Cops Carter-Ruck and Cash - Ours

Not an unusual occurrence, that on the occasion of a festering saucer of pus being exposed to the harsh light of day, we find it attended by a slithering visage of the globules of evil that forms themselves into a vaguely human form every now and again that is Messrs Carter-Ruck.

Before dealing with the present day bowl of discharge, John Yates, a sad little man who fucks for money but refuses to call himself a whore, we must turn the clock back somewhat to a time when another tiny-dicked fucker who abused his power and position, and the public purse, by hiring the aforementioned shape-shifting purulence, in order to try and stop the media exposing his involvement and that of his wife, in what can only be described as, or better still, let me borrow a phrase: what must be the dodgiest PPP privatisation contract ever signed in the UK.

Of whom do I speak, and involving the sum of £90,000 of public money, none other than, and as it happens, best mucker of Jim Gamble, Avon and Somerset's Chief Constable, Colin Port?

A taster.

Avon & Somerset Chief Constable Colin Port 'ruling by decree'

The regional ITV and BBC newsrooms have been buzzing over the last two months with threatening legal letters from lawyers Carter Ruck, all paid for with public money and attempting to gag the press from criticising Somerset County Council, Chief Constable Colin Port and his wife Susan Barnes. Both are party to what must be the dodgyest PPP privatisation contract ever signed in the UK.

Under a freedom of information request it has just been disclosed that £90,000 of public money was paid by Chief Constable Colin Port to lawyers Carter Ruck in an attempt to stop Bristol's TV and Radio stations reporting on the IBM/Southwest One contract in which he and his wife had a direct interest. His wife Sue Barnes has been paid £200,000 in salary and fees alone as part of the deal. more Indymedia.

The same Colin Port, cast in the same mould as Lord Hutton, ruled out collusion in Nelson inquiry.
Details of investigation boost case for independent Nelson investigation. An PhoblachtAs I mentioned previously, Jim Gamble and Colin Port are the very best of mates, such good mates in fact Jimmy wasn't backward in coming forward in his support for Colin, going so far as to write to the Times letters to the Editor. Unfortunately the links I could have furnished, are now prescription only. But for links galore, and for more teeshirts, you can go here. Bad Cops No Doughnuts





Right so! Yates of the Yard, no relation to Brunt of the Yard I take it? (A shiver looking for a spine.) John, Integrity, Yates of the Yard no less; it doesn't have quite the same ring as Air Miles Andy so let's settle for Mr Integrity.

It would appear this is not the first Mr Integrity's integrity has come into question. But that was all a misunderstanding because our John didn't know it was against the rules. But isn't it the cops who are the first to point out that ignorance of the law is no excuse?

In an article not chosen by accident, as will become apparent.

Police chief used Scotland Yard's air miles to fund flights for family
By Charlotte Gill
27th September 2010

One of Britain's most senior police officers used air miles accumulated on official trips abroad to help buy flights for his family, it emerged yesterday.

John Yates, Scotland Yard's anti-terror chief, broke his force's own rules by using the perk for personal flights.

It is understood that some of the trips had been taken by his teenage son and daughter.

Assistant Commissioner Yates has agreed to pay back any outstanding tax owed on the trips which are viewed by HM Revenue and Customs as a benefit in kind.

His case is expected to prompt similar inquiries into other senior officers to see if they have fallen foul of the same regulations.

Metropolitan Police rules state that officers must use the points amassed on business journeys to cut the cost of future work trips.

Mr Yates used air miles from his work trips - on which, as senior officer, he is entitled to travel business class - to cut the cost of up to ten flights by family members.

The £180,000-a-year officer has led a string of high-profile investigations including the 'cash for honours' probe into claims that life peerages were awarded by the Labour Party in return for secret loans.

Mr Yates, 51, is also in charge of the recently reopened inquiry into the extent of phone hacking by News of the World journalists.

He has said that he intends to interview the paper's former editor Andy Coulson, who is David Cameron's director of communications. more

And we all know how that one played out.

To the nitty gritty then, Mr Integrity of the Yard's misuse of public funds.

News Corp board shocked at evidence of payments to police, says former DPP

Lord Macdonald tells committee it took him 'three to five minutes' to decide NoW emails had to be passed to police
by Owen Bowcott
19 July 2011

"Blindingly obvious" evidence of corrupt payments to police officers was found by the former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, when he inspected News of the World emails, the home affairs select committee was told.

Explaining how he had been called in by solicitors acting for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation board, Lord Macdonald said that when he inspected the messages it took him between "three to five minutes" to decide that the material had to be passed to police.

"The material I saw was so blindingly obvious that trying to argue that it should not be given to the police would have been a hard task. It was evidence of serious criminal offences."

He first showed it to the News Corp board in June this year. "There was no dissent," he recalled. "They were stunned. They were shocked. I said it was my unequivocal advice that it should be handed to the police. They accepted that."

That board meeting, the former DPP said, was chaired by Rupert Murdoch.

Lord Macdonald shortly afterwards gave the material to Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick at the Metropolitan police. The nine or 10 emails passed over led to the launch of Operation Elveden, the police investigation into corrupt payments to officers for information.

Lord Macdonald, who had been in charge of the Crown Prosecution Service when the phone-hacking prosecution of the NoW's royal correspondent took place, said he had only been alerted to the case due to the convention that the DPP is always notified of crimes involving the royal family.

Members of the committee were highly critical of the CPS's narrow definition of what constituted phone hacking, claiming that it was at odds with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

Mark Reckless, the Conservative MP for Rochester, said that the original police investigation was hindered by the advice from the CPS that phone hacking was only an offence if messages had been intercepted before they were listened to by the intended recipient. However, Reckless said, a clause in the RIPA makes it an offence to hack in to messages even if they have already been heard.

Keir Starmer, the current DPP, said that the police had been told that "the RIPA legislation was untested". Listening to messages before they had been heard by the intended recipient was illegal, the police were told, but the question of whether intercepting them afterwards constituted a crime was "untested", he said.

Mark Lewis, the solicitor who has followed the scandal since its start, said he was the first person to lose his job over the affair when the firm in which he was a partner said it no longer wished him to pursue other victims' claims.

Lewis also told MPs that he had been threatened by lawyers acting for John Yates, the former assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police, because of comments he had made about phone hacking.

"I have copies of a letter from Carter Ruck [solicitors] threatening to sue me on behalf of John Yates," Lewis told the home affairs select committee. He said the Guardian and the Labour MP Chris Bryant had also received threats of being sued. "The costs of the action were paid for by the Metropolitan Police, by the taxpayer," he added.

Lewis said the reason for the investigation taking so long was not due solely to the police. "The DPP seems to have got it wrong and needs to be helped out," he said. Guardian

Which somewhat begs the questions; How much, would Mr Integrity have been so keen to employ these modern day Dick Turpins if he had to shell out his own brass as opposed to ours, and by no means least, how on earth was he allowed to get away with such a blatant misuse of taxpayers money?
Quite understandably. I'm not the only one that feels a tad miffed with such carryings on, a certain Richard Wilson however, feeling strongly enough about things, to apply to the Met under the Freedom of Information Act.

Richard Wilson
12 July 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Under the Freedom of Information Act I am requesting the following
information:

1. Details of all payments made and costs incurred by the
Metropolitan Police to the law firm Carter Ruck from January 1st
2005 to July 12th 2011.

2. Details of the services for which those payments and costs were
made or incurred.

3. Confirmation of whether or not the MPS paid for the services
provided by Carter Ruck in relation to the senior police officer
John Yates/ (It has been reported that the senior John Yates
employed Carter Ruck to threaten media outlets following criticism
of his handling of the investigation into phonehacking by News of
the World).

I look forward to receiving a response as soon as possible or at
the latest within 20 working days. If it is quicker to respond to
this request in several batches, please do send me the relevant
information as soon as you find it.

Many thanks for your assistance with this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Wilson

As you can see by the date, the request was made just a week ago, so nothing as yet in way of a reply other than the standard blah blah in receipt of. But definitely one to keep an eye on.
And a little closer, probably a lot nearer the truth to why John, Gizzajob Yates resigned.

Eeh, I don't know, this integrity, intit a bugger?

H/T Rude Pundit