Last month the SKWAWKBOX reported that Theresa May had been reported to the police over her dishonest comments about Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott during the televised leadership Q&A where she appeared on the same show as, but did not debate, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The Metropolitan Police Service said it was taking the allegations ‘very seriously’.
May told the audience that Abbott wanted:
wipe the details of criminals and terrorists from the UK DNA Database. That means we could catch fewer criminals and fewer terrorists.
This was simply untrue, Abbott had never mentioned any such thing – her plans regarding police DNA databases involved removing the details of innocent people from the database to prevent discrimination, as black and ethnic people are disproportionately affected.
Making false statements about a candidate during an election period is a criminal offence under the Representation of the People Act:
Were May to be found guilty, she could have faced the loss of her parliamentary seat and a ban from public office – which would of course mean her removal from office.
The complaint was made by Paul Cardin, who writes the excellent Wirral in it Together blog and he has updated his blog with a response received from the Metropolitan Police:
Another Tory avoids prosecution. But is the decision correct in law? The Met is arguably right about May’s false statements concerning Abbott’s political, rather than personal, conduct. However, conduct is not the only issue mentioned by the RPA.
Character is as well. Yet the Met skip over that aspect.
Surely few could argue that claiming falsely that Ms Abbott wants to make it easier for criminals to commit crimes and for terrorists to kill people says nothing about her character. Of course, it’s a direct attack on her character, because it which decent person would want to get more people killed?
And of course, Diane Abbott did not do what May claimed.
In the opinion of this blog, Theresa May has been let off the hook by the Met’s decision to focus only on the ‘conduct’ aspect of the RPA and ignoring the equally valid ‘character’ consideration.
For more detail of the response and Cardin’s excellent commentary on what this decision means for political integrity and discourse in this country, we recommend you read his full article.
The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
The police statement switches the two words ‘character’ and ‘conduct’ to make it appear that it is only the victims personal conduct that is not to be smeared. The actual law states ‘personal character or conduct’ which, arguably, does not mean personal conduct, but any conduct at all, including political.
Thanks for spotting this. The email also omitted to mention:
◽ whether there are grounds to appeal
◽ the name of the public servant they contacted at the CPS
◽ why the CPS had previously refused to refer a separate complaint on the same subject to the police
… so we will be following this up !
The police are very good at being selective in their choice of words. The law it seems is not for the establishment or the elite. It’s only the little people without the resources to fight and defend themselves in law who are subject to it. The government, the CPS and the police appear to all be in it together.
A DNA database (and identity cards I should add) makes it easier to protect the public, and public security should be a primary concern of everyone, regardless of political position. I think everybody should volunteer their DNA samples rather than having them wiped out. As for ethnicity, the fact is most acts of jihadi terror are committed by non caucasian people just as most acts of NATO/CIA or MOSSAD terror are committed by white people (I would be interested to know why there has been no progress in pursuing those Israeli terrorists who used British passports to carry out murder in the UAE e.g.). Often, people who are a danger to society are allowed to remain at large either because the law is inadequate or politically biased or through technicalities/lack of evidence (e.g. Sir Philip Green, Tony Blair, Abdel Hakim Belhaj); that doesn’t automatically make them innocent. The police may be required, perhaps very soon, to defend British people, should they choose a socialist government, against potential acts of terror/sabotage from other quarters. It is just as likely that deep state opponents of socialism would use drug addicts and people with mental health problems to carry out attacks as Daesh does today. I wouldn’t want to tie police hands behind their backs and then have to backtrack. To do so would be hypocrisy. I speak as a convicted criminal whose DNA is safely held by the police.
Quelle surprise.
If you or I said similar whoppers about them, we’d be up for slander/libel before you can say ‘Cameron f**ks dead pig’s heads’.
In other news – ConDem employment tribunal fee ruled unlawful.
Another unlawful act they’ve steamrollered through – Leading to yet more money wasted by Govt on fighting unnecessary cases because of their pig-headed dictatorship.
They’ve got to go.
Sounds like somebody knows somebody or somebody leant on somebody.
She actually said it twice thus proving it was no accident.
A lot of the Conservative ads and leaflets featured Abbott. Dog whistle?