Purcell, criminality and blackmail: what did Downing Street know?

How much longer can senior figures in Labour insist they are "shocked" by the revelation the leader of Scotland's biggest local authority, a man tipped as a future first minister, was a class A drug user who came into contact with criminals? Now Guido is asking what Brown himself knew - and when.

The Times today carries a story saying that senior party figures were told of the rumours and even discussed them in a conference call ahead of the Glasgow East by-election nearly two years ago. There were even suggestions over the weekend that a Downing Street aide had been party to discussions. Given the concerns about the by-election, it would be very surprising if No 10 had not taken a keen interest. Steven Purcell's name was mentioned widely at the time as a possible runner. Why was he not chosen? 

The retort from Labour is that these were dismissed a scurrilous rumours. Why?  They didn't come from the opposition or media - they came from within the party's own ranks.  The following year, those "scurrilous rumours" were confirmed in the most awful way when Purcell was interviewed by police from the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency in May 2009. The SDEA investigate organised crime. They warned about his associates, asked if there were incriminating pictures of him. They advised that he was leaving himself open to blackmail.  A senior council aide sat in on the interview. Fellow Labour councillors were informed.

So why was Purcell allowed to remain in office after this. Labour knew at this point. Can we really be expected to believe such devastating developments were confined to a small group inside the City Chambers?

Why was the fate of 600,000 Glaswegians, 40,000 city council employees and a £2.3bn budget left in the hands of a man who was open to blackmail, may not have been in control of himself and who was warned about his links to gangsters?

Then again, the Labour council in Glasgow has been implicated in organised crime scandals before and has been very slow to act. And gangsters attended the Red Rose fund raising dinners held by Labour in the early noughties. Some even donated to the party.

When are we going to see these questions put to Iain Gray or Jim Murphy?

Comments

[Alibi]

...or even suitably bated...

[Alibi]

I get the impression you know even more than you are currently revealing. I wait with breath suitable bated...

[Jeanne Tomlin]

You are one of the few REAL journalists left in Scotland. My hat is off to you, but watch your back.

[joanmcalpine]

Thanks for all these kind comments. Just back from Reform Scotland dinner in Signet library where there were many more leads on this affair from those who know Glasgow well. the Edinburgh guests just listened with their mouths open - aghast...

[truthseeker]

What you write about is incredible but is just the inevitable bi-product of a nation in which:

1) there is very little independent political thinking, except maybe on the far left;

2) there is very little choice between the offerings of any of the main parties, with even the nominally right wing party bereft of ideas (let alone talent or spine), and thus we have very little real democracy, parliament or no parliament;

3) the media is hugely reliant on government funding (via Public Sector advertising for jobs, public awareness campaigns etc) so is terrified of carrying out real investigative journalism;

4) even the careers of senior police officers are tied up in real politics so unable to act without thinking about the impact on their careers.

Keep up the good investigative work!

[grace the collie]

You really should consider a book on this whole affair.

[subrosa]

As always Joan you reach into the core of the propaganda which has been churned like best cream.

I and many like me, depend upon your professional investigative instincts to lead us to the truth. For that I thank you.