Poll --- should M.Ps be charged with theft?

Should M.Ps who abused the expences system be charged with "Teft from the public purse"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
A

ALVIN

Guest
#1
The question is --- Should the M.Ps who abused the expences system be charged with "Theft from the public purse"?
 
#6
Any chance of going for the strapping to a large cannon?


Then firing the same?


Brilliant!!!!!
If it worked in India, it would be a big seller here. We could sell tickets for a training area near you.
 
#7
JoseyWales said:
No,

Obtaining property by deception will do.
I have this lovely vision in my head: CO19 rushing in to arrest Broon while I stand behind them shouting:

"Look out boys - he's got a GUN!!!" :twisted:
 
#8
well considering that anyone else has to pay the money back whether it's the Taxman, Social security, or whatever,so it stands to reason they should be wanting to pay it back or have their assets seized, I'm easy, why should they be treated differently from any other Criminal,? if any of us was guilty of anything remotely like this we'd be charged by now and up in court so fcuk em, they deserve all they get the thieving bstrds. Also, I detest Gorbals Mick !!!!!
 
#10
Werewolf said:
JoseyWales said:
No,

Obtaining property by deception will do.
I have this lovely vision in my head: CO19 rushing in to arrest Broon while I stand behind them shouting:

"Look out boys - he's got a GUN!!!" :twisted:
His wallet is far more dangerous - fully loaded, along with the rest of the, 'Hole in the Wall Gang'.
 
#11
Well using the same principle as they promise to apply to benefits cheats then yes, something should be done.

It is sheer hypocrisy as it stands currently.
 
#12
By destroying the public's trust in their ability to represent them, they are destroying the very fabric of the country. I think they should be charged with treason.
 
#14
omegahunter said:
By destroying the public's trust in their ability to represent them, they are destroying the very fabric of the country. I think they should be charged with treason.
Oh, feck it, lets just hang them all Now.
 
#15
Totally agree LPJ. It is absurd that MP's can repay the double billing & things that are questioned. If one of my guys submitted a false motor mileage claim for bogus leave travel on JPA to his Grandmonther in Dorset it would be fraud and and he woud be busted. He would not have a quiet chat and offered to re-imburse the public purse. It's a joke that we have a tightening of expenses policy and are expected to use service messes and public transport if in England / London on duty.

Why don't we build a cheap Bed Factory a la Gateway House @ Brize near to Westminster. Have a Restaurant & a cash bar and single man rooms with Wi-Fi & a ComCen. If you work out of Belfast or Newcastle or Devon and need to nightstop in London then use the Westminster Bed Factory. No rental or 2nd homes. Would like to see Sinn Fein in the same accomodation as the rest of the MPs.

It would be a welcome construction project and a boost to the building industry. We could afford to go for a new build or simply purchase a large hotel. Under the FOI act all folk would have their useage of the facility published.

Bit of a no brainer thinks me.

MPs have a family home & an Office in their patch. Put them up in Service Style Accomodation & lets reduce costs.
 
#16
omegahunter said:
By destroying the public's trust in their ability to represent them, they are destroying the very fabric of the country. I think they should be charged with treason.
Treason;

Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Sovereign amounting to an intention to undermine their authority or the actual attempt to do so. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the Sovereign; having sexual intercourse with the Sovereign's consort, with his eldest unmarried daughter or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the Sovereign and adhering to the Sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession
 
#17
JoseyWales said:
omegahunter said:
By destroying the public's trust in their ability to represent them, they are destroying the very fabric of the country. I think they should be charged with treason.
Treason;

Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Sovereign amounting to an intention to undermine their authority or the actual attempt to do so. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the Sovereign; having sexual intercourse with the Sovereign's consort, with his eldest unmarried daughter or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the Sovereign and adhering to the Sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession
Possibly Treachery, might be wrong but I think it is easier to prove.

Edited to say, sorry Treachery has been abolished.
 
#18
I believe fraud would be the more applicable charge. The maximum custodial sentence is 10 years at Her Majesties pleasure.

The Fraud Act 2006 received Royal Assent on 6th Nov 2006.

The Act provides for a general offence of fraud with three ways of committing it, which are by false representation, by failing to disclose information and by abuse of position.

False representation would seem to be the favourable charge if I was controlling the CPS.

Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4.

The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053.

That judgment sets a two-stage test.

The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.
This certainly sounds like the statement uttered as the “court of public opinion”, which would undoubtedly sway towards the conclusion that MPs wilfully defrauded taxpayers and also avoided paying Capital Gains Tax by dishonestly “flipping" their property portfolios between main residence and second home to maximise personal financial gain.
 
#19
mad_mac said:
I believe fraud would be the more applicable charge. The maximum custodial sentence is 10 years at Her Majesties pleasure.

The Fraud Act 2006 received Royal Assent on 6th Nov 2006.

The Act provides for a general offence of fraud with three ways of committing it, which are by false representation, by failing to disclose information and by abuse of position.

False representation would seem to be the favourable charge if I was controlling the CPS.

Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4.

The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053.

That judgment sets a two-stage test.

The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.
This certainly sounds like the statement uttered as the “court of public opinion”, which would undoubtedly sway towards the conclusion that MPs wilfully defrauded taxpayers and also avoided paying Capital Gains Tax by dishonestly “flipping" their property portfolios between main residence and second home to maximise personal financial gain.
I already suggested this on another thread.
The problems are :
(a) Getting Old Bill to investigate under 2006 Fraud Act. Not a chance.
(b) Getting CPS to agree to prosecute on a relatively new and untested law. Very improbable.
(c) Getting a Judge to set 'Precedent' to see if the present law is applicable to MP's expenses. Some Judges would rather commit suicide than set precedent under common or statutary law.
(d) The only way would be a private prosecution but the problem of precedent would remain.

This law itself needs to be examined closely because I personally feel it fits the bill.

As to anything actually happening.........well what do you think?
 
#20
LancePrivateJones said:
I already suggested this on another thread.
The problems are :
(a) Getting Old Bill to investigate under 2006 Fraud Act. Not a chance.
(b) Getting CPS to agree to prosecute on a relatively new and untested law. Very improbable.
(c) Getting a Judge to set 'Precedent' to see if the present law is applicable to MP's expenses. Some Judges would rather commit suicide than set precedent under common or statutary law.
(d) The only way would be a private prosecution but the problem of precedent would remain.

This law itself needs to be examined closely because I personally feel it fits the bill.

As to anything actually happening.........well what do you think?
This Act is relatively new and was established to replace the laws relating to obtaining property by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage and other offences that were created under the Theft Act 1978.

I believe that the criteria for dishonesty established in R v GHOSH [1982] QB 1053 can be clearly proved.

As you have mentioned, I do not believe there is the “legal” will to prosecute, although I firmly believe it to be in the public interest.

It would be an extremely messy legal case due to the lack of rules and guidance pertaining to MPs expenses.

Prosecutions have occurred already for fraud, although this prosecution was "driven" by his employer. I include this as an example to illustrate that private companies are willing to protect thier financial assets, and the same standards should be applied to public money:

A FORMER Tory councillor has been jailed after spending £35,864 on “fine dining and expensive living” and claiming it back on expenses.

Daniel Smy visited London hotels and shops including the Savoy, Royal Horseguards and Selfridges, and claimed for a chauffeur-driven journey from Dorset to the Carlton Club, a court was told.

The former deputy chairman of South Dorset Conservative Association was sentenced to 12 months in prison at Bournemouth Crown Court yesterday. He pleaded guilty to 10 charges of theft and forgery as chairman of the Portman Building Society’s group staff association.

Smy, 35, of Mount Skippet Way, Crossways, was a West Dorset District Councillor when the 10 offences took place between 2003 and 2006.

Smy – who asked the court to take 86 further offences into consideration – is also ex-chairman of Crossways Parish Council.

Prosecuting, Alison England said he was in a position of trust at the Portman Building Society as he oversaw contributions to the staff association. She said treasurer Diana Stevenson realised Smy’s expenses were inappropriate and challenged him about an invoice for a visit to a Dorchester pub.

When previous claims were looked at, cheques with forged signatures were found. Miss England said Smy spent the money leading a life of fine dining and living in top hotels.

The court was told Smy admitted using his employer’s funds for his own use and saw it as a perk of the job as his £18,000-a-year salary was not enough.

In mitigation Robert Grey said Smy was a man of good character with a history of helping people but had felt “a build-up of stress and isolation” and “got carried away”.

He said Smy was on anti-depressants and was “beside himself with shame”.

The Rev Jaqueline Birdseye from the Moreton Parishes told Judge John Beashel of Smy’s involvement with community projects. But he was sentenced to 12 months for each of the 10 offences with the sentences to run concurrently
I would like to see all MPs made accountable under law, although I doubt it will happen.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top