Monday, 16 December 2013

Will Lucy Adams be jailed by MPs?

Having watched a few hours of the proceedings of the PAC earlier this year I wrote;
"The Leader's own particular spite was reserved for Lucy Adams, erstwhile head of 'HR', sporting an attitude and a silver thumb-ring more suited to an argumentative teen than a public executive. Last time Adams had denied knowledge of a document that she actually helped author; at the first hint of a repetition the Leader snapped 'I'm not having any more lies this afternoon'

But Lucy Adams hadn't quite done with lying; perhaps it was her BBC training. 'Did you refer to these excessive payments as 'sweeteners'? asked the Senate. 'I have absolutely no recollection of that at all; it's not a word I would use' lied the egregious Ms Adams fluently. Unfortunately, it turned out a Senate member had an email leaked by an Adams subordinate in which Adams had employed precisely that word. Chairman Hoxha commented to the effect that Adams was only distantly acquainted with the concept of truthfulness to which I swear I heard a petulant teenage girl respond ' That is sooooo unfair!' "

Yes, I and countless others actually saw Lucy Adams lying live on TV.

The PAC have recorded it too, noting that 'Misleading a select committee constitutes contempt of Parliament’. The law allows Parliament to jail 'strangers' for the term of the Parliament for this offence - until May 2015 in Lucy Adams' case. 

Let's hope the prospect of eighteen months in Holloway has a repentant effect on Ms Adams; in the current mood of Parliament with regard to BBC largesse, I wouldn't put it past the House to bang her up.


Anonymous said...

Pour encourager les autres.

'Bout bloody time, serial fraud and done in full knowledge of what you are doing and hard lessons in respecting other people's, ie, taxpayers money should resound across the administration, in Whitehall, councils, quangos and beyond.... banging up types such Lucy up is long, way long overdue.

Anonymous said...

They will not do it.

Far too dangerous a precedent to set.

I would put a large amount of cash that I'm right.

DeeDee99 said...

" I wouldn't put it past the House to bang her up. "

I would. They haven't got the cojones - and it might set a precedent they would be very reluctant to repeat on other occasions where "honourable" members might be involved.

If I remember correctly Fat Pang himself was being rather less than accurate with the actualite himself, when faced with this Committee.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question, no.

BBC and UK Parliament are a part of the same problem; the problem being habitual abuse of tax payers money. Hodges tough words are no more than empty arrogance, as she too has her snout in our trough. So no, nothing will happen to Adams.

Coney Island

Anonymous said...

That Hodges woman is ghastly - jumping on any passing bandwagon to draw attention to herself.

G. Tingey said...

The OBVIOUS question is ...
Who is she covering for?
Who, in Parliament or "the establishment" is allowing her to go to jail, so that other, nastier things won't be uncovered?
Think Rebekah Brooks covering for Murdoch as a similar example

Anonymous said...

"Think Rebekah Brooks covering for Murdoch as a similar example"


These are not parallels you dummy, Murdoch can do what he likes - it's his money.

BBC - has no money - it is all ours.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Nah, they'll never do that.

She's one of them, isnt' she.

The political class always looks after its own, as long as they stay loyal.

visc said...

Anon14.40 I think yo misunderstand G Tingey. He didnt say they were parallel, merely that it raises the question about whom are they taking the flak for higher up the tree.

As ever when something serious happens: deputy-heads must roll...

G. Tingey said...

Whather "It" is Murdoch's money or not or the BBC'smoney is irrelevant.
Murdoch's employees serially broke the law, spyiing on people as if they were the NSA.
Immoral & illegal.
But, you are never going to convince me that Murdoch didn't know & didn't approve of this behaviour.
But Brooks is (almost certainly) going to take the fall for it, unless she {a] Turns Queen's Evidence
[b] Has evidence that will land the vile Rupert in the slammer.
I'd love to see it happen, though.

[ visc - precisely - thank you ]