The surreal ‘innocence’ of Grant Shapps

Is the Tory Party Chairman guilty, lucky, or innocent?

grantcuntitleIn this new era of relativist ethics, it is of course jolly important for the Law to move with the times, or even The Times. Or rather, it is if you’re a complete idiot.

We have a most confusing – more accurately, deliberately muddled – issue relating to the guilt or otherwise of a prominent Conservative MP at the moment. His name, you will be unsurprised to learn, is Grant Shapps. A man who – despite his long track record of being a dissembling arse – is Chairman of the Conservative Party.

The Daily Telegraph this morning reports – with what I took to be a straight face – that “A business deal involving a company set up by Grant Shapps, the Conservative party chairman, ‘may constitute an offence of fraud’, Scotland Yard has said”.

But – and this is a but as big as a Montana butte –  in a letter to Labour MP Steve McCabe, obtained by Channel Four News – Michael Duthie, a senior Met commander, said that there would be no prosecution.

Er…why not? Here is the Met’s answer:

“Legal advice was sought which concluded that the selling of the software may constitute an offence of fraud, amongst others. However, upon the conclusion of the assessment process the Metropolitan Police have decided not to instigate a criminal investigation, and have now closed this matter.”

And in an unrelated news story, the Metropolitan Police have noted that Tony Blair perverted the course of justice in the case of Saudi Arabian whores-for-weapons, amongst others, but have decided not to instigate a criminal investigation, and have now closed this matter.

Mr Shapps, who eccentrically had denied any wrongdoing, told Channel Four News that the allegations were a “politically motivated load of nonsense”, adding that “The letter makes it perfectly clear there is nothing here. I think that the MP who wasted police time – and it seems like it has been a year or something – has questions to answer.” And for good measure, a Conservative party spokesman added: “This letter speaks for itself, there is no case to answer.”

Thus – through the magical powers of Alchemic phlogiston – an offence of ‘fraud, amongst others’ becomes ‘nothing’. I seem to recall it was Einstein who said that matter cannot be either created or destroyed. But clearly Shapps and his spinmeisters know better.

So here we have laid before us, on a table in our sight, three realities at once:

1. Chummy may well be guilty but we have decided not to prosecute. (The police)

2. A Labour MP who raised questions as to this odd behaviour has “questions to answer”, and my innocence is “perfectly clear”. (Grant Shapps)

3. There is no case to answer. (The Conservative Party)

If only I felt there was the remotest chance that the electorate (a) could discern this mendacious bollocks for what it is, and (b) having done so, gave a tinker’s cuss either way.

But these days, I know better. And fear the worst.

This is what happens when – in the pursuit of ambition – police leaders allow themselves to become politicised. New Labour and its pc drivellers started this process: but faced with the consequences in 2013, they know not what to do. How cruel an irony is that?

Let’s just tot up the fertile ground ready to grow a totalitarian culture here. We have voters who are ill-informed to the point of being educationally sub-normal. We have a force of potential repression beholden to the political class. We have a money-culture largely bereft of morality, and determined to grind down all labour aims in favour of capital. We have a governmental class incapable of grasping the first principle of equality before the law. And we have a financial crisis approaching to dwarf even the worst outcomes of 1929.

Can somebody please tell me what I’ve got wrong in this analysis?

Very closely related to the above: Shapps, the Met, Newscorp, the Tories and BBC humiliation