The most intriguing part of this staunch defence though is this question:
Still no answer to my plea on what crime Peter has committed
On January 12th he took the same line, saying:
And on January 11th
This time, Peter Hain will be found guilty of concentrating more on his jobs in Northern Ireland and Wales than on his personal affairs. He is also guilty of not keeping a firm check that others were doing their jobs properly. And that’s it.
Please tell me who has been harmed, robbed, deceived, bribed, and corrupted by anything that Peter has done or not done? It is a hideous cock-up by others for which Peter must take the ultimate responsibility.
And on January 10th
I still do not know what dreadful crime he has committed
Well, since Mr Flynn is clearly too busy to check up himself, I'll save him the time. Let me introduce you to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Schedule 7 of this long-winded and direly boring Act deals with donations to individuals who are members of registered parties (e.g. Peter Hain) who engage in political activities such as
"promoting or procuring the election of any person to any position in, or to any committee of, the party" (e.g. internal election for Deputy leader) and any "controlled donations" they may receive to boost their political activities (e.g. £103,000).
The important part for Mr Flynn to read is clause 12 of the Schedule. To save him the time to go search himself, I'll quote it here:
(1) Where a report required to be delivered to the Commission under paragraph 10(1) or 11(1) is not delivered by the end of the period of 30 days mentioned in that provision...the regulated donee...is guilty of an offence.So there you go Mr Flynn, the answer to all your questions. Whether Hain was careless, reckless, lazy, ignorant, incompetent or a sleazy corrupt liar it makes no difference, he has committed a crime - he is guilty of a criminal offence.
While I'm sure Mr Flynn will revert to his other tactic of late, the mud throwing at what he (hilariously) refers to as Plaid-gate or Osbourne's half a million, there is one (very) big difference. Both the Plaid MP's and George Osbourne asked for the advice of the Common's officers. Plaid were given permission to run the ads (although they should have known better even with that permission), Osbourne waited for advice on whether his money needed to be registered twice or just the once (which they had done).
Hain did not come out openly with this. The information was dragged out by the media, if it wasn't for Harriet and Wendy's indiscretions we would probably never have heard of this 100 grand. There's also the fact that neither Osbourne nor the plaid MP's committed a criminal offence, Hain did. And that's a BIG difference.
To end this piece on Mr Permatan, here's a wonderful quote from Peter Hain MP from 2005, when Plaid attacked him for having two Cabinet posts:
"If you look at what has been delivered over the last couple of years... nobody has been able to say any single duty or responsibility or procedure I haven't carried out,"You know what Peter, I think we just found one!