Sunday Times rejects Brown attack

13 July 2011 Last updated at 09:44 GMT The Sunday Times reported Gordon Brown had purchased a flat at a "knock-down price" The Sunday Times has rejected criticism by former prime minister Gordon Brown that it used criminals to get access to his personal details.

The newspaper said a story it ran on a flat bought by Mr Brown had been "in the public interest" and followed the Press Complaints Commission code.

"We believe no law was broken in the process of this investigation," a spokesman said.

Mr Brown had accused the newspaper of "unlawful" and "ruthless" tactics.

Meanwhile its sister paper, the Sun, has denied any wrongdoing in a story it ran about Mr Brown's baby son having cystic fibrosis.

'Known criminals'

In a strongly worded attack on the newspaper's publisher, News International, on Wednesday, Mr Brown made a series of allegations about the Sunday Times using "known criminals" and having links to the "criminal underworld".

Mr Brown claimed his personal details were obtained for a front-page Sunday Times report that he had bought a flat owned by Robert Maxwell at a "knock-down price".

He said the newspaper had claimed the flat had never been advertised - and said the paper had been trying to prove a point "with the purpose of bringing me down as a government minister" when he was chancellor.

He alleged the newspaper had got access to his building society account and legal files through "known criminals ... hired by investigators who were working with the Sunday Times."

But the newspaper said the story had been pursued "in the public interest".

A spokesman said: "We were told that Mr Brown had bought a flat cheaper than any normal valuation and that he obtained it through a company in which Geoffrey Robinson, a close ally, had been a director," a spokesman for the newspaper said.

"We had reasonable grounds to investigate this matter and followed the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) code on using subterfuge.

"We believe no law was broken in the process of this investigation, and contrary to Mr Brown's assertion, no criminal was used and the story was published giving all sides a fair hearing."

'Not our client'

The Guardian has claimed that London lawyers Allen & Overy were tricked into handing over details from Mr Brown's file by a conman - who was later jailed for fraud in relation to a different matter.

But the law firm has denied having worked for Mr Brown, or holding personal files containing information on him. It said at the time the flat was bought, it was acting for the administrators to Robert Maxwell's private companies - and the flat was one of the assets sold.

The law firm said it was possible one of its former employees had been tricked into disclosing the valuation of the property but added: We do not, however, hold any personal legal files for Mr Gordon Brown, as he has never been a client of the firm."

The newspaper's rebuttal came after another day of pressure on News International and its senior executives amid continuing allegations of phone hacking and other malpractice at the publisher.

Meanwhile, sister paper The Sun defended the methods it used in its story in 2006 revealing that Gordon Brown's son Fraser had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and said it could "assure the Brown family that we did not access the medical records of their son, nor did we commission anyone to do so".

Mr Brown said he was prompted to speak out by fresh claims in The Guardian that he was targeted by News International newspapers.

Both Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour leader Ed Miliband have expressed sympathy for Mr Brown about the distress caused to him and his family by the stories.

'Empty chair'

News International is under continuing pressure despite its decision to close the News of the World amid allegations its journalists hacked the phones of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and bereaved service families.

The Commons Culture Committee has asked Rupert Murdoch, his son James and News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks to appear before them next week to discuss the allegations and the internal inquiry currently taking place at the company.

News International has said it will "fully co-operate" with the committee but has not confirmed whether they will attend.

Committee member and Labour MP Tom Watson has said he does not expect the trio to attend - and planned to "empty chair" the trio if they failed to appear by calling a halt to their proceedings.

He told BBC News the committee was not interested in quizzing any other News International executives that might attend in their place.

View the original article here

MSP in 'sectarian' school attack

23 June 2011 Last updated at 11:58 GMT John Lamont warned of problems in the west of Scotland school system The Scottish Tory justice spokesman has accused the west of Scotland school system of overseeing "state-sponsored conditioning of sectarian attitudes".

John Lamont's comments came as MSPs debated emergency laws to increase jail terms for sectarian-related behaviour connected to football.

He said sending children to Catholic and non-denominational schools contributed to the problem.

Minister Roseanna Cunningham said the remarks were "astonishing".

The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Bill was introduced to parliament last week.

The bill aims to stamp out abusive behaviour from football fans whether they are watching matches in a stadium, in the pub or commenting online.

It would raise the maximum jail term from six months to five years.

First Minister Alex Salmond said on Thursday that the timetable for the legislation would be delayed by six months after concerns were raised about the pace of change.

Speaking during the debate, Mr Lamont told MSPs that segregating children into Catholic and non-denominational schools had produced many, if not all, of those responsible for the problems seen in recent months.

Continue reading the main story

Two new offences on football-related behaviour regarded as offensive and threatening.

One deals with disorder around football matches inside the ground, and extends to those travelling to and from stadiums - as well as fans watching games elsewhere, for example in pubs or on big screens outdoors.

The second offence deals with serious threats - including murder - made on the internet.

That would take in posts on sites like Facebook and Twitter, as well as specific websites.

Both offences would become indictable, with a maximum punishment of five years in jail.

The maximum jail term for sectarian hate crimes is currently six months.

Decisions on sentencing in each case are a matter for the courts.

Commenting on the schools system in west central Scotland, he said: "The education system in this part of Scotland is effectively the state-sponsored conditioning of these sectarian attitudes.

"And I say this as someone who believes, as a Christian country, we should do more to promote Christian values in our young people and support religious education in schools.

"Clearly these attitudes are being entrenched at home and the wider community in these small pockets of west central Scotland."

Responding to the comments, Ms Cunningham, the community safety minister, said: "After listening to John Lamont's astonishing diversion into a diatribe against Scottish education, I really do think that perhaps they (the Scottish Conservatives) need to reconsider how they are going to approach the whole issue of sectarianism in Scotland.

"Because that would suggest to me that they are reckless as to whether or not actually it gets stirred up even further."

The new legislation comes in the wake of several high-profile football-related incidents.

These include trouble at Rangers/Celtic games and the sending of suspected bombs to Celtic manager Neil Lennon and two other high-profile supporters of the club.

View the original article here

Peers attack Lords reform plans

22 June 2011 Last updated at 20:24 GMT The Lords currently has nearly 800 members entitled to attend Government plans to replace the House of Lords with a largely elected second chamber have come under sustained attack from peers of all parties.

Lib Dem peer Lord Rodgers said the plan, spearheaded by his party leader Nick Clegg, would "run into the sand".

And ex-Cabinet Secretary Lord Armstrong said he foresaw "much blood in the Thames" as a result of clashes between the Commons and any new assembly.

Ministers say an elected chamber would have proper legitimacy.

Peers have been discussing proposals to dramatically reduce the size of the Lords to just over 300 people and elect 80% of its members, starting in 2015.

On the second day of a two-day debate about the future of the Upper House, Lib Dem peers were among those to criticise the deputy prime minister's blueprint.

'No consensus'

Lord Rodgers said he had opposed an elected second chamber for 20 years despite his party's longstanding support for it and he had not changed his mind.

Continue reading the main story

I foresee serious breakdowns in the relationship between the Commons and the Lords”

End Quote Lord Armstrong Former Cabinet Secretary "I fear this Bill, as it stands, will run into the sand," he said. "With the coalition's heavy legislative programme for this Parliament, Lords reform will inescapably block or delay more important issues.

"There will be no consensus, which there ought to be in a very major change in the nation's constitution."

Fellow Lib Dem Lord Glasgow, one of 92 remaining hereditary peers in the Lords, said his party's proposals "made no sense at all".

"I have always believed, and I thought this was a fairly general view, that the House of Lords justified its existence by being a very effective revising chamber.

"Its primary purpose was to scrutinise and improve government legislation, not, like the House of Commons, to be a party political slanging shop. It succeeds in being an effective revising chamber largely due to the quality and variety of its inmates."

'Serious breakdown'

And Lord Armstrong, the former head of the civil service, predicted frequent disagreements between the Commons and the new assembly in the event of its members being able to claim a democratic mandate.

Continue reading the main story About 300 members80% to be elected but with a provision for a fully elected chamberMembers to be elected for single 15-year terms under the single transferable vote system of proportional representationA third of members to be elected in 2015, a further third in 2020 and 2025Number of bishops to be reduced from 26 to 12Small number of appointed government ministers"I foresee serious breakdowns in the relationship between the Commons and the Lords and the River Thames running under Westminster Bridge with much blood," he told MPs.

All three of the UK's largest parties committed themselves to changing the make-up of the Lords in their 2010 general election manifestos but there has been little sign of agreement on the way forward.

Mr Clegg has asked a committee of peers and MPs, to be led by Labour MP Lord Richard, to examine the proposals - which would see a largely elected "senate" with members serving 15-year terms.

Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the House of Lords, has made clear the government is committed to seeing the first elections to the new body taking place in 2015.

'House in order'

And in an impassioned defence of the plans on Monday, former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown said constitutional reform was needed to "bridge the dangerous gap between the government and the governed".

"This is not about what the public wants," he said. "It is about us putting our house in order."

The current House of Lords lacked legitimacy, he argued.

"We have to be part of a reform that reconnects politics with the people of this country. And if we are not, I believe our democratic institutions will fall into atrophy and may suffer further in the decline in confidence of the people in this country

Labour have said they will oppose the proposals as they stand while many Tory MPs also object to them.

View the original article here

Salmond attack on legal figures

15 June 2011 Last updated at 14:33 GMT Alex Salmond has raised concern over the role of the Supreme Court in Scots law A spokesman for Alex Salmond has said he has "nothing to add" to a magazine article in which the first minister attacked several Scots legal figures.

Mr Salmond accused Lord Hope, deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, of "extreme" decisions.

And he said the prominent solicitor Tony Kelly was making "an incredibly comfortable living" from representing the human rights of prisoners.

Mr Salmond made the attack in an article for Holyrood magazine.

It came amid an on-going row over the role of the Supreme Court in criminal cases north of the border, which the Scottish government says is undermining the independence of the Scots legal system.

The court has the ability to rule on cases where Scots law conflicts with human rights legislation.

Attacking Lord Hope, a Scottish judge who sits on the Supreme Court, Mr Salmond told the magazine: "All I would say to Lord Hope is that I probably know a wee bit about the legal system and he probably knows a wee bit about politics.

Continue reading the main story Brian Taylor Political editor, BBC Scotland

It seems probable that Mr Salmond's rhetoric will encourage the Supreme Court itself to be yet more minimalist still in the scope of its involvement in Scottish criminal law involvement.

Equally, it should be borne in mind that this is very far from an ordinary political complaint for a Nationalist leader.

Yes, it is seemingly about dry legal structures.

But for Alex Salmond, the Nationalist with the biggest mandate in his party's history, it is fundamental.

"But politics and the law intertwine, and the political consequences of Lord Hope's judgements are extreme and when the citizens of Scotland understandably vent their fury about the prospect of some of the vilest people on the planet getting lots of money off the public purse, they don't go chapping at Lord Hope's door, they ask their parliament what they are doing about it."

Mr Salmond also singled out Professor Kelly, a well-known human rights lawyer and visiting law professor.

He said: "There is not a single person, outwith Professor Kelly, who was the instigator of many of the actions, that believes that the judicial system is there to serve their interests and to make sure they can make an incredibly comfortable living by trailing around the prison cells and other establishments of Scotland trying to find what might be construed as a breach of human rights of an unlimited liability back to 1999, and that is what we were faced with."

Lawyers acting for Prof Kelly said he would not be making any immediate statement.

Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie hit out at Mr Salmond, saying the first minister now had to do some "serious damage control" following his remarks.

"Alex Salmond is making himself look a fool with these deeply personal and blistering attacks on one of Scotland's most senior judges," said Mr Rennie

"Scotland does not want a first minister who uses such tawdry and childish language, leaving Scotland looking blinkered and insular."

Labour justice spokeswoman Johann Lamont said: "Of course there are issues to be resolved over the role of the UK Supreme Court, but they are not as contentious as Alex Salmond is trying to make out.

"It can be done through mature diplomacy, negotiation and proper debate."

Tory leader Annabel Goldie added: "Alex Salmond has ignored the key issues and chosen to be subsumed by rhetorical bile.

"He has also ignored that the SNP are enthusiastic advocates of the European Court of Human Rights and its incorporation into Scots law."

Conviction quashed

The Scottish government has appointed a group of legal experts to look into the Supreme Court issue after a ruling in the case of Nat Fraser, who was jailed for life in 2003 after being convicted of murdering his wife, Arlene, in Elgin.

Having exhausted the appeal process at home, the 52-year-old won an appeal in the Supreme Court to have his conviction quashed.

The judges remitted the case to the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal. Last week the Crown said it accepted the quashing of the conviction but was seeking a retrial, a move which is opposed by the defence.

The UK government's senior legal adviser in Scotland, Advocate General Lord Wallace, has defended the role of the UK Supreme Court in Scots law.

He said people across the UK must have their human rights protected at the same level.

A spokesman for Mr Salmond said the article "speaks for itself" and that he had "nothing to add".

View the original article here