David Abrahams – Serial liar

David Abrahams, alias David Martin was unknown to me at the beginning of this week, and yet it appears that he has been a busy little bee indeed. At least where deception is concerned. A bee of lies.

It turns out that when David Abrahams was trying to become Labour MP for Richmond in 1992, he made a point of introducing the selection committee to his wife and son.

A divorcee, Anthea Bailey, told a local newspaper she and her 11-year old son had posed as Mr Abrahams’ family. This was done, she said, as a “business arrangement” so he could create “the right impression”.

A press statement was apparently also issued at the time of his selection, reportedly stating how he lived with his wife and son – but he had never been married.

That business arrangement involved Mr Abrahams paying off Mrs Bailey’s overdraft, and paying her son’s private school fees. He also failed to mention that he was going through the courts at the time, under the name David Martin, though he was eventually found innocent of the charge of illegally evicting a tenant.

He even seems to be lying about how old he is. He claims to have been born in 1954, but records suggest that he was in fact born in 1944.

His duplicitous behaviour seems to be contagious. It is remarkable how many Labour politicians seem to have no idea who he is, as if he came down in the last shower. A shower… of money.

Stephen Pollard in the Spectator remarks:From 1992-95 I worked for the Fabian Society. Our meetings were attended by a variety of people: students and academics, hacks and Labour Party members, politicos and wannabe politicos. The presence of someone such as Gordon Brown at one of these meetings was not in the least bit unusual, nor that of any other senior party figure. As an affiliated part of the Labour Party, our job in opposition was to provoke thought about the party’s policies.

One of the regular – indeed, one of the most assiduous – attendees at those meetings was David Abrahams. He would mix, as would everyone in that milieu, with backbenchers, front benchers, NEC members and Shadow Cabinet members.

Many of those people are now ministers. Others are Cabinet members, some very senior. It is possible – just – that when they say they have no idea who David Abrahams is, or cannot recall ever meeting him, they are telling the truth. It is, after all, possible that there are people in the country who have never heard of, say, Gordon Brown. Possible, yes; but very, very unlikely.

The obvious question is WHY? Why did Mr Abrahams go to such lengths to conceal his identity?
What was he trying to gain? Forgiveness for another run at Parliament, perhaps, or an honour, or maybe he is one of those people who likes to believe that he has influence with important people. Maybe some sort of property dodge, or lenient planning oversight? I doubt he did it just to get a plum seat at Blair’s leaving speech. Whatever the reason, it is clear that his insidious roots have spread throughout the upper echelons of the Labour party, and it’s going to take some digging to shift them.

It’s coming out tonight that some of the people, in whose name Mr Abrahams donated money, had no idea that this was being done. Janet Dunn, a lifelong Tory, had £25,000 sent in her name. She is the wife of Anthony Dunn, who has done land consultancy for Mr Abrahams in the past, and knew absolutely nothing about the matter until this week. She is not best pleased, calling the situation “disgusting”.

The Crown Prosecution Service seems to be taking an interest.

David Abrahams admits to knowingly breaking the law.

Labour general secretary Peter Watt has resigned following the revelation that a property developer made donations to the party via two colleagues.
David Abrahams, who gave more than £400,000 through associates, said Mr Watt’s resignation was “sad”.

Mr Watt told a meeting of officers of Labour’s National Executive Committee he had known about the arrangement.

Under the law, those making donations on behalf of others must give details of who is providing the money.

Mr Abrahams and Mr Watt thought it was perfectly legal to channel donation through third partys. How utterly naive can you get? If that was allowed, then any foreign power that felt like it could buy our whole political system.

Then later he said this:

Mr Abrahams insisted that Mr Ruddick and Mrs Kidd were fully aware of the destination of the cheques they signed. He said he objected to the requirements for major donors’ identities to be made public, introduced by Tony Blair in 2000 as part of his campaign to “clean up politics”.

“If you make donations to a political party, you are hounded in a way that you are not if you make them to other worthwhile causes.”

Oh, you object to THAT law. Why didn’t you say so? It’s quite alright to break the law if you object to it.

I, for instance, object to the law that prevents me from throwing you out of this window.

So you chose to break the law, because you objected to a requirement brought in by the person you were giving the money to. You knowingly committed a serious crime. Not liking the law is not a very good defense, as thousands of cannabis smokers find out every year, but then again, you’re probably a whole lot richer than they are.

Send him to the Tower.