clomid online usa overnight zoloft no rxmeds terramycin for dogs buy magnesium sulfate toxicity canadian pharcharmy rx aleve pain medication ingredients accessrx buy viagra online 409 oracea for acne reviews primox tablets with keyboards fluconazole 200 mg for sale linconcin con eucalipto cheap lipitor 40 mg injectable ivermectin for horses accutane lawsuit class action update order metronidazole online canada cialis rush order cialis online 5 mg without prescription diane sawyer world news tonight best prices propecia fluoxetine hcl 20mg aciphex 20mg buy deroxat 5mg cialis canada hydrodiuril contraindications to tpa wild ginseng prices aura grnerics zentel albendazole dose children paroxetine withdrawal symptoms omeprazole 20 mg treatment symptoms pilexil capsulas de colageno vitamix vs blendtec vs ninja metpamid ampulla evista medication dosage milnacipran generic adderall amsterdam viagra over seas xanax for sale propecia disconts online strattera 60 mg buy online doxycap side effects prevacid lansoprazole coupons magnesium citrate vs magnesium oxide viagra pills online buy comune di piombino zentel cvs cholesterol diet chart dove posso acquistare viagra originale zithrogen 500px ed pharmacy online what does viagra do to men ranitidine 150 mg en espanol antabuse uk ritalin weight loss reviews lisinopril no prescription canadian pharmcy prairie rx misoprostol 200mcg vaginally omeprazole 20 mg treatment patients generic lidoderm patch cost metformin weight loss pcos polycystic ovary syndrome arthrotec medication side effects omifin tablets used side effects of casodex bicalutamide keftab vs keflex do i need receipt for viagra viagra pills overnight delivery ezetimibe 10mg tab nootropil tablets zanaflex 4mg addiction cymbalta price increase coumadin antidote vit k naprosyn medication bigger dick vibrox medicine man buy viagra online canada no pres christie brinkley retin a elsalvador pharmacy buy tadacip online us zoloft dosages for ocd viprogra professional liability yasmine galenorn website cheap propafenone norvasc 10mg and zocor 10 saroten 25mg zoloft canadian pharmacy accutane dose of ranitidine for infants dilantin medication interactions captopril 12.5mg images valium half life dose canada primatene inhaler ondansetron odt canadian nasonex nasal spray dosage cardinal stritch university library priligy reviews zolpidem er 12.5mg januvia coupon coupon arava side effects stomach minocycline acne treatment duration grathazon obat apa utk metoprolol tartrate side effects retin a no prescription needed bactroban over the counter substitute finasteride no prescription uk diazepam 10mg pictures xanex money pak tramadol controlled substance california nexium side effects capsule kamagra now androgel coupons viagra ontario hydrochlorothiazide purchase marcumar medication for anxiety omnicef for strep throat dosage vpps pharmacey
Sign up to receive Email of my posts



Latest

Most Read

Most Popular Tags

I read...

Godon Prentice - Westminster Blog

Search


Image of Gordon Prentice

Gordon Prentice - Talking Politics

My occasional blog on politics. Going where the fancy takes me.

 
Michael Misick and Corruption in the Turks and Caicos Islands PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Tuesday, 30 June 2015 21:59

Last week the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) decided the trial of the former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, Michael Misick, on corruption charges could go ahead without a jury.

Misick and his fellow defendants – former TCI politicians – appealed to London on the grounds that the trial judge, Mr Justice Paul Harrison, did not have security of tenure – essential for guaranteeing judicial independence – and that they should, in any event, be tried by a jury.

The JCPC dismissed the appeal saying Judge Harrison was brought out of retirement specifically to hear the Misick case and that a fixed term appointment in these circumstances was not unusual.

A Turks and Caicos Islands jury would have to be drawn from a tiny pool of only 6,000 “belongers” out of a population of over 30,000. The JCPC remarked:

“There has already been relentless publicity, both in favour of and against the defendants, and there seems no sign of it stopping, whether or not the proceedings are pending. This case is so unusual, and the background to it so controversial, that it can readily be seen that it would probably be impracticable to find a jury composed of those with no prior knowledge of, or opinion upon, the issues at stake, and that even if such were possible, the identity of jurors would inevitably become known, thus exposing them to inevitable extra-evidential opinions and/or information, whether innocently communicated or not.”

That assessment is certainly true. When I was in the Turks and Caicos for the trial scheduled for December 2014 (which was postponed pending resolution of the Misick appeal) I asked any number of local people for their views on Misick and got a lot of blank faces. Local politicians were also circumspect.

In the TCI, people know all about the British Caribbean Bank and Lord Ashcroft but it is not something they want to talk about - especially to a curious outsider.

I don’t know if Michael Ashcroft is still a belonger – he may have given it up as being no longer worth the candle in the same way that he recently renounced his seat in the House of Lords.

But even though he will not be in the Turks and Caicos for the trial his presence will be felt. Ashcroft will be following it closely.

After all, he is, or was, a close friend of Michael Misick.

The trial, scheduled to begin in December 2015, is expected to last three to four months.



Labour’s Leadership contenders and the Greek referendum


As I was reading Joseph Stiglitz’s piece in the Guardian it occurred to me that I still don’t know the views of all the Labour leadership hopefuls on the forthcoming referendum in Greece.

Wouldn't it be terrific to hear where they stand on this momentous event which is unfolding as I tap tap tap this out.

I think I know where Jeremy Corbyn stands but, as for the others, who knows?

A critique of the situation facing Greece would tell us more about the candidates and where they are coming from than any number of carefully scripted personal manifestos.






Last Updated on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 22:24
 
Alberta Conservatives annihilated PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Wednesday, 06 May 2015 00:00

In the end it was brutal.

The Progressive Conservatives ruled Alberta for an unbroken 44 years and, yesterday, they were trashed.

It is an astonishing end for a Party that most pundits believed could never be beaten in this low tax/no tax oily corner of Canada.

The left leaning NDP came from absolutely nowhere to take 53 seats leaving the PC with a rump of 10 seats – not even enough to form the official opposition. This mantle will now be worn by the right wing Wildrose Party.

For all its alleged imperfections, first-past-the-post is impressively efficient at getting rid of unpopular governments and sweeping the old guard away.

With PR systems, defeated politicians often re-emerge on Party lists.

No matter how hard you try, you simply can’t get rid of them.

Jim Prentice, the premier until yesterday, resigned as an MPP even before all the ballots were counted in his riding. He has gone for good.

All eyes will now be on the NDP.

Canada will be stunned if the Party replicates this astonishing success in the federal election in October.


Last Updated on Wednesday, 06 May 2015 20:05
 
Michael Misick and Michael Ashcroft PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Monday, 13 April 2015 00:00

The trial of Michael Misick, the former premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, has been put on hold until the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (The UK Supreme Court sitting when hearing appeals from UK Dependencies and some Commonwealth jurisdictions) can rule on whether his case can be decided by a judge alone, without a jury. Misick and other former TCI politicians are charged with corruption.

The Judicial Committee’s expedited hearing will take place in London on May 11 and 12.

Five years ago, Michael Ashcroft sued the Independent newspaper for alleging that he was, in some way, improperly involved with Misick. In the July 2011 judgment in the High Court, Mr Justice Eady, wrote: 

An inference is invited that the Claimant (Michael Ashcroft) authorised a loan by the British Caribbean Bank evidenced by a document dated 14 March 2007 signed by his son Andrew Ashcroft. His authorisation is to be inferred from the size of the loan, the fact that Mr Misick was the Premier, the fact that earlier loans had been made to him in 2004, and the potential gains to be made by Michael Ashcroft’s commercial interests in the Turks and Coaicos Islands from supporting a corrupt Premier. But the key assertions underlying all this are Michael Ashcroft’s “ownership and control” of the British Caribbean Bank and the claim that his son was “in thrall” to him and “acts in accordance with his will.

The Judge, in effect, told the Independent to put up or shut up. He said the newspaper

needs to give “their best particulars of Michael Ashcroft’s role in granting the loan and, specifically, of the nature of the favourable terms.”

…it cannot suffice to put forward a case to the effect that Michael Ashcroft simply must have been involved in some way or another. They need to come off the fence and decide exactly what the charge against the Claimant is. 

The Independent was unable to meet this requirement and settled.

Misick’s trial is expected later this year. Courteney Griffiths QC, pulled out from representing Misick some months ago, allegedly because his expenses were not being fully covered.

Ashcroft’s interests in Central America and the Caribbean are, of course, well documented. “Lord Ashcroft’s Millions” looks at how the peer made his money in Belize and in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

 

 
Ed Miliband and non-doms PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Wednesday, 08 April 2015 01:22

A round of applause is, I think, deserved for Ed Miliband’s decision to scrap non-dom status.

This is not something that Tony Blair – in thrall to big money – would have contemplated in a thousand years.

Miliband’s move will come as a blow to my bête noire, the tax cheat Michael Ashcroft.

Until today, I had thought Ashcroft’s resignation from the House of Lords would allow the “proud tax avoider” to take up non-dom status once again. I had assumed that with a battery of tax lawyers at his side he would have been able to persuade a pliable Revenue and Customs that he is domiciled in Belize or wherever his heart now is.

Impertinently, he intends to remain “Lord Ashcroft”. After his announcement, he tweeted:

"Retired Lords keep their title and can use the facilities of the house should they wish to.”

Ashcroft has been preparing the ground for his exit from the Lords with some care.

On 22 July 2014, in a written Lords question he asked how many peers had not attended a single sitting of the House since the 2010 general election. We learn there is a long list of stale and utterly useless peers (including the “Canadian” Conrad Black, jailed in the United States for fraud) and, clearly, Ashcroft even then was looking for a way out.

Ashcroft was a complete passenger, rarely contributing to the work of the Lords even though he was appointed as a “working peer”. It was all bogus. His dribble of written questions over the years were on his pet subjects such as the Turks and Caicos Islands and benefit fraud.

He last spoke in the Chamber over six years ago, on 4 December 2008.


Last Updated on Friday, 10 April 2015 00:47
 
Time to get rid of non dom status PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Thursday, 26 February 2015 00:00

I am keeping my fingers crossed that the Labour leadership will have the courage to include in the forthcoming Labour Manifesto a clear commitment to abolish non-dom status.

In 2008, under the Blair Government, the rules were tweaked allowing non-doms to continue to enjoy special tax advantages if they paid £30,000 every year to HMRC.

We now learn that HSBC Chief Executive, Stuart Gulliver, is a non-dom despite living in the UK for years. He has a house in Hong Kong and says he is going to retire there. As if! (The MPs on the Treasury Select Committee who grilled him were terrific.)

Seems to me all British Citizens should pay UK tax on their world-wide income. We could follow the example of the United States who taxes her citizens wherever they are. And here in Canada – where I pay tax – I am obliged to declare my worldwide income, such as it is, to the Canada Revenue Agency. Double taxation treaties prevent people being taxed twice.

With special tax treatment under their belt, buttressed by tax secrecy, non-doms have been laughing in our faces for years.

Ashcroft mocks us all

Yesterday, 25 February, the notorious tax cheat and former non-dom, Michael Ashcroft, in a Lords written question, smugly asked the Government to explain:

 “what they consider the difference between tax avoidance and aggressive tax avoidance.”

The Minister, Lord Deighton, explained:

 “Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) distinguish between tax avoidance and tax planning. Tax avoidance is bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that Parliament never intended. It often involves contrived, artificial transactions that serve little or no purpose other than to produce a tax advantage. It involves operating within the letter – but not the spirit – of the law."

"Tax avoidance is not the same as tax planning. Tax planning involves using tax reliefs for the purpose for which they were intended. For example, claiming tax relief on capital investment, saving in a tax-exempt ISA or saving for retirement by making contributions to a pension scheme are all legitimate forms of tax planning. While such actions may reduce the total amount of tax paid, they are not tax avoidance, because they involve using tax reliefs in the way that Parliament intended when it passed the relevant legislation.”

Ashcroft "a proud tax avoider"

In September 2013, Ashcroft told a bunch of turnip heads at a Labour Party conference fringe event that he was “a proud tax avoider”. He reportedly received a “polite round of applause”. The self-confessed “notorious tax avoider” only gave up his non-dom status in 2010 because my successful FoI request forced him to. He still thinks tax is something you pay when you absolutely can’t avoid it.

Indeed, Ashcroft and his fellow peer, Lord Fink, have at least two things in common. They were both Treasurers of the Conservative Party and they believe tax avoidance is OK.

Fink says he doesn’t object to Miliband accusing him of tax avoidance. “Because you are right: tax avoidance, everyone does it.”

In October 2010, not long after Ashcroft had come out as a non-dom, he used a written question in the Lords to ask, tongue in cheek, whether the Coalition Government expected citizens “to organise their tax affairs in order to maximise tax payable”.

He was told by the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Sassoon:

The Government expect citizens to pay tax that is due by law. The Government will take action against tax avoidance schemes that claim to produce results completely at odds with the intentions of Parliament.”

Ashcroft, who conned his way into the House of Lords 15 years ago when he promised to bring his tax affairs on shore, asked Sassoon in December 2012:

“whether (the Government) apply any principles of acceptability to legal tax avoidance practices; and, if so, what are those principles.”

Sassoon, playing it with a straight bat, replied:

“The vast majority of individuals and businesses in the UK pay the tax that is due and on time. The small minority that try to bend the rules to achieve a tax result, which Parliament did not intend, put a greater burden on the majority. That is why the Government are taking action to tackle tax avoidance by, for example, changing the law to close loopholes and by introducing a general anti-abuse rule to target artificial and abusive tax avoidance schemes.”

Corruption in the Caribbean

Michael Ashcroft – a citizen of Belize, a British citizen and a belonger of the Turks and Caicos Islands - clearly believes he is home and dry with all his dodgy tax dealings now far behind him, ancient history. The BBC's Panorama looked for evidence and there are lots of loose ends waiting to be tied up.

Elsewhere… The trial of Ashcroft’s old friend, former Premier, Michael Misick, on corruption charges will take place in the Turks and Caicos Islands later this year. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London is considering whether the trial can proceed without a jury. (Every second person in the islands has the surname "Misick". I exaggerate for effect but only slightly.)

When I was in TCI in December 2014 I saw for myself the impact developers have had on the island. Beautiful pristine beaches in Crown Land sold off to shady characters with off-shore bank accounts. I also spoke to local politicians and checked out Michael Misick’s mansion, now up for sale, reportedly built with a little help from his friends.

Last Updated on Friday, 27 February 2015 18:25
 
HSBC, the Treasury Select Committee, Lord Green and the tax cheat Michael Ashcroft PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Sunday, 22 February 2015 21:58

Next Wednesday (25 February 2015) the Treasury Select Committee will try get to the bottom of the shocking tax scandal at HSBC.

The one man who could shed some light of things, Lord Green, the Bank’s Chief Executive from 2003-06 and Chairman from 2006-10, is not in front of the committee and reports suggest he may not be called before it.

Green was recently doorstepped by BBC Panorama, but refuses point-blank to discuss his role.

The FT quotes a spokesman for Andrew Tyrie, the Committee chair, saying the committee will not be calling Green as it doesn’t want to “drag up the past”.

I read that my former colleague, John Mann, is unhappy about this – and well he might be. He should press the Select Committee to summon Green before them.

This is not as easy or as straightforward as it sounds.

Five years ago, my Freedom of Information request on the undertakings Michael Ashcroft gave to secure his peerage, was finally published. It forced Ashcroft to admit that he was a non-dom and had been ever since he cheated his way to a peerage.

He also misled his friend William Hague, then Leader of the Opposition, who wrote to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on 23 May 1999:

“Mr Ashcroft is indeed non-resident for tax purposes and has been for some years, during which time his principal business interests have been abroad. He is, however, committed to becoming resident by the next financial year in order properly to fulfil his responsibilities in the House of Lords. This decision will cost him (and benefit the Treasury) tens of millions a year in tax yet he considers it worthwhile.”

The Public Administration Select Committee embarked on an inquiry into Michael Ashcroft’s peerage but we knew we had to move quickly. Then, as now, a general Election was in prospect.

The Committee asked Lord Ashcroft and William Hague to give oral evidence. They declined. I recall being told at the time that there was a Parliamentary convention preventing select committees summoning members of the Commons or Lords.

In any event, the Chair of PASC, Tony Wright, received a letter from the then Conservative Shadow Leader of the House, Sir George Young, dated Wednesday 17 March 2010 informing us they weren’t going to appear before us. Sir George accused the Committee of being partisan before bluntly stating:

“In the days immediately preceding the dissolution of this Parliament, this inquiry inevitably risks being seen as partisan. I am writing to let you know that my Parliamentary colleagues who have been invited to attend are not inclined to do so.”

He went on:

“I think it best if these sorts of issues are explored in the round, and on a genuine cross-party basis, in the next Parliament.”

The whole truth of the Ashcroft deception, with all the twisting lies and distortions, would have been exposed if PASC had insisted on bringing Ashcroft and Hague before it. The convention should have been tested to destruction with the Committee reporting to the House that two key witnesses were refusing to co-operate. But we were right up against the wire with the election a month or two away. (The Committee had to make do with Hayden Phillips, the mandarin who waved the peerage through.)

I was hugely frustrated by this stonewalling and I recall Tony Wright telling me we had done as much as we could and to let it rest.

But history may be in danger of repeating itself. The scandal of HSBC should not be swept under the carpet until the next Parliament – which may mean never.

The Treasury Select Committee needs to assert itself and insist that Lord Green comes before it - and give evidence under oath.

Postscript on Ashcroft: Cabinet papers released to PASC in 2010 detail the extent of Ashcroft's deception.


Last Updated on Sunday, 22 February 2015 22:44
 
An independent Scotland needs its own currency PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Tuesday, 09 September 2014 15:56

The Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, tells the TUC today that a currency union between England and an independent Scotland would be “incompatible with sovereignty”.

Carney, a former Governor of the Bank of Canada, should know.

During the Quebec Provincial election in March this year, Pauline Marois, the then leader of the Parti Quebecois, startled Canadians by claiming an independent Quebec would still use the Canadian dollar (the loonie). And she wanted a seat at the Bank of Canada.

The idea was widely regarded as fanciful and the Bloc went down to a crushing defeat on 7 April.

Why is the SNP’s insistence on keeping the pound after a YES vote not similarly laughed out of court? It is to me  a complete mystery.

The rest of the UK (rUK) is not going to underwrite an independent Scotland. The voters in rUK would never tolerate such a lopsided arrangement.

If not the pound then what about the Euro? (Now we can laugh out loud.)

Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times. is the latest in a very long line of economists to rule that one out.

So what are we left with?

Ian McGugan in today’s Globe and Mail (see below) says an independent Scotland should have its own currency. He suggests they call it the Thistle on the grounds it will be very hard to hold.


Ian McGugan writes: The world has embraced the loonie. But would it do the same for the Scottie?

As Scotland heads toward its Sept. 18 referendum with the pro-independence side edging into a narrow lead in the polls, a new currency becomes a distinct possibility.

Granted, the last thing a time-starved world needs is the distraction of yet another form of money, especially one backed by a tiny nation with only slightly more people than British Columbia. But, given the alternatives, a new national currency could emerge as the best path forward for Scotland Inc. The other obvious choices – continuing to use the British pound or switching to the euro – are riddled with problems.

MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY

The euro option, for instance, faces the immediate complication that Scotland has no guaranteed ticket to membership in the European Union. Among other obstacles, there’s Spain, which is struggling to placate its own independence movement in Catalonia, and doesn’t want to encourage its home-grown separatists by embracing a newly independent Scotland.

Even if Scotland’s path to EU membership proceeds without a hitch, the euro option would force it into the same one-size-fits-all monetary straitjacket as the rest of the euro zone – an approach that has had dismal results in recent years. If North Sea oil prices were to plummet, oil-dependent Scotland would have no way to offset the shock with looser interest rates.

That’s a problem. But the pound option is also looking less than, um, sterling.

While the Scottish National Party (SNP) has long insisted that an independent Scotland would continue to use the British currency, the power brokers in London have rushed to reject the notion.

All a bluff, sniffs the SNP. It says the English will come to their senses after the referendum, especially since the SNP insists it will repudiate its part of the national debt unless Scotland keeps the pound.

But that raises the question of whether keeping the pound makes sense for Scotland. There are two ways to do so – by simply adopting the currency (a process that goes by the unlovely term “sterlingization”) or by striking a formal currency union with the remainder of the United Kingdom.

The problem with sterlingization (other than its name) is that it leaves Scotland without any voice at the Bank of England and without any backstop from the central bank if crisis strikes. It also gives Scotland no way to adjust monetary policy to suit its own economy.

A formal currency union seems equally awkward. As the smaller partner in the union, Scotland would have to agree to keep its budget deficit within bounds set by the rest of the U.K. so that there would be no danger of it shifting risk onto its larger partner through runaway spending. For similar reasons, Edinburgh would also have to cede control of banking regulation to the folks in London.

At that point, not much would be left of Scotland’s new independence. “It is weird to tell the English you are desperate to be rid of them and, in the same breath, say you trust them so much that you wish to share a core activity of the state you are leaving,” writes Martin Wolf in the Financial Times.

All things considered, the best move for an independent Scotland would be a currency of its own. That would allow the new state to adjust its monetary policy to suit its own needs.

The problem, says Ronald MacDonald, an economist at the University of Glasgow, is that setting up a new currency involves a painful period of winning markets’ trust and building up foreign-exchange reserves. But in the long run it would seem to be the only policy that would make sense if Scotland does vote for independence.

The question that remains is what to call the currency. The Scottie? The Braveheart? I suggest the Thistle, since it’s likely to be painful to hold, especially as North Sea oil revenues dwindle.

Follow  on Twitter: @IanMcGugan


Last Updated on Thursday, 11 September 2014 18:02
 
Scotland's future decided by non-Scots PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Friday, 05 September 2014 20:04

Canada’s Conservative Primer Minister, Stephen Harper, tells us that Scottish independence is "ultimately a question for the Scots"

It is not quite so simple. As opinion polls narrow (53% now say no and 47% yes) it is quite conceivable the result could be decided by foreign nationals.

An estimated 253,000 foreign nationals are living in Scotland and many of them will have a vote. Under the UK’s bizarrely anachronistic voting laws, citizens of 53 Commonwealth countries, including Canada, as well as the Republic of Ireland are allowed to vote in the independence referendum.

Nationals from the 28 member states of the European Union, if living in Scotland, can also vote in the referendum because the right to vote is linked to the franchise for the devolved Scottish Parliament, not Westminster. This means that while they cannot vote in an election for a Westminster MP they can, perversely, vote in the referendum.

How can it be right to allow the UK’s centuries old constitutional settlement to be changed irreversibly by non-UK citizens?

Simply posing the question illustrates the absurdity of it all.

In the 1995 Quebec referendum on secession from Canada (in which it hardly needs saying only Canadian citizens could vote) the Noes had the support of 69% of Quebeckers at the beginning of the campaign. This shrank alarmingly and on referendum day the Noes won by a hair’s breadth.

It is a cautionary tale.

Time for the Noes to speak out, loud and clear.


Last Updated on Friday, 05 September 2014 20:50
 
Michael Misick trial date pushed back PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Wednesday, 11 June 2014 19:59

The trial of Michael Misick, the former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, on corruption charges has been pushed back to 6 October 2014.

A ruling is expected on 23 June on whether the trial will be with or without a jury.

Misick is – or was - a friend of tax dodger Michael Ashcroft who cheated his way into the House of Lords in 2000.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 11 June 2014 20:05
 
Michael Misick Corruption Trial Looms. PDF Print E-mail
Written by Gordon Prentice   
Tuesday, 06 May 2014 00:00

The trial of Michael Misick, the former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, on charges of corruption is scheduled to start on 7 July. But this date could slip if his new UK based lawyer, Courtney Griffiths QC, successfully persuades Mr Justice Paul Harrison that he needs more time to prepare the case.

The Turks and Caicos Weekly News reports that, at a hearing on 27 May 2014, Griffiths “will argue against the Special Investigation and Prosecution Team’s (SIPT) application for a trial without a jury”.

Here the Turks and Caicos Sun TV interviews Griffiths about the upcoming trial and his previous experience with high profile cases.

In 2012, BBC Panorama broadcast an investigation into Lord Ashcroft’s business activities in the TCI.

Michael Misick counted Ashcroft as one of his friends.

Michael Ashcroft, who cheated his way into the House of Lords in 2000 will, no doubt, be following Misick’s trial closely.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 06 May 2014 21:13
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 39
PrivacyTech DetailsSitemap