Friday, November 30, 2007

Wendy Alexander: Signed a Thank You Letter

That was to a gentleman - a Mr Paul Honey Trap (aka Staines) I think it was - in Jersey. Clearly this is not any kind of proof that Ms Alexander was aware of never mind implicated in any knowing law breaking.

She has it seems done something unlawful but the idea that a thank you letter proves she knew she had is a VERY DIM idea. VERY DIM spelt S T A I N E S.

In fact the existence of such a letter - even if it not the cobbled together Mr GuF's apparent forgery - rather proves the opposite to be the case. Imagine the scene:

Office typist: Here are some letters to sign Ma'am.
This little pile on the more personal paper are thank you notes and I suggest signing a friendly "Wendy". They've been spell checked.
This pile on official MSP paper are case work and I suggest a full signature. They've all been content checked by XXXXXX.
This third pile on CLP letterheads are to members who helped on the campaign. I could stamp those if you're pressed.
The fourth pile are a mixed bag but are more sensitive and X advises you read each one carefully.
There are just 575 letters in all today. Might be a few more at going home time.

Wendy Alexander (busily): Phew! Only 575. Brilliant. You really are so very well organised Nadine, and Dorries such a pretty name. I don't know what I'd do without you.


tory boys never grow up said...

Just posted this on Iain Dale in response to his latest hysterical posting - may be of interest in case he doesn't accept.

Anon 4:46 isn't quite right a cheque is a bill of exchange which is defined as follows per the Bills of Exchange Act 1882

"A Bill of Exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer".

Nevertheless until the cheque is presented to the bank nothing is received so anon's point is basically correct.

You have in effect libelled/smeared Brown and his team - of course you could argue ignorance in defence - just like Peter Watt. If you have any sense I would retract very quickly.

I am afraid Christmas has come early for all the Tory boys - but don't worry Lent will soon be here!

tory boys never grow up said...

Perhaps Evan might want to advise Dale not to be so stupid!

Diablo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Whether she knew about it or not, she committed an offence. Last time I checked, ignorance of the law is no defence. When will you people stop trying to defend the indefencible?

Chris Paul said...

So, Diablo removed his post. Interesting, very interesting. Fortunately I have a copy.

Anyway, anonymous sock puppet of zero courage and limited reading power.

The first clause of the second para, prominent by any reackoning says, and I quote:

"She has it seems done something unlawful"

The offence and the seriousness of the offence depends on the knowledge.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. Funnily enough, I spotted that. But that's just the point, isn't it? You admit that she committed an offence, yet you seek to excuse her. It's symptomatic of the way you people operate.

In any event, seems she's deep in it now.