Robbing MPs Try To Slime Their Way Out Of Being Prosecuted.

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#2
They simply do not get it.

If ANY Serviceman - or Civil Servant, come to that - fiddled their expenses they'd be out on their arrse. It's OK for MPs, of course as they made the rules up themselves, which apparently excuses them from normal behaviour - i.e. decency and propriety.

Astonishing.

Guido Fawkes has it spot-on in the Times today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7017156.ece

"Should expense-fiddling MPs be prosecuted?
When Enron bosses cheated their customers, they went to prison. Why should our MPs be any different?

If 52 per cent of the staff of a company were found to have cheated their customers it would be fair to say that firm was a criminal enterprise, a racket. Only a small percentage of Enron’s staff was crooked, yet the whole company was closed down by the authorities.

What can we do when it is 52 per cent of MPs, the law-making “authorities”, who are doing the racketeering?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
They are trying to claim immunity from prosecution on the basis of Parliamentary Privilege.

Parliamentary Privilege does not provide MP's with immunity from most civil lawsuits, let alone Criminal Prosecutions brought by the Crown.

That's right Devine, Chaytor and Morley - you are facing criminal charges for fraud. Parliament has no rights of immunity in such cases. All parliament can do is retrospectively change the law to say that defrauding your employer is no longer an offence, the likehood of which happening is precisely zero - if only they'd known in advance that the Telegraph was going to break the story eh?

Isn't it funny how it's 3 Labour MPs who are trying to defend the indefensible by claiming immunity from their own laws, and yet their own party called the police in to arrest a Conservative MP, AND search his parliamentary offices simply because he spoke to the press about government fraud and incompetence.

Well done the CPS. We can be fairly sure that they have done their homework, and I sincerely hope that the Judge takes into account the refusal to admit their crimes and their attempts to avoid prosecution by hiding behind the skirt of Parliament, and thusly sentences them to the full period in jail as allowed by British Law (as passed in Parliament). Ooooh dont'cha just love the irony?

Edited to add: As for them not admitting a 'guilty mind', using half sentient lawyers. I don't believe ignorance is a defence when it comes to breaches of the law, guilty mind or not.

Here's a direct quotation from the Privileges Committee:

The Government is proposing to introduce modern criminal legislation on bribery and corruption. The Joint Committee investigated whether Parliament should continue to be self-regulating in this regard and, if not, various ways this legislation might be applied to members of Parliament. These included: (1) members being liable to criminal prosecution in the courts, (2) a system of part self-regulation, part criminal prosecution, with serious cases dealt with by the courts, and less serious ones by Parliament, (3) criminal prosecution of members being subject to approval by the House, and (4) criminal investigations or prosecutions being subject to parliamentary sifting.

The Joint Committee concluded that corruption, a serious and insidious offence, can only be dealt with effectively by using the police and the courts. Prosecution through the courts is the only credible remedy. It is also the only credible deterrent for any briber. This will involve only a minimal encroachment upon the territory safeguarded by article 9. The Joint Committee is confident there are very few instances of corruption involving members of Parliament. The occasions when a court will be called upon to question a parliamentary proceeding will be rare.
and here's a real corker:

Freedom from arrest in civil cases should be abolished (it has never applied in criminal cases). So should the obscure privilege of peerage. Members should cease to be exempt from subpoenas to attend court as witnesses, but a subpoena should not be issued against a member without the approval of a judge. Personal service of court documents on members within the precincts of Parliament should remain a contempt, but service by post should not be a contempt.
For your delectation and delight: Parliamentary Privilege
 
#4
OldSnowy said:
It's OK for MPs, of course as they made the rules up themselves
And that's galling enough in itself that they made the rules so they could claim for things everybody else has to pay out of their own pocket, but even that wasn't enough for some of the bastards. They then went and claimed for things that even their own unbelievably generous rules didn't allow.
 
#5
There would have to be some serious conscience searching to do by all the major actors in this Central London frace, as with the public outrage over their greedy theft, the soundbites and rhetoric from Party leaders about cleaning up Parliament and more transprency and then for the only Four people to be charged with any crime to have it annulled, or whatever the correct legal term is, due to Parliemtary privilege, is arguably the biggest irony and betrayal in British Politics, Ever!

You couldn't make this shit up!!
 
#7
Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston) is reported as saying that he was simply "niaive" in his expenses claims.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8501428.stm

He is accused of dishonestly claiming £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices.

(MY BOLD)

He used false invoices!

In my opinion, Sir you are nothing but a common thief and a liar to boot.


See you in court.
 
#8
"Freedom from arrest in civil cases should be abolished (it has never applied in criminal cases). So should the obscure privilege of peerage. Members should cease to be exempt from subpoenas to attend court as witnesses, but a subpoena should not be issued against a member without the approval of a judge"

That little bit worries me. An MP should be able to say what they like in the Commons and reveal ANY information about anyone or anything they so please. How they got that information SHOULD NOT be a matter for the courts. Chip away too many of the priviliges that protect MP's from the anger of the Government of the day and the Powerful and we end up with nothing.

And frankly I despise this Government's mindless mantra of "New laws" everytime they get caught out. There's more than enough law in the UK today that covers this. Use the laws that exist properly and you might actually get somewhere...
 
#9
What he said.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Kitmarlowe said:
"Freedom from arrest in civil cases should be abolished (it has never applied in criminal cases). So should the obscure privilege of peerage. Members should cease to be exempt from subpoenas to attend court as witnesses, but a subpoena should not be issued against a member without the approval of a judge"

That little bit worries me. An MP should be able to say what they like in the Commons and reveal ANY information about anyone or anything they so please. How they got that information SHOULD NOT be a matter for the courts. Chip away too many of the priviliges that protect MP's from the anger of the Government of the day and the Powerful and we end up with nothing.

And frankly I despise this Government's mindless mantra of "New laws" everytime they get caught out. There's more than enough law in the UK today that covers this. Use the laws that exist properly and you might actually get somewhere...
I'd be happy for them to continue being free from arrest in civil cases - they are civil cases after all. On matters of criminal liability, they should be offered no preferential treatment, and this is what they are claiming that they have.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#11
From today's Guardian:

Hugh Tomlinson QC, at Matrix chambers, said: "MPs don't enjoy any kind of immunity from the ordinary criminal law. It seems to me that any privilege arguments are unlikely to be successful because the alleged offences are in substance just ordinary criminal offences. They are no different from the kind of offences any member of the public could also be accused of through their work."
 

engr172

Old-Salt
Book Reviewer
#12
What I don't understand, is if 300+ have been asked to repay money, why are only these few up before the beak? They should all be done, the horrible, grasping shower of shiiiiiiite.
 
#13
Just when you thought that they couldn't get ANY slimier.

What these four have done is a different level from the other stuff. Notwithstanding the ethics of claiming for some of the stuff that we have read about, rules are rules, and I know that if I was entitled to claim for something in my Army days, I would. It is clear that the rules are/were wrong and needed amending. There IS a difference, however, between claiming for dodgy stuff within the rules and falsely submitting invoices.

These odious scumbags have broken the law (allegedly) and should feel the full force of it.

Nice point BTW on the police and the Damian Green issue.
 
#14
I particularly detest Devine. He is from the same peoples group that Michael Martin is from and even though they have been advised that the famine is over they are still leeching here. Summed up perfectly by the observation that: they hate our crown but love our half-crown.
 
#15
Jime Devine the thief trying to explain his way out of it.... at order.order.com http://order-order.com/tag/snouts-in-the-trough/

He seems to be saying " a big boy did it and ran away" he also drops the Unions and NHS in it at about 10.10
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
Personally, I think that they should face a far harsher punishment (if found guilty...) than any member of the public.

These odious people are the Law Makers FFS. They are the people who have created the laws, and so should face the full wrath of the laws they created.

If they get away with this (like the other 300 seem to have done) then how can they (through the courts) in full conscience punish anyone else for breaking the same laws?
 
#18
Legs said:
Personally, I think that they should face a far harsher punishment (if found guilty...) than any member of the public.

These odious people are the Law Makers FFS. They are the people who have created the laws, and so should face the full wrath of the laws they created.

If they get away with this (like the other 300 seem to have done) then how can they (through the courts) in full conscience punish anyone else for breaking the same laws?

Agreed 100%
 
#19
devine who the feck voted for this feckwit. :?
good excuse why all safe seats need to go feckwits should not be employed in the house of commons from any and all partys.
 
#20
wet_blobby said:
Oh c'mon, you don't actually expect anyone to be sent to the naughty corner?
I expect our MPs to realise that this is the last gasp, final chance to regain even the merest sliver of respect from the electorate.

I then expect them to decide they'd rather have the money and carry on normal jogging.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads