Politicans and the Presumption of Innocence.

Peter “Lavengro” Harvey, here comments on the Tessa Jowell affair and writes

“Her husband has not been charged with, let alone found guilty of, any illegal activity. Even were he to be (and I know that he is not out of the Italian woods), her own involvement should not be taken for granted. The presumption of innocence should apply.”

Why should the “presumption of innocence” apply here? If politicians face criminal or civil allegations, they are entitled to that presumption. There is, I think, a difficulty in moving what is essentially a legal concept into the murky world of politics. In the Jowell case nobody is suggesting this lady in guilty in the criminal sense of anything. Her “city slicker” hubby has yet to face to Milan prosecutor. But to suggest that her behaviour is beyond robust scrutiny because she is able to pray in aid the presumption of innocence is plain daft.

She’s a politician and when she became an M.P. and Minister, she must have been barmy to think her private life and that of her husband were not going to be scrutinised and even barmier to think she could avoid that by claiming she was  politically innocent.

One of the most sensible comments can be found on Nick Robinson’s newsblog

"Sleaze doesn't depend on facts or track record. It's a smell, a feeling, a cloud that can form around a political party. Once it's there your enemies will use anything they can to increase the size of the cloud - John Reid's mortgage, Cherie Blair's speaking fees and anything to do with Tessa Jowell. If the warning lights are not flashing red in Downing Street they should be.”

And I for one think by now  the public ought to have that stench smell in their nostrils!

Comments

[Peter 'Lavengro' Harvey]

There is, I think, a difficulty in moving what is essentially a legal concept into the murky world of politics.

Tony,

I agree that there is but the real problem is in dealing with a country that has no proper separation of powers. A politician should be judged by political standards, and certainly must be expected to act within the law, but there is no reason why they should be held to higher moral standards than many other people. Has she committed any criminal act? No. Has she abused her office for personal gain? No. Has she been politically incompetent in the exercise of her post? No. Is it wise for her to continue in office? There seems to be no real reason why not. There is in any case a political process for dealing with political incompetence; it is called elections, and given the level of this affair, which has hardly brought to light any real scandal (as opposed to rumour) I see no reason why it should not be left there – for now anyway.

The ‘recognisable stench’ theory of political scandal is right up there with ‘There’s no smoke without fire’ and ‘But everybody knows that…’ as a watchword that calls for immediate scepticism and thorough investigation.

The problem in Britain is that you can’t let politics be politics and legal affairs be legal affairs. And when the Great British Public starts on morality, all hope of reason goes straight out of the window anyway. As Macaulay said, “We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.”

[Tony Hatfield]

Peter,
The problem here is very few pay the political price. We still have Blunkett and Byers; Mandelson has been sent off to the European Commission.
And Blair, who fibbed to the punters oover Iraq, was re-elected with a thumping majority a couple of years ago. You forget how our electoral system favours the incumbent.
And as for the Mills/Jowett affair, it's nothing like "no smoke et.c. Here we have Tessa, a cabinet minister and a leading light in the London Labour Party,and her hubby who have taken out and discharged more mortgages than anchovies on a Spanish tapas bar.It is unchallenged that Mills recieved a $600,000.00 "commission" from Berlusconi. This was used to pay off one of the mortgages. And when asked, Jowell uses the reply of just about every villain I've represented "Can't remember!
This couple are just plain greedy.
t

[Tom Berney]

Tony,
You are quite right, of course. What Peter has not appreciated is that Jowell is REQUIRED to register her spouse's interests. She failed to do so. Even Michael Portillo (who must be OK as he is a wee bit Spanish) commented that if simply pleading ignorance because she didn't ask is a sufficient defence against non-compliance then the disclosure rule is completely pointless.

[Rokko]

Hello ! This is very [url=http://www.google.com/bb497]good[/url] site !!