The Sunday Times Insight investigative report into Peter Cruddas, the co-treasurer offering access to PM David Cameron for large donations to the Conservative party reveals that an unnamed prominent donor influenced David Cameron’s policy on gay marriage.
Peter Cruddas disclosed to undercover reporters from The Sunday Times that an”Eminent donor” wrote paper on gay marriage for No10 Policy Unit and “his voice has been heard”.
According to the BBC Mr Cruddas was secretly filmed saying that a donation of £200,000 or £250,000 gave “premier league” access to party leaders, including private dinners with Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne.
He also suggested that any such donor could have their feedback on political plans fed back to Downing Street policy makers. The Conservative party has revealed the names of donors who paid enough to have dinner with the PM and his wife, but they haven’t revealed who submitted the paper to the No10 Policy Unit.
What are the links between homosexual lobbyists and the government? Have they paid for access to influence the government? Who is the ‘eminent donor’ who has influenced Cameron’s policy on gay marriage? Apparently the ‘eminent donor’ is a male, as Cruddas is reported as saying ‘”his voice has been heard”.
Apparently, these cash-for-access dinners with David Cameron were private affairs, with a fictional separation between the office of Prime Minister and David Cameron as leader of the Conservative party.
It is only natural that we speculate over the identity of such an influential anonymous ‘eminent donor’. The phrase ‘and his voice has been heard’ suggests that the donor supported gay marriage, considering that the government’s policy is totally pro-gay marriage. The quote on the Insight twitter site doesn’t make it clear if the ‘eminent donor’ was pro-marriage or pro-homosexual marriage. (Protect the Pope has since discovered that the anonymous donor was angry about gay marriage plans. See comment at end of post).
Does David Cameron’s public diary as Prime Minister give us a possible clue about the identity of the anonymous ‘eminent donor’?
In May 2011 Elton John, the homosexual celebrity, was granted a high profile public meeting with David Cameron at 10 Downing Street to discuss the work of his Elton John Aids Foundation, which has raised £130 million since 1992.
Having said this, just because Elton John was publicly received at Number 10 in front of the media by David Cameron doesn’t mean that he is the anonymous ‘eminent donor’.
Five months later at the October Conservative party conference David Cameron pledged in public to undertake a consultation on homosexual marriage.
In April 2012 David Cameron’s pledge to undertake a consultation became a commitment to legalize gay marriage by 2015.
Protect the Pope comment: The Sunday Times investigative report suggest that an ’anonymous donor’ has paid cash to influence government policy on the legalization of homosexual marriage. The phrase ‘his voice has been heard’ indicates that the paper he submitted on gay marriage to the No. 10 Policy Unit has been successful in influencing government policy.
It appears that though the public are being denied a genuine consultation on the legalization of homosexual marriage, if you are rich enough to make a £200,000 minimum donation to the Tory party you can buy influence over 10 Downing Street’s Policy Unity.
Lynn Featherstone made it clear at the launch of the government’s phony consultation that she wouldn’t be paying any attention to the number of British citizens who objected to homosexual marriage, but it does appear that the government of which she is a member will pay close attention to the number of pounds you put in their party accounts.
The Prime Minister needs to answer the following questions:
- Who is the anonymous ‘eminent donor’ who submitted a paper on gay marriage?
- What did the paper on gay marriage advocate?
- What did Peter Cruddas mean when he said, ‘his voice was heard?’
Protect the Pope has since discovered that The Daily Telegraph report that Peter Cruddas said that anonymous donor was angry about gay marriage and submitted a paper to the No 10 Policy Unit. So Protect the Pope’s speculation that the anonymous donor was a supporter of gay marriage was wrong. But it does leave the question, what does it mean his voice was heard? Also Protect the Pope stands by the position that it is wrong for someone to buy influence over government policy, be they pro or anti gay marriage. Money shouldn’t be able to buy privileged access to decision makers. It’s just plain wrong.