Blair questioned
We only know two facts at this stage - but they are significant ones.
The prime minister has been interviewed by police, but it was not under caution. That is a key point - because if the police had any suspicion that Tony Blair might in the end have charges brought against him, they would be under a legal obligation to caution him (i.e. to read out the traditional caution that anything that he said might be used in evidence against him).
I'm told by police sources that the threshold for cautioning is very low indeed - in other words, you err on the side of a caution. If you have the slightest suspicion that further down the line you might wish to bring charges, you caution. Because if you don't, you might find that anything that was heard at this stage could be inadmissible in a court case.
What this means is that the police must currently have no reason to believe that charges will be brought against the prime minister himself. It tells us nothing - either way - as to whether charges may be brought against someone else close to him.
Needless to say, however, today's events are extraordinary. Not since the Lloyd George affair - in which there was, of course, the open selling of honours - have we had anything like this. It's an embarrassment to Tony Blair - he, of course, promised to make politics whiter-than-white when he first came to office in 1997.
Facing this sort of investigation has caused him quite some frustration - he's felt unable to answer the critics, to answer some of the suggestions that were being brought forward. And until the police finally submit a file to the CPS, and the CPS makes a decision on whether to bring charges - against the PM or against anybody else - he will not be able to reply.
But the truth is that politics has come to a stage under his premiership in which a serving PM is being questioned about the abuse of rules over fundraising, and the granting of honours. Even if it ends up - as it may well yet - that there are no charges brought, this is a low day for Tony Blair, who wished and promised to change the face and the nature of politics in Britain.
Whatever happens, the rules governing party funding and honours will surely be transformed by the lessons of this episode. No one will be clearer about the need for that than the prime minister himself.
UPDATE 1542 GMT: It's been pointed out to me that Tony Blair did not promise to be "whiter than white". The promise was, for sake of accuracy, to be "purer than pure". And to be "a government that seeks to restore trust in politics in this country". I stand corrected.
PS. While I am at it, can I thank the Labour Party press office for their well-timed e-Christmas card listing the party's achievements!
I'm 
Comments
I'm unclear, was Blair questioned today or last Thursday? Either way, "lucky" for Blair that news of it comes out on the same day as the report on Diane's death. Another example of trying to bury bad news?
Nick,
I can't believe you aren't commenting on the timing of Downing Street's admission. He was interviewed last Thursday, why did Downing Street wait a full week before revealing that a serving PM has been questioned in a criminal investigation - doesn't the public and parliament for that matter, have an immediate right to know?
Clearly Blair & Co waited until Today, so that:
A: It will be old news by the time of the next PMQ's
B: The publication of the Diana enquiry means that Blair's interview won't get the coverage it deserves.
Remember the 'god day to bury bad news' story on 9/11: clearly New Labour were embarassed by the publication of the e-mail but that hasn't stopped them using the practice.
So much for blair's promise that he would stop the spin - yet another lie!!
But todays events don't rule out the possibility of TB being re-interviewed under caution at a later date if the investigating officers consider it necessary.
Presumably though Nick, if a prosection is brought by the CPS against other players in this drama, then there is the possibility of TB appearing as a witness in a subsequent trial. An intriguing prospect.
When was the last occasion that a serving PM (or ex-PM probably by the time of any trial) appeared as a witness in a criminal trial?
Am I being overly cynical to question the coincidence of TB's meeting with detectives being on the same day as the release of the report on Diana's tragic accident? Could it be that Number 10 expects the public attention to be on the latter rather than the former?
Um.. Blair was questioned today, not last Thursday. D'oh!
Nick i didn't think it would go this far,(i was wrong)i think the question now is how can Blair continue,whether it was under caution or not,he has brought an unprecedented focus too a dodgy premiership.(by the way have the Americans just released you?)
So much for "whiter than white"! I have been sceptical about that comment ever since I was old enough to understand. Still, good to see Blair being questioned finally. I hope it hastens his departure.
Nick,
I suspect the 'threshold for caution' is perhaps a tad higher for serving Prime Ministers than the rest of us. Also, we are assured by Downing Street that no lawyers were present. Is it not true that Mr Blair is a qualified barrister?
David
I would guess, the 'threshold' for issuing a caution before an interview would be rather different for a serving prime minister than for the average burglar. The police must know they are highly unlikely to get a conviction against Blair so why put him under caution giving the story more 'legs.'
I don't doubt (or the cynic inside me says maybe I do) that in the heady days of '97 Blair honestly believed his government would be whiter than white. After all Labour did away with most of their principles with the sole purpose of geting elected.
But the political parties have kept on ramping up the cost of running themselves and have wriggled and squirmed all over the place to get cash to feed the gaping maw.
I know, lets reduce the number of costituencies by 200, that'll save a bob or two and link the number of MPs to the number of Post Offices that are open in future.
Oh and limit total expenditure to the same as in the John Major general election.
Let them see how they like a taste of what they dish out to us.
So Derek Barker thinks being interviwed by police makes TB's, position untenable?? The police interview many innocent witnesses in all sorts of cases all the time. I had valuables stolen from my car and a policeman came to my house and interviewed me ... if I lived in Derek's street I bet he'd have me down as a criminal by now.
It may be a low day for Tony Blair, but I think it's a good day for the UK and Parliament.... that in a world where wars are waged based on fabricated intelligence, where we support dictators because they let our warships berth near a warzone ... our country still has a police force that can question the pm
Nick,
Forgive me, but it seems that you are far too excited at the prospect of another juicy political scandal. I know it's your bread and butter, but, as I understand it, no charge has yet been brought against the PM or any other member of the government. It is at least probable that no charge is ever going to be brought against the PM, and it is far from clear that any charges at all will be brought against any politician as a result of these enquiries.
The rest is speculation, or what you journalists call - spin.
///////cvnm,
The circumstances of when he was interviewed are irrelevant,the fact that he, a serving PM was interviewed in the first place is a national disgrace!
Nick Robinson seems to have swallowed No.10 line hook, line and sinker.
Just like when they briefed Nick at the start that this investigation would go nowhere and Nick duly repeated that piece of spin!
It was not a low day for Blair, it is a day when Blair has brought his office into utter contempt and should be impeached
Is Nick's job to report the truth or be a mouthpiece for Number 10?
Nick reports it as a "PM not guilty" story. Nick ought to be reporting it as "PM brings the reputation of his office into disrepute".
Oh and I forgot to ask, how was Guantanamo Bay and did you have to promise Blair something to get you out?
The Guardian reports Blair as saying, "giving money to a political party should not prevent someone from receiving an honour."
That may be true, but, as we know, the converse is what's at issue here. Giving money has allegedly enabled some to receive honours.
More spin, more disingenuous comment from the PM. However, no matter how desperately he wriggles, Blair can't escape his self-made predicament: he's morally and politically bankrupt. And a war criminal to boot?
The phrase 'good day to bury bad news' springs to mind. I wouldn't put it past those Number 10 spin doctors to arrange the interview on a day like today.
Never cease to be amazed by the number of people that somehow believe that Mr Blair is more evil and ungoldy then every other PM there has been.
All parties reward their supporters God knows Margaret Thatcher was prepared to offer her protection to a south american despot and probable mass murderer.
I don't think that we should read too much into Blair not being interviewed under caution.
To break the idea that 'we hang together or we all hang seperately' the police deal with each member of a gang seperately.
Some will be arrested, some won't. Some will be cautioned, others not. Some will be shown an escape route, or wound up, or given a chance to shift blame, or falsely reassured.
I've recently seen the same procedure used to break up a gang of yobs on a housing estate.
Teflon Tony will bluster on until he decides to go. This government will surely be remembered as the sleaziest, most immoral administration in British history. But we get the government we deserve and, since we clearly can't rely on the justice system or our system of government, it's up to the electorate. In future we must demand more of our politicians.
Hi Nick
a sad situation overall for the cash for honours investigation. How on Earth has it got this far. And as we might speculate, it may be choked off in the last throws as Blair departs anyway. As things stand for this malingering doubt to continue further undermines the office of Prime Minister.
As most people know the way to insulate from these matters is to have proper lines of authority and control in place, and ensure that the ultimate controller is removed enough to put the blame squarely on shoulders further down the line of command.
That's what they do in business and the City, why not in politics? After all, the other parties manage to do this fairly well. Or is it that Mr Blair can't help himself, and needs to be in control, and then the "buck/pound" does stop with him. A learning opportunity for Mr B I guess...
So because of the fact that Blair was questioned then there MUST be some truth in it.
Come on - grow up.
Haven't you lot heard about "helping the police with their enquiries". After all, that always means you are guilty, doesn't it!!
The fact is that if you like Blair, you will think he has done nothing wrong, and if you don't, you will think there is no smoke without fire.
It's a pity some journalists can't report this without speculation or innuendo, Nick - and then we may have a chance of finding out the real truth - when the investigation is over and the facts have been established!!
I was disgusted to read Nick Robinsons report regarding Mr. Blair being questioned by the Police. It is suggested by Nick that it is a stain on Mr. Blair's premiership as he promoted the "whiter than white" promise. I believe that Nick appears to forget that the change in the rules about declarations was introduced by the Mr Blair after he came to office. He is the one that changed the rules to give Police greater powers which allow them to question him. Does Nick Robinson believe that everyone is quilty until proved innocent. Is it not a reflection of openness that the fact that Mr. Blair has cooperated with the Police enquiries. He is also forgetting that the Tories received much larger sums of "donations" and they do not even want to declare who the donors were.
The rest of the world believe that Mr. Blair has been an excellent Prime Minister and would be proud to have him why do the Press in Britain want to destroy someone who has been one of the best PM's this country has had. Good help this country if Mr. Cameron should win. They will find out what SPIN means. It will be a sorry day when Mr. Blair leaves office.
I voted for Maggie Thatcher and can never forget what she did in respect of Poll Tax and interest rates. People have short memories.
Shame on you Nick. Report facts that is what you are paid to do not to make sly comments.
"this is a low day for Tony Blair"
Nick! you're brilliant!
Given past performance the PM likely asked that if he was to be interviewed then to make it the day of Diana report - as it is "a good day to bury bad news".
If he has not been interviewed under caution - it also seems that all this hype about it being thorough investigation was a load of twaddle.
Just like the Hutton report was supposed to be thorough job.
Mr Blair is the first PM to have been questioned by the police precisely because he is the first PM to have had the guts to tighten up the funding rules. The fact he hasn't been cautioned is hugely significant because it suggests the police don't suspect him of wrong doing - so how can it be embarrassing? More embarrassing, surely, for the likes of the SNP who have been running this politically motivated campaign.
Nick,
Who so far, has been interviewed under caution?
If blame is apportioned to anyone,how can blame possibly bypass the PM.
Terry
Is it not possible that the police were aware of the political ramifications of cautioning the prime minister,and were therefore very reluctant totake that step in his particular case? It may not neccessarily mean that he is in the clear.
The Blair defence is a bit like the old ones using for it being OK to smoke.
"Tony wants to say that no matter how many people die of lung cancer who were smokers that there is no PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer..."
I have to agree that it's another HUGE coincidence that the story comes out on a big news day. Can he really be hoping to buy it under the Diana-again and serial killer stories?
Still, the only possible next stage is one of
a) The police decide that Blair is, after all whiter-than-white; or
b) Blair is lead from the front door of 10 Downing Street in handcuffs.
For the sake of the dead from Iraq to Dr Kelly, I hope that the hand of history has its finger on the camera's trigger for option b).
Nick, what was interesting was that he WASN'T questioned about the 'doggy loans' investigation, just the cash for honours investigation. Why not ask questions about both at the same time and keep it to one interview? The two subjects are obviously interlinked.
Could it be that while he is not a suspect in the sale of honours, he IS a suspect in the loans investigation.
So the police will do two interviews, the honours one as witness but the loans one as a suspect (and under caution). If they did it as one interview they have to do it under caution and thus give the (possibly misleading) impression he was a suspect in both investigations.
Does anyone else smell smoke?
The letter of the law may not have been broken, but I personally have a strong suspicion that the spirit has been bent close to breaking.
We have to stop being so hypocritical and admit that the huge sums required to run political parties probably need to be rewarded by some sort of patronage in this materialistic age. Give them a title. Just don't give them the ability to influence the governance of the country too. Make the second house fully elected!!!
Well it is exraordinary and I would tend to agree with some of the above comments about this caution business. The modern day police service is obviously well aware that cautioning the PM would be an Historic event that would cause a hell of a lot of problems in the political world so I would suspect they were erring on the side of not cautioning.
Fascinating nevertheless and whoever thought Blair would solve the view of political corruptness and wide spread public apathy towards poltics must be wholly dissapointed- luckily I'm not because I was only 8 when he came to power- not old enough to remember his manifesto (fotunately or unfortunately??)
I thought you had gone on a mini break or something Nick we have been getting withdrawl symptons and getting a bit worried!!!
It's all a nonsense isn't it and a silly sub-legal jig danced by every Prime Minister since Lloyd George took the National Silver down the pawn shop and forgot to reclaim it. Until we have a proper and transparent forumla for funding political parites they'll all - even the Scottish Nationalists I imagine - be forced to grub around in the corporate or union gutters looking for funds. I reckon we should give them 3 million each every year and tell them to spend it how they like. Preferably not all down Charlotte Street either at Messers Saatchis' spin-shops either.
So much for the rampant sleaze that was in the last Tory administration,this sleaze has gone to the top of this Labour government.Do they not realise,or are they so out of touch now,that the standing of politicians is at an all time low due to them.Whiter than white,your having a laugh.
Are the people above implying that the police were trying to help Tony Blair by interviewing him on the day before the Diana result - I'm confused.
"Whiter than white, purer than pure" - whichever it was New Labour has failed to take sleaze out of politics and the suggestion that rewarding for party service isn't cash for honours is based on the belief we were all born yesterday.
What is your prediction of the likelihood of any of the police and officials involved in the investigation being awarded Honours, please?
The fact that Blair has revealed this extremely important information at a point where he can't be fully questioned about it by the public or parliament- and at a time where the less politically aware will diverted by the Diana cover up, is proof enough to me that he is happy to engage in dubious practices.
As time passes Blair really does seem to be less and less of a decent person - what a sad and definitive conclusion to his period in office.
oh well bring on the next scumbag!
I suspect that the police didn't need to caution Mr. Blair because he is "a pretty straight kind of guy".
There seems to be some distorted attitudes around, so would someone on this weblog ( I doubt if Mr Robinson will) explain why a person charged with a crime is innocent until found guilty in a court of law, whereas the PM is out and out guilty when no charge has even been brought.
Being cautioned about honours is imo largely an irrelevance compared to the ongoing saga of how we went to war with Iraq.
The honours affair was just "business as usual" imo and no worse than any prior administration (and better than "cash for questions".)
But unfortunately it just confrims the belief that politicians can lie and get away with things that anyone in a "normal" job would be fired for.
"Facing this sort of investigation has caused him quite some frustration - he's felt unable to answer the critics, to answer some of the suggestions that were being brought forward"
You are, I hope, 'avin' a laugh.
Since when has Blair given you a straight answer to anything?
Are you sure you havn't gone native?
Are you really sure Number10 have not sprayed magic dust on your shiny head?
BLAIR SAYS THE BUCK STOPS WITH ME YET WHILE THE OTHERS ARE INTERVIEWED UNDER CAUTION HE ISN'T.
THIS WHOLE THINGS STINKS!
Must've been a small card if it all it listed was New Liebours "achievements".
The timing of this is highly suspect. I'm surprised this is not part of the story, then again should I be surprised at all at what happens in No.10.
Nick you are being spun quite easily on this. I can only assume that a visit to Chequers is in the pipeline for another 大象传媒 newscaster. Some food and wine followed by a lot of waffle topped by a dollop of spin, and hey presto another 大象传媒 news reporter's credibility goes out the window,
For you see it is the lack public credibility surrounding Blair, his government and New Labour friends in the media that is doing the greatest damage to politics in this country.
"Purer than pure", more like, "Poorer than poor."
It's clearly a fire-sale of bad news burying by No.10 today.
Nick - I know you are a cynical political journo but don't you find it disgraceful that the news Blair was questioned is given to you on the day that:
- The Stevens inquiry into the death of Diana reports
- The government announces the closure of 2,500 rural post offices
- The government announces a 3rd runway at Heathrow and a new runway at Stanstead
and who knows what else has been released unnoticed (so far) today.....
Isn't this a absolute debasement of our democracy. It makes me proud to have a Labour Government.....not
Compared with his other offences, mainly but not exclusively with the Iraq invasion, this is small beer stuff - but a start anyway.
The comment from 'James' is typical of conspiracy merchants. If you don't like the message, the messenger must be corrupt.
Nick's analysis is a pretty fair assessment of the situation, IMHO.
Given how much the police leak material to the papers, if there was anything of substance we'd have heard about it by now.
It's odd that the PM's spokesman claims the Honours are not for public service. Are there two types of honours 鈥 proper public service honours and silly 鈥減arty service鈥 ones? And how can the public tell if an honoured person has a real, public service honour or a merely a 鈥減arty service鈥 one?
If the honour system is to become honourable, it needs clear names for these honours so that taxpayers can tell who is really honourable from those who have merely purchased them.
So the Labour Party press office sent you a blank E-card, eh?
Did you notice that Geoff Hoon has been summoned to an inquest on a soldier killed in Iraq, to explain why there was a shortage of body armour? Another piece of bad news that the government is burying today.
Nick
Most people are 'fed-up' of coverups under this government. Lies about WMD'S in IRAQ; TB's interview published a week after it actually happened. When were the press informed of this? Someone please tell us the truth! This comes on a day when Diana's enquiry is published. TB before he leaves office please sort out the mess in IRAQ they deserve better.
Pravin
Hi,
I would never believe that GB's PM would ever be interviewed by police on issue of taking money. This is disgraceful. TB's legacy has suffered a huge damage, as if half million dead Iraqis are not enough.
Please go now and show a modicum of diginity blrrrr
IT STINKS! But NOT from No. 10
The whole thing stinks! And the smell is coming from the Scottish Nationalists, NOT the Prime Minister. They were the ones who first went to the Police with their charges.
To think that Lloyd George, who OPENLY sold Honours was not interviewed by Police, and yet THIS PM has been, leaves me as a Scot, feeling sickened by the scotnats' plainly political move. They have been trying to "get the PM" over anything and everything, their highest profiles being in this loans inquiry, their Impeach Blair movement and the Iraq parliamentary debate.
Their reason - to discredit him and thus Labour in Scotland to benefit themselves in the May local elections.
THIS is discreditable politics; not whether the PM did what all of his predecessors have ALWAYS done! How low can the nats get?
Kick The Nats Where It Hurts!
I sincerely hope the normally canny Scottish voters, where fair play still counts, see this for what it is, and kick the Scottish Nationalists where it hurts next May.
And still Tony Blair cannot comment on his own behalf to the court of public opinion in case of eventual charges to anyone "involved".
Earlier commenters should stop their visceral gloating about the fact of the police interview and separate that fact from the reasons behind it.
I say in my blog that this inquiry has been taking on a life of its own.
I also ask why this inquiry is happening at all since "cash for peerages" is nowadays accepted, if not exactly approved of. It has ALWAYS gone on. And "loans for peerages" seems to be more of a technical, internal accounting issue. It hardly seems a hanging offence.
Yet someone, or party, or group is trying to hang the Prime Minister out to dry on the basis of, as Nick says, "mud sticks".
Whatever it is, I fail to see that it is a high crime for which the PM and/or ministers and employees should be dragged before the courts.
Not "Under Caution" - Police NOT In His Pocket
At least, since he was not questioned under caution, it looks like the whole nasty and embarrassing business will fade away, when common sense kicks in. It never should have got this far. And since it has, the Nats may well have tarnished the reputation of Tony Blair, who is a GOOD man and, I am convinced, NOT a criminal. He is innocent until proven guilty.
If the PM can, when he is free to speak, turn the focus to the fact that the Police are obviously NOT in is pocket, or they would never have interviewed him, then that may negate some of the sticking mud. Perhaps he isn't such a "control freak" after all.
He need not and MUST not resign. He has a busy political schedule and this country needs him.
In the meantime I hope the ScotNats are happy. Though surely snide Salmond is seldom satisfied.
The sooner this Prime Minister resigns the better we will all be. This Cash for Peerage's Affair shows Tony Blair failure as a leader to reform parliament or government. He wants to stay on until May before he will hand over the premiership to Gordon Brown. Though after this political scandal all bets are off. Now I feel he will step down much earlier, possibly in the New Year January or February.
When this story broke didn't Tony Blair say that the buck stops with him or something very similar?
The answer is yes he did; on the 16th March 2006
Dear me! I thought these comments were moderated. As such, those that are blatantly wrong, (like claiming the interview was last week and that the government were spinning by deliberately timing the release to be buried by the report into the death of Diana, the Princess of Wales), should have been excluded.
It was the police that decided to interview the PM today, and, furthermore, co-operating with the police's enquiry in no way "brings... his office into disrepute". On the contrary, it shows a respect for the rule of law. It鈥檚 a dictator that assumes they needn鈥檛 be subject to an investigation.
And lastly, as doctors should not treat themselves, lawyers shouldn't counsel themselves. If you're in the stressful situation of being a patient or a suspect, you should have a cool head advising you. Blair didn't have representation, because he's not a suspect.
It's a pity the police questioned him about the relatively minor matter of cash for peerages rather than about the 655,000 dead Iraqi civilians.
Nick,
Is there anyway that you could explain what on earth the the P.M.'s "spokesman" was saying? It seemed to consist of 3 elements:
1) peerages are allowed for party nominees; 2) these appointments were requested for reasons of party service and 3) as they were requested for reasons of party service the fact that there was a party financial benefit was fine.
Isn't this a complete fudging of facts and words? I am afraid it simply demonstrates why most thinking people feel despair and contempt at what is going on in politics.
I am sure all of this fiasco was a result of the intentions of the labour party to get away from the power of the unions, hence why Tony Blair has been able to do what he has over the past 9 years or so> but it doesnt help his Whiter than White tag of 1997. About time he went.. yes ...
It is only a question of when...bye Blair,bye Brown and last but by no means least GOODBYE Ms Hewitt.
Enough IS enough
Yet more bad news buried....
"The Serious Fraud Office has ended its corruption inquiry into a 拢6bn fighter planes deal with Saudi Arabia".
Strange they announced the end of the highly contentious and controversial enquiry today....? I wonder why...
I also wonder if you will point out all the bad news buried today Nick? I guess not because you only say what No.10 tells you to say
Just to remind you:
- Stevens report into Diana's death reported today
- 2,500 rural post offices closed
- 3rd runway at Heathrow, 2nd runway at Stanstead
- Now the end of the BAe corruption enquiry
..I wonder what's next....
Just a few thoughts on some of the comments.......Are there any politicians who are 'whiter than white'?
Even if politicians say they are, you must be pretty foolish to believe them. Its not that I鈥檓 being cynical, its just a fact of life.
I don鈥檛 know why the only focuss is on TB though, as all political parties have been up to such 鈥榯ricks鈥 and Michael Howard has been interviewed as well.
However, I do agree that power does corrupt and even the best of politicians can succumb to this, so robust and clear rules need to be in place.
Therefore the only way to overcome this is for all political parties to be funded by the state, otherwise they will continue to be (or perceived to be) in the 鈥榩ockets鈥 of industrialists, unions, and the rich, etc and not serving the public and country as they should.
The best soluition to stop this ever happening again is abolishing the 'honours' system altogether.
So many undeserving people have received an 'honour' that the ones who do deserve one can hardly feel praised if they do get one.
This is great! Either the you (Nick) & the 大象传媒 are trying to "sex up the whole cash-for-honours" matter OR this PM is guilty as hell.
Like the Hutton inquiry, somebody is going to end up looking stupid/foolish.
As someone who despises the 大象传媒 & this govt. in equal measure, I can't wait to see how this unravels.
Thanks to both of you for further sinking this country into the gutter. It's where it belongs anyway.
I would like to suggest that Baronet Sir Mark Thatcher head up a commission on corruption in politics.
It is interesting that Nick says "I'm told by by police sources that the threshold for cautioning is very low indeed".
Forgive my lay knowledge of legal procedure - but it appears that the above comment has very wide implications for civil liberties.
It is my understanding that a "caution" means the verbal accompaniment to an arrest. It is not something you can say to someone without the incantation "I arrest you...". All offences, no matter how petty, are now "arrestable" since the Government changed the law recently to remove the exclusion threshold.
An arrest gives the police an automatic power of search of your house - which often involves taking away any computers you may have. Without that legal device they would have to apply for a search warrant and show reasonable grounds. An "arrest" on suspicion of anything therefore apparently circumvents that judicial obstacle neatly.
An arrest then means you must accompany the officer to the police station and be processed.
The processing means being locked in a cell until your legal advisor arrives and recorded PACE questioning can begin.
A further recent Government change to the law is that you must also give a DNA sample for permanent storage on police files. Even if no charges are brought the DNA sample stays on file.
For some offences a blood sample is also taken for drugs testing.
If after holding you for up to the maximum number of days they haven't found anything at all to charge you with - then you are released on Police Bail and subjected to several months of periodic questioning while they try, with the CPS, to build a case.
If they have found nothing in the house search or questioning, even for a totally different offence, that can be used to justify their actions then you are free to continue your life.
All that will remain is "soft intelligence" on you in the police computer database, your DNA sample, and any newspaper/neighbours' reports about the arrest/search.
Your legal redress is minimal unless the police have made a technical error in the process - and I believe the Government are discussing passing a law to allow technical errors to be ignored.
Do I hear "Orwellian"?
Then truth is clear, Blair is innocent and always has been. This has been a total waste of public money. I said right from the start and often since that nothing would come of this. I challenged those who persistently carried out a character assasination of him if they would apologise at the end of it when he is cleared. Well Will You!!!
Tony Blair's spokesman was quoted saying these were: "peerages reserved for party supporters as other party leaders do. The honours were not, therefore, for public service but expressly party peerages given for party service."
Which prompts the question: why on earth is the honours system being used to reward service given specifically to a political party, to enhance its electability, as against non-political service to the nation as a whole?
I think the honours system is a wonderful way of rewarding those selfless souls who contribute to the life of the nation in a non-political way, often in complete obscurity and for no reward. To use the system to give backhanders to those who seek to sway the electorate is nothing short of an abuse of the system.
Even if Tony Blair comes out of this smelling of roses, there is a real need for a thorough reform of the honours system.
As usual the New Labour Party shows its total lack of understanding of what really matters to the man on the street.
Most if not all of us justifiably regard politicians with suspicion.
So the PM may or may not know something about some dodgy deals done by his party. Big deal!
Of much more importance is the announcement that 2500 Post Offices are to be closed thus decreasing CHOICE, decreasing SERVICE, increasing ROAD USE, increasing POLLUTION, destroying COMMUNITIES and for what? To try and save 拢150,000,000 in taxpayer subsidy.
Fools led by an even bigger fool voted in by us. Democracy at work!
Amazing how many people see conspiracies in everything. And how few of them can work out that TODAY is the day TB was interviewed.
So to lets be clear: not under caution, news released at once, no conspiracy - except in the mind...
"If he has not been interviewed under caution - it also seems that all this hype about it being thorough investigation was a load of twaddle."
Uh-huh. So if an investigation that looks at all the evidence and then somehow - unaccountably! - doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusions, it's a cover up.
What timing! towards the end of the week on the day the report on the diana crash is released and also just before he departs for Brussels.
10 out of 10 on the timing
I think people are forgetting that Mr Blair has not been charged with anything.
The SNP accused the labour party of breaking the law, and so the police have to investigate, please remember innocent until proven guilty.
If it turns out that they have then yes they should have such bad publicity. If they are innocent (you never know they might be!) then I hope the SNP are made to pay somehow for making such claims. Its all too easy to tarnish a party with unproven claims it seems.
"PS. While I am at it, can I thank the Labour Party press office for their well-timed e-Christmas card listing the party's achievements!"
Can you give me their email address so that I can send them an e-Chrismas card listing their dismal failures? Bet my card's bigger than theirs!
Will they turn the lights out again, after another day in the doghouse for Tony?
this is the most ridiculous media hype and has wiped more important stories off the map.The first reason for the interview is that Blair is the first PM operating under the rules brought in by him.The second reason is that Blair is being interviewed as party leader-as was Michael Howard -not PM.The third reason is that an interview has always been inevitable given his position and the nature of the complaint.All of the rest-at this stage-is media hype and innuendo.Obviously, after their experience with Hutton,the 大象传媒 wants to get the verdict in first.
Everyone around Blair has been saying from the start this investigation is going nowhere and you again repeat the mantra here.
TB is a Master politician and he'll have undoubtedly had extensive legal advice so there is absolutely no chance of him giving any incriminating answers and there was absolutely no point in questioning him under caution.
Yates will have had advice from his seniors on any interview and the other Blair will not have wanted his namesake cautioned if at all possible.
The fact that investigation continues must worry Blair.
The fact that no-one, Press included, have absolutely any idea what has been unearthed must terrify him.
This isn't just a low day for Tony Blair, it's a low day for politics in this country full stop.
The manner in which the facts of our Prime Minister's "interview" were released, i.e. through lies and deceit, just highlight all that is wrong with this government.
The e-Christmas card must have been short.
Really, it's not that much more of a low for Labour as the day Michael Howard was questioned (also not under caution) was for the Conservatives. Both parties have been skirting close to legality for years on this, and the number of people from both parties questioned reflects this - both have been granting peerages to people who gave them money.
The SNP embarrassed? They catch the whole British political establishment in flagrante delicto, and they're supposed to be embarrassed about it? Dream on, comrade.
Nick,
Was Mr Blair required to provide a sample of his DNA to the police as the rest of us would be if we were detained for questioning?
Any politician can accuse any other politician of being complicit in a crime - and the police are duty bound to at least speak to the accused. As some have pointed out, that doesn't make the accused guilty. But of course to everyone who loathes Blair this just proves what they have believed all along. So for the accusers, mission accomplished. Is this how we want our politics conducted?
"he's morally and politically bankrupt. And a war criminal to boot?"
Nah.. he's just a failed rock promoter. And a bloke who poses with a Fender Strat.
And you voted for him.
More fool y..
It is a sad day in British politics when the PM is interviewed by the police about the "alleged" wrongdoings of his party.
Regardless of what he actually said the public perception was that TBs government would be free of sleaze. TB's apologists should stop hiding behind the fact that he wasn't cautioned when interviewed and face up to the fact that TB has singularly failed in keeping the promise of being a government "Purer than pure" and not just this once either.
One of the important facets of the last ten years of government is that rather than engender the public trust in politicians the NuLab experiment has increased the public mistrust.
Blair questioned?
How much more corruption in this government do we have to endure? Shut your eyes and we could be in Columbia!!!
Tony Blair you are nothing short of a disgrace to this country and us all - what with all your good ideas crackpot ill conceived solution to real problems and you let that buffoon Prescot loose on us and i wont even start about you warmongering for oil and pandering to that imbecile Bush - just go will you just go
Why don`t you all leave poor Tony Blair alone? He`s such a nice man. He`s done wonders for this country and it`s standing in the world. Look at our wonderful National Health Service " Free at the point of delivery". This is all Tony`s doing. Look at our Education system. Now we can test 4 year olds whenever we want and those lefty teachers can`t get away with it any more! Thank the Lord that Business is taking over schools at last. Mr Blair is saving the planet from global warming and he`s seen off the evil Saddam Hussein and his nasty Weapons of Mass Destruction. I say leave him alone Mr Plod and Mr Nick Robinson. He didn`t mean anything bad by making those nice rich men who gave him all that money Lords!
Thats to bad, Nick. Sorry to see your hopes dashed.
What was the point of the interview? If it wasn't under caution then as you say Nick inadmissible in court if the police suspected him of an offence. A very low threshold. It matters not who he is. In fact it serves the purpose of an interviewee that the threshold is low, it would not serve Mr TB if the threshold were higher for him.
So why the interview. If he's a potential witness then why wasn't he interviewed much earlier given that others have been interviewed under caution and TB appears to be a rather key witness if not a suspect.
I am a criminal lawyer and the whole thing smacks of a publicity stunt. TB has co-operated with the police in assisting them to root out illegality. Well done Tony. You haven't forgotten your law.
If he had been in any danger of the police he would have had a lawyer present. He may be many things but I trust he's not such a fool to have himself as a client.
Mary
Yates of the Yard gets something to tell his grandchildren. Big deal. New Labour's behaviour appears to be neither better nor worse than that of its pedecessor in government and that of the opposition parties.
The spectacle may not be flattering - but faked outrage is hypocritical.
Chris J, I must correct you. You may interview a suspect under caution without arrest. An arrest must be necessary to ensure the progress of an investigation. Given that Mr B is not likely to disappear off the radar or struggle and attempt to escape arrest there is no need to arrest to get a voluntary interview.
A caution is required once an officer believes that the interviewee might be a suspect. Given the appointment style interview the police didn't suspect TB and therefore didn't need to caution him. If they didn't caution him during the interview and if he did say anything remotely incriminating they won't be able to rely upon it in evidence or even tell us what was said (as that would prejudice TB's right to a fair trial).
So there was no point in the interveiw at all as far as I can tell. No wonder he was smiling as he left no 10.
Mary
"listing the party's achievements!" what like stopping people being able to get any treatment at all out of the shambles of the nhs?
Another media-hyped situation on a day when Diana's no new news broke.Mr Blair is in no position to comment so he is fair game. Yes a bit like the fox versus the horse and hounds.
If Tony Blair answered the police questions as he answers PMQs then the case will not be advanced one jot.
His performance in Parliament yesterday was disgraceful, though not unexpected as it happens every week
In reply to Anthony's response to my post at 7:53pm:
"Uh-huh. So if an investigation that looks at all the evidence and then somehow - unaccountably! - doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusions, it's a cover up."
No - with all the evidence there is not the slightest suspicion that they might wish to bring charges - then the police are not taking this evidence seriously.
Or do you deny the fact that Blair knew about hidden loans - and kept them hidden?
Nick
I think Yvonne Moore should reflect on her criticisms of your reporting
'..Shame on you Nick! Report FACTS thats what you are paid to do not to make sly comments ..' Why ? Because her own expressions are certainly NOT based on facts, but are simply her own personal views .
She asserts that 'the rest of the world believes Mr Blair has been an excellent PM ...etc' . Really . What is her reference source ?
Then ' It will be a sorry day when Mr Blair leaves office ....' That is an opinion with which many ( many )millions might beg to differ.
As for ' God help the country if Mr Cameron should win ....' .Well recent polls have indicated there are an appreciable number of voters out there who are just willing that to happen.
Let us bloggers continue to air our differences - that is part of the fun! - but I think that most of your regular contributors will echo the sentiments of William McIlhagga when he says 'Nick. Your brilliant! And may I just add - carry on the good work !. Also, my very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.
An even worse day. The outrageous 'discontinuation' of the SFO's investigation of BAE. Who runs this country?
Politics and cash go hand in hand. Whoever has the most cash wins.
Why can't we have a list of names published in the national papers and on TV..no pictures, campaigns or hints who the person is. If that person HAD pleased his/her community, he/she will get votes.
The low turnout at polling day shows clearly that we are tird of lies and false promises. Also there would be less rubbish to clear up after what is presently a farce.
Blair being questioned by police is just the latest thing that proves this Government is moving more to the right just like the Tories. Blair had a chance to get money of the unions and turned it down, so now he has to resort to getting suspicious loans off rich backers and put his party at great risk. Now Labour don't have a leg to stand on when they criticise the Tories about Neil Hamilton and cash for questions because they are just as bad. Serves Blair right!
Disgrace! The Lame Duck Blair has to go for the sake of parliamentary democracy! Everything this government does is a whitewash anyway- as proved with today's news of the PM being "spoken to" under caution. Incredible that this was being realised by No 10, on the Day Lord Stevens delivers his anaylsis on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
A great day to bury bad news? I think so....
Go David Cameron!!!!
Poor Nick,
Can't seem to please anyone thses days. One minute he's conspiring with Cameron, the next he's being accused of batting with Blair. Give the poor guy a break. He's obviously got his own point of view as he should, but it's our job as the reader to pick through the information and make up our own damn minds. Personally I respect Nick because he isn't persuaded by government spin doctors or pushed around by party press bullies.
What a let down. After the hype created by systematic leaks (presumably from the police rather than the labour party this time), the police have appeared to have bottled it. After all, if Blair wasn't interviewed under caution, it will be very difficult for anything he said to be admissable - so he could have said anything he liked. As a very talented barrister, I have no doubt he will have found some great formulations, knowing full well they can't come back to haunt him. In a case of this importance it's not the place of the investigating officer to kill the investigation, it's the CPS who have the duty to decide whether there is enough evidence to go to court.
The British have a great way of concentrating on the bad and ignoring the good, building up, then knocking down. How quickly you forget the tories and their appalling reign which resulting in millions our of work and all our most treasured national assets sold to the highest bidder. So Tony is not whiter than white by your standards, I wonder how many of us would be when held against the intense light of the british media for such a long time. But I really wonder how many of the media people would last that long if thier private and professional lives were examined so. Clean out the media and bring in some with a more positive attitute I say. I'm bored with negative reporting.
It was Peter Mandelson who said "whiter than white"
I am in a well paid profession and consequently pay more gross tax than, say, 90% of the population. Probably not enough input into Gordon's coffers for a peerage, but maybe at the minimum I could be allowed 4 votes at the next election. Those on between 拢40K to 拢70K get 3 votes. 拢30K to 拢40 get 2 votes. Then Joe Public gets the standard one vote. I think that falls in line with Tony's pay for privalages ethos, don't you?
N F Trueman might be correct in suggesting that we ignore the good news whilst trumpeting the bad and we forget the gross mistakes made by previous Conservative administrations. Yes, they too were pathetic and driven by greed and slease but the trouble is I cannot recall any good news.
What I should like to know is, what are these 105 achievements by the Labour government - without 'spin' and horse manure.
N F Trueman - if you are bored with negative news about our leaders, you might prefer living in China ?
Alan Davidson - 'moderation' is not the same as censorship, or is that what you would prefer ? If so, see above..
To Yvonne Moore, who says that the rest of the world believes TB to be a great PM. Have you asked anyone in Iraq recently? Or the Lebanon? Or Palestine? Or the rest of Europe? Or anyone with any rationale in the UK for that matter? With regard to this particular issue of 'cash for honours' it is NOT a question of whether he is guilty or not - but the fact that he is even being questioned in the first place. Plus the timing of that questioning being highly dubious - conveniently low key due to the release of the report into Diana's death. The man - and his government - is an embarrassment to the UK and damaging our reputation on a global level.
Blairsupporter... Wake up and smell the real world. The SNP should be celebrated as heroes for having the guts to do what nobody else wanted or were wiling to do.
No WMD's
Cash For Honours
Lies on ammunition and equipment for our troops
No more Airbourne military
Destruction of our armed forces
The most mistrusted politician in British history
Scandal in most govt. departments
A government in disgrace and in freefall.
You still reckon Tony BLiar has got it right? Get real. Get Blair out and people like Nik and the SNP are the only ones with the bottle to tell it and do it. What you done for your country today??
What is different? Blair's "not me gov it's somebody else's fault" answer applies to most tricky situations he finds himself in.
Is he supposed to be the destination of bucks or not? Perhaps only when they have green backs, but is that too cynical of me?
Doesn't the "offence of perverting the course of justice" apply? If not why not? .
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
...have some coco, put your feet up, read the Guardian and try and get rid of the taste of bile before it spoils your christmas dinner.
Funny that it also comes after the rather scathing/not scathing enough Tv program on 4 last night, perhaps the cash for peerages scandal is less damaging than the whole mockery of the war in the middle east. Is it that this issue is the lesser of two evils?