I’m surprised no-one has commented on the irony of Richard Jenrick, being made the new Shadow Minister of Justice. Clearly people have forgotten that in June 2020, he was at the centre of a controversial planning development involving the self-made billionaire tycoon, Richard Desmond.
Desmond was the owner of the Daily and Sunday express papers and was often described as the ‘Porn Baron’ because he also owned several pornographic magazines with titles like ‘Asian babes’. I include below the Guardian report on this unsavoury episode.
Jenrick’s declared donations also make interesting reading. In the 4 months from June to October these amount to over £360,000. He’s known to be a fitness fanatic and there have been 2 donations amounting to £45,000 from Spott Fitness Ltd.
But if you’re thinking about those people who have actually been in charge of our justice system as opposed to just a 'Shadow' Minister of Justice, there are some people whose reign has not been without controversy – like Tim Parker for example, the Chair of HMCTS from 2018 to 2023. His appointment was criticised because of a potential conflict of interest - he was at the same time, Chair of the Post Office! He was also christened the ‘Prince of Darkness’ by that left-wing newspaper, the Daily Mail. He acquired that nickname because of his ruthless ‘slash and burn’ tactics as a businessman. Such tactics were obviously successful: his wealth was recently estimated to be £237 m.
Curiously, he resigned as Chair of the Post Office, a week before Wyn Williams began his Inquiry. Here's the Guardian June 2020 report on the Jenrick/Desmond controversy:
Why is the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, at the centre of controversy over a £1bn building development?
Jenrick granted planning permission for a £1bn property scheme two weeks before the developer donated £12,000 to the Conservative party.
Jenrick and his housing department initially backed a plan by the billionaire for media tycoon Richard Desmond to construct 1,524 apartments on a site in the Isle of the Dogs, east London.
As documents released on Wednesday confirm, Jenrick knew that Desmond had only 24 hours to have the development approved before new council community charges were imposed that would have cost him about £45m. Desmond said the charge would have made the whole scheme unviable and put the accompanying social housing at risk.
Jenrick later accepted that his approval of Desmond’s project on the old Westferry Road printworks in January was unlawful.
What was the £45m charge that Desmond could have avoided?
The proposed property development was to be sited is in London’s poorest borough of London, Tower Hamlets. The £45m charge was part of the local council’s community infrastructure levy (CIL). This is a local “tax” on residential and business property developments in Tower Hamlets that the council reinvests in poorer communities, funding projects such as health clinics and educational facilities.
Always chuffed and reassured by support from David Simpson- if indeed it is the person of that name I had met and so much admired from Home Office Conferences in the long ago days when under Chatham House Rules those speaking uncomfortable truth to power routinely received invitations to those residential events where we all had had to sing for our supper in one way or another rather than what I suspect are now the pale and - to often- acquiescent shadows who check on the direction of travel before committing to ANY worthwhile contribution. I dare say there are those burning to protest at this particular diatribe of mine, to whom I say:”Be my guest”. As I understood it one Sir T. Blair had been desperate to find some dosh down the back of a settee so as to appear to be doing SOMETHING about CPS charging decisions and control thereof following upon the -so valuable- Glidewell Review. His recommendations in my judgment SAVED us from a return to prosecutions being handled by solicitors in private practice to whom far too often the term “independent “ had a bizarre meaning scarcely to be found in any dictionary. And so farewell Home Office Conference Unit.
Am I wrong? If so then pray tell me although in response I may not necessarily “ go gentle……”
1. The lacerating “put down” for Jenrick has to be welcomed because (a) it exposed the threadbare and wrong headed nature of both his team’s research and demonstrated the depth and muscularity of the government’s support and Justice Ministerial team; (b) exposed the heedlessness and/or ignorance of our elected representatives over constitutional and judicial issues. It is only a tad facetious to assert that so very many can neither understand nor care about such vital doctrines as the separation of the powers. As to even so much as being able to SPELL the rule of law and due process, forget it! I add immediately that this no politically partisan point- would that it were. The whole notion of those concepts as irritating, time consuming and over costly optional extras HAS to stop.
2. The more troubling aspect is that I very much fear that if Lord Timpson had been delivering his (on the whole) rehabilitative and “prison as a last resort” messages in the Commons it would have provoked derisory jeers from the opposition Benches and outright insults and- far too much- in respectful silence from the government side. Please, pretty please: may this administration’s commitment to constructive and adult sentencing reform remain steadfast. They are IN POWER NOW and no longer in timorous opposition seeking election. I believe itwas Hillel the Elder in the first Century AD who asked:” If not you then who? If not now when?”
3. As to the Single Justice procedure an urgent and probing review is of the essence of a justice system worth praising and Heidi Alexander’s statement is timely and welcome.Watch this space? Tom Baldwin has it right of course.
Dear Joshua,
I’m surprised no-one has commented on the irony of Richard Jenrick, being made the new Shadow Minister of Justice. Clearly people have forgotten that in June 2020, he was at the centre of a controversial planning development involving the self-made billionaire tycoon, Richard Desmond.
Desmond was the owner of the Daily and Sunday express papers and was often described as the ‘Porn Baron’ because he also owned several pornographic magazines with titles like ‘Asian babes’. I include below the Guardian report on this unsavoury episode.
Jenrick’s declared donations also make interesting reading. In the 4 months from June to October these amount to over £360,000. He’s known to be a fitness fanatic and there have been 2 donations amounting to £45,000 from Spott Fitness Ltd.
But if you’re thinking about those people who have actually been in charge of our justice system as opposed to just a 'Shadow' Minister of Justice, there are some people whose reign has not been without controversy – like Tim Parker for example, the Chair of HMCTS from 2018 to 2023. His appointment was criticised because of a potential conflict of interest - he was at the same time, Chair of the Post Office! He was also christened the ‘Prince of Darkness’ by that left-wing newspaper, the Daily Mail. He acquired that nickname because of his ruthless ‘slash and burn’ tactics as a businessman. Such tactics were obviously successful: his wealth was recently estimated to be £237 m.
Curiously, he resigned as Chair of the Post Office, a week before Wyn Williams began his Inquiry. Here's the Guardian June 2020 report on the Jenrick/Desmond controversy:
Why is the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, at the centre of controversy over a £1bn building development?
Jenrick granted planning permission for a £1bn property scheme two weeks before the developer donated £12,000 to the Conservative party.
Jenrick and his housing department initially backed a plan by the billionaire for media tycoon Richard Desmond to construct 1,524 apartments on a site in the Isle of the Dogs, east London.
As documents released on Wednesday confirm, Jenrick knew that Desmond had only 24 hours to have the development approved before new council community charges were imposed that would have cost him about £45m. Desmond said the charge would have made the whole scheme unviable and put the accompanying social housing at risk.
Jenrick later accepted that his approval of Desmond’s project on the old Westferry Road printworks in January was unlawful.
What was the £45m charge that Desmond could have avoided?
The proposed property development was to be sited is in London’s poorest borough of London, Tower Hamlets. The £45m charge was part of the local council’s community infrastructure levy (CIL). This is a local “tax” on residential and business property developments in Tower Hamlets that the council reinvests in poorer communities, funding projects such as health clinics and educational facilities.
Always chuffed and reassured by support from David Simpson- if indeed it is the person of that name I had met and so much admired from Home Office Conferences in the long ago days when under Chatham House Rules those speaking uncomfortable truth to power routinely received invitations to those residential events where we all had had to sing for our supper in one way or another rather than what I suspect are now the pale and - to often- acquiescent shadows who check on the direction of travel before committing to ANY worthwhile contribution. I dare say there are those burning to protest at this particular diatribe of mine, to whom I say:”Be my guest”. As I understood it one Sir T. Blair had been desperate to find some dosh down the back of a settee so as to appear to be doing SOMETHING about CPS charging decisions and control thereof following upon the -so valuable- Glidewell Review. His recommendations in my judgment SAVED us from a return to prosecutions being handled by solicitors in private practice to whom far too often the term “independent “ had a bizarre meaning scarcely to be found in any dictionary. And so farewell Home Office Conference Unit.
Am I wrong? If so then pray tell me although in response I may not necessarily “ go gentle……”
1. The lacerating “put down” for Jenrick has to be welcomed because (a) it exposed the threadbare and wrong headed nature of both his team’s research and demonstrated the depth and muscularity of the government’s support and Justice Ministerial team; (b) exposed the heedlessness and/or ignorance of our elected representatives over constitutional and judicial issues. It is only a tad facetious to assert that so very many can neither understand nor care about such vital doctrines as the separation of the powers. As to even so much as being able to SPELL the rule of law and due process, forget it! I add immediately that this no politically partisan point- would that it were. The whole notion of those concepts as irritating, time consuming and over costly optional extras HAS to stop.
2. The more troubling aspect is that I very much fear that if Lord Timpson had been delivering his (on the whole) rehabilitative and “prison as a last resort” messages in the Commons it would have provoked derisory jeers from the opposition Benches and outright insults and- far too much- in respectful silence from the government side. Please, pretty please: may this administration’s commitment to constructive and adult sentencing reform remain steadfast. They are IN POWER NOW and no longer in timorous opposition seeking election. I believe itwas Hillel the Elder in the first Century AD who asked:” If not you then who? If not now when?”
3. As to the Single Justice procedure an urgent and probing review is of the essence of a justice system worth praising and Heidi Alexander’s statement is timely and welcome.Watch this space? Tom Baldwin has it right of course.