Lord Taylor guilty of expenses fiddling

#2
Has there been a change in legislation and does he now automatically lose his Peerage as well as suffering any penalties handed down by the Judge ?
 
#3
His defence managed to bring in his "poor" upbringing and racial discrimination. Should have gone for the full monty and suggested that he was abused as a child!
Is there a system whereby this money can be recouped?
 
#5
Just being reported on BBC News:

BBC News - Lord Taylor guilty of making false expenses claims

His excuses:

'Everyone else did it'

'I'm only getting done 'cos I is black'

'I (a qualified barrister) didn't know it was wrong'

Sentencing at a later date, but I imagine he'll be going down, the slaaag.
Hmmm, he obviously is the wrong religion, if he'd been Muslim and not just pigmented, ala the bent Lady uddin see here :- The deserted Kent flat that earned baroness £100,000 - Times Online & lady Warsi, who has just claimed ANOTHER £50,000 for last year see here Baroness Warsi claims £50,000 in expenses, he'd probably get away with it!!
 
#6
A good result.

But still so outrageous and infuriating that the odious, thieving and jumped up useless Uddin still got off virtually scot free and will remain uncharged.
 
#7
My! how standards have dropped. No member of the House of Lords has been suspended since the 18th Century then suddenly many get 'jugged'.

Baroness Uddin, a Labour peer and the first Muslim woman to be appointed to the upper house, is set to be suspended from the Lords for between a year and 18 months, and has agreed to pay back £125,000 in wrongly claimed expenses.
Lord Paul, another Labour peer and a major party donor, has been recommended for a suspension of between four and six months and has agreed to pay back £40,000.
Lord Bhatia, who sits as a cross-bencher but has also donated money to Labour, faces a ban of between six and 12 months and is to repay voluntarily £27,000.

None of the above were actually born in the UK and in all three cases the Peerages were either bought or awarded for 'political reasons'
 
#8
Interesting that it was a majority 11-1 verdict.
Maybe I'm being unfair on the jury who perhaps really did come to an impartial verdict but,
given that it was Southwark, I wonder if he and his counsel were hoping for the OJ Effect?
 
#9
I am interested in his sentence when it is decided. I would place a month's wages on him not seeing the inside of a jail cell. Let's look at the facts. Taxpayer's money, a position of trust, a position where he should set an example, a well paid job therefore pure greed - no claim of necessity. I reckon if it was me fiddling JPA, I would serve 6 months minimum.

Pity there is no justice in the UK
 
#10
Izzit cos I is black?
 

Pararegtom

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
A good result.

But still so outrageous and infuriating that the odious, thieving and jumped up useless Uddin still got off virtually scot free and will remain uncharged.


I.ll second that. theiving feckers
 
#13
Makes you wonder whether the hereditary system was as bad as it was painted.
 
#18
Seemed like a thoroughly nice chap when I met him socially back in 1992.
Obviously had a keen mind, excellent comportment etc.

His attempt to plead ignorance, having met him and knowing his professional background would have been totally untenable in a court though.
Pity, Mamon seems to have brought down a man I thought had real potential to do good
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#19
I keep saying the same thing it's institutionalised thievery, they all did it and all probably encourage new members to be part of the team.
 
#20
One of the problems with the lords is you get daily expenses but only if you live out of london.
left over from the days when lords did'nt need the cash.

rather than sort it out people turned a blind eye to outrageous expenses claims rather than pay working peers a salary.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top