to the Today programme, yesterday, it would appear that Prescott’s line on this one is to cry foul and claim its all a Tory smear and then invoke the ‘Manuel Defence’ of ‘I know nothing…’

…as yet he hasn’t quite got around to claiming that he’s from Barcelona, but that’s surely only a matter of time.

Well quite. Personally, I think that he's from Hell, but that's irrelevent for now. The question really is, is Prescott innocent or guilty of any kind of wrongdoing or corruption?

The counter to Prescott’s claim to innocence on the grounds that he knew nothing of any dealings between his civil servants and DCMS doesn’t stand up, not because there’s any evidence, as yet , that he really was pulling the strings but because:

a) The mere fact that his staff at ODPM were aware of his meetings with Anschutz and AEG’s interest in a casino at the Dome site will clearly have influenced their thinking on, and approach to, working with AEG. If nothing else they would almost certainly have assumed both that Prescott and Anschutz had discussed the matter of the casino and, in the absence of instructions to the contrary, also assumed tacit approval for his scheme on the part of their political master(s), and

b) As a government minister - as Prescott knows full well, he bears ultimate responsibility for the actions and conduct of his department, whether he knew what they were up to or not - such is, and has been, the doctrine of ministerial responsibilty in parliament for centuries.

Unity seems pretty certain, also, that Prescott has breached the ministerial code; although, I have to say that this seems to be slightly irrlevent since a breach of the code seems to only entail a bit of a slap on the wrist. Or possibly forced resignation. Whatever.

As we know

But the Cabinet Office said it was not Sir Gus's job as Cabinet Secretary to enforce the rules.

According to the code, the prime minister is the ultimate arbiter of the code - although he sometimes asks Sir Gus to look into complaints.

and for some bizarre reason, Blair seems absolutely set on keeping Prescott in place. One can only assume that Big John knows where some very juicy corpses are lying. Either that or he and Blair are, in fact, having an affair. Disgusting as that idea may be, it might explain Prescott repeated refusal to answer the question.

JH: Have you had other affairs?

JP: Hang on I watched Newsnight last night and the pressures you know, most people don't, I think it's called the internet or blogs or something - I don't know, I've only just got used to letters John, I haven't got into all this new technology, but I would say the guy on television last night who does that says 'I have no evidence for these allegations I've made'.

He carries on much in this vein; I just liked that statement because of Prescott's self-deprecating humour (in bold, just in case you missed it). At least, I think that he's being humourous.

Actually, is it just me, or has Tony been really quiet on this matter? Where is he; is he on holiday again?

* If anyone from the Beeb wants to link to this blog next time they write, could they include Unity this time, please?