Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Legal dog house
I have been passed an interesting e-mail from a solicitor employed by Dr Ansari, who takes issue with the recent article about his donation to Luciana's campaign.
In the interest of fairness I will list his complaints, as this blog has always allowed a right of reply to humans named here.
1. Dr Ansari claims he made no donation specifically to fund Luciana. (Although Luciana lists his donation in her declaration of interests - so is her declaration a lie? If so I apologize to Doctor Ansari and suggest he takes action against Luciana for defaming him.)
2. Dr Anwar maintains that there was no major scandal associated with him. The proxy donor in question just happened to rent a flat from him. (Well I make no argument either way, however two Labour supporting newspapers linked him to the scandal, therefor it is fair for this blog to report that he was linked to it.)
3. There is no evidence to suggest that the Labour NEC considered Dr Ansari unfit for office. (I make no such suggestion, merely quote the example given in the Daily Mirror by a Labour insider as to why someone might be vetoed by the NEC.)
4. Dr Ansari has not submitted "controversial planning applications" in Liverpool. (Depends on how you define controversial? However the majority of planning applications he has made in Liverpool have either been refused or presumably would have been refused if he hadn't withdrawn them. And as a private landlord making a profit by housing asylum seekers in hostels, he can hardly claim to be in an uncontroversial business)
5. Dr Ansari has very little in the way of property interests in Greater Manchester. (So by "very little" is it accepted that he does indeed have property interests in Greater Manchester?)
So I am glad we could clarify all that for Dr Ansari.