The Daily Mail wants your vote!!

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
The Daily Hate has joined the Taxpayer's Alliance with a view to potentially bringing about private prosecutions against a bunch of thieving MPs.

They want to know your view on whether to proceed, as it looks like the CPs is decidedly lukewarm about prosecuting the great and good.

You can visit the Daily Hate web-page and vote on whether you'd like to see these bods prosecuted.

This is NOT a support the Daily Hate plug, this is a link to a place where you can vote for or against private prosecutions of the MPs in question.

Here's a quote from Boris Johnson on the matter:

Last night, London mayor Boris Johnson suggested that there was a case for the police to be called in.

'I think, frankly, looking at some of these cases it looks to me as though Plod needs to come in,' he told Sky News's Jeff Randall Live programme.

'I must be careful what I say because I am chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, but it looks to me as though some people may very well have a serious case to answer.
 
#2
The Police are running scared after Damian Green. That and the fact that the "rules" are holier than the pope. I think you just take a look at the definition for fraud, apply the service test, and those that fail are open to prosecution.

But then I'm just a gopping prole and don't deserve to be heard.
 
#3
Orange boiler-suits all round and a one way to Guantanamo Bay, where they can await a Military Tribunal at our leisure.

Cnuts! The lot of them...
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
MrShanklysboots said:
The Police are running scared after Damian Green. That and the fact that the "rules" are holier than the pope. I think you just take a look at the definition for fraud, apply the service test, and those that fail are open to prosecution.

But then I'm just a gopping prole and don't deserve to be heard.
Rules or no rules - the law takes precedence. It's like employment law - you make up the dodgiest employment contracts you like, but Employment Law supersedes it every time.

The 'Obtaining Money by Deception' law supersedes parliamentary rules allowing false declarations to get extra dosh out of the tax-payer.

Falsely declaring second homes to parliament, and then another second home to the Tax office, to both claim money from one, whilst avoiding paying tax to another is quite clearly fraudulent, by obtaining money by deception and avoiding tax. One of those statements is an outright lie, and unfair financial benefits are the expected and then achieved results.

Just my opinion on the matter.
 
#5
Biped said:
Rules or no rules - the law takes precedence. It's like employment law - you make up the dodgiest employment contracts you like, but Employment Law supersedes it every time.

The 'Obtaining Money by Deception' law supersedes parliamentary rules allowing false declarations to get extra dosh out of the tax-payer.

Falsely declaring second homes to parliament, and then another second home to the Tax office, to both claim money from one, whilst avoiding paying tax to another is quite clearly fraudulent, by obtaining money by deception and avoiding tax. One of those statements is an outright lie, and unfair financial benefits are the expected and then achieved results.

Just my opinion on the matter.
Could not agree more. Do you see or hear anybody from the CPS making a song and dance about a prosecution? The Met Police Commisioner? Anyone other than those of us whose taxes have been squirrelled away?

No?

Thought not.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#6
Slight problem with "malice aforethought", CPS would need to prove intent which would be hard.

Private prosecutions would have more chance as they can be based on "balance of probability" factors.
 
#7
Alsacien said:
Slight problem with "malice aforethought", CPS would need to prove intent which would be hard.

Private prosecutions would have more chance as they can be based on "balance of probability" factors.
Just a guess, but who is likely to be in the firing-line from the Pro-Tory Mail and the wholly Tory TA?
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#8
ashie said:
Alsacien said:
Slight problem with "malice aforethought", CPS would need to prove intent which would be hard.

Private prosecutions would have more chance as they can be based on "balance of probability" factors.
Just a guess, but who is likely to be in the firing-line from the Pro-Tory Mail and the wholly Tory TA?
Only an idiot would see this as a party issue, MP's of any alignment who have milked the system are not popular with the public right now - even previously popular ones.
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#9
Alsacien said:
ashie said:
Alsacien said:
Slight problem with "malice aforethought", CPS would need to prove intent which would be hard.

Private prosecutions would have more chance as they can be based on "balance of probability" factors.
Just a guess, but who is likely to be in the firing-line from the Pro-Tory Mail and the wholly Tory TA?
Only an idiot would see this as a party issue, MP's of any alignment who have milked the system are not popular with the public right now - even previously popular ones.
This a socialist you are talking about...
 
#10
benjaminw1 said:
Alsacien said:
ashie said:
Alsacien said:
Slight problem with "malice aforethought", CPS would need to prove intent which would be hard.

Private prosecutions would have more chance as they can be based on "balance of probability" factors.
Just a guess, but who is likely to be in the firing-line from the Pro-Tory Mail and the wholly Tory TA?
Only an idiot would see this as a party issue, MP's of any alignment who have milked the system are not popular with the public right now - even previously popular ones.
This a socialist you are talking about...
It's the Daily Mail we're talking about.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#11
ashie said:
benjaminw1 said:
Alsacien said:
ashie said:
Alsacien said:
Slight problem with "malice aforethought", CPS would need to prove intent which would be hard.

Private prosecutions would have more chance as they can be based on "balance of probability" factors.
Just a guess, but who is likely to be in the firing-line from the Pro-Tory Mail and the wholly Tory TA?
Only an idiot would see this as a party issue, MP's of any alignment who have milked the system are not popular with the public right now - even previously popular ones.
This a socialist you are talking about...
It's the Daily Mail we're talking about.
Whose side are Sky on?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...ht_Up_In_Scandal,_Daily_Telegraph_Revelations
 
#12
People are discussing this issue all over, and the key comment is, "If I did this, I'd be in jail". I can't see this scandal ending without arrests, if not convictions.

People are bright enough to differentiate between Jack Straw, who made a mistake and paid the money back a while ago, and Elliot Morley who didn't notice he'd paid off his mortgage :roll: and was presumably too busy or disorganised to update his claims. I hope that the Police can tell the difference, too. That Tory couple who were arranging things so they had two full allowances on the same homes should be up in court explaining themselves, not deciding whether or not they should resign.

Plenty of MP's are going to be de-selected by their local parties. After the clearout that's coming at the next election, the new Parliament will be very interesting.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
Just a thought - the last 12 years have seen the name of the British Judiciary brought low, just as the 'good' name of our democracy has been toileted. In the case of the judiciary, it's been the lack of proper sentencing, and simply allowing tens of thousands of crim scumbags to roam the streets despite being quite clearly guilty, and the CPS for failing to bring many crims to court in the first place.

Just like Parliament, the Judiciary has got one hell of a lot of work to do to regain the trust and respect of the British public - that which serves the British people via powers granted by the Crown, which also serves the British People. Never forget that there's approx. 65,000,000 people in this country, and at the end of the day, if all else fails, it is WE who call the shots (pun intended) if our government and system fails us.

Just as the police TWICE answered the call of the now disgraced MP's, they can now answer the call of the public they serve and represent. The courts should do the same.
 
#14
Biped said:
Just a thought - the last 12 years have seen the name of the British Judiciary brought low, just as the 'good' name of our democracy has been toileted. In the case of the judiciary, it's been the lack of proper sentencing, and simply allowing tens of thousands of crim scumbags to roam the streets despite being quite clearly guilty, and the CPS for failing to bring many crims to court in the first place.

Just like Parliament, the Judiciary has got one hell of a lot of work to do to regain the trust and respect of the British public - that which serves the British people via powers granted by the Crown, which also serves the British People. Never forget that there's approx. 65,000,000 people in this country, and at the end of the day, if all else fails, it is WE who call the shots (pun intended) if our government and system fails us.

Just as the police TWICE answered the call of the now disgraced MP's, they can now answer the call of the public they serve and represent. The courts should do the same.
The reason is simple and obvious-we've gone yellow in official circles.Whilst I'm not calling every one in Central and Local government a coward,it seems clear that the sacred coward's mantra has had too much sway in both foreign and domestic policies for too long.The mantra reads something like this;
Tighten the screw on those you can control(but only the easy ones,mind)OR run away from/suck up to those you can't.
I believe that one would struggle to find many examples of either of the above policies which had not been swayed to a significant extent by the above 'mantra'.
 
#15
The question is, which statement is true:

"All are equal before the law; no-one is above the law."

or

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

:?
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
ashie said:
Alsacien said:
Slight problem with "malice aforethought", CPS would need to prove intent which would be hard.

Private prosecutions would have more chance as they can be based on "balance of probability" factors.
Just a guess, but who is likely to be in the firing-line from the Pro-Tory Mail and the wholly Tory TA?
That's why it's a 'vote' - you see, it's kind of democratic. I'm sure that if the Observer where to have a vote on whether MPs of all persuasions should face prosecution over alleged fraud, the result of the vote would be pretty similar.

Are you still proposing that the police should arrest the leakers and the editors of the Telegraph, and the MPs (all of them) should be let off their crimes? If you are Ashie . . . . . explain yourself!
 
#17
It's not the police you want right now, it is the HMRC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-the-taxman-should-go-through-the-claims.html

"The public, whose disgust over this scandal grows by the day, will not be impressed at all by such arcane "punishment". What sticks most in people's craw over the affair is the impression that there is one law for MPs, one for the rest of us. Until that is shown not to be the case, the stench will spread. "

msr
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
Here's the relevant bit of the "Income Tax (Earnings & Pensions) Act 2003".

"292 Overnight expenses allowances of MPs (1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of an overnight expenses allowance paid to a Member of the House of Commons in accordance with a resolution of that House.
(2) “Overnight expenses allowance” means an allowance expressed to be in respect of additional expenses necessarily incurred by the Member in staying overnight away from the Member’s only or main residence, for the purpose of performing parliamentary duties—
(a) in the London area, as defined in such a resolution, or
(b) in the Member’s constituency.
293 Overnight expenses of other elected representatives (1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of a payment to which this section applies if it is expressed to be made in respect of a member’s necessary overnight expenses.
(2) This section applies to payments—
(a) made to members of the Scottish Parliament under section 81(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46),
(b) made to members of the National Assembly for Wales under section 16(2) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38), or
(c) made to members of the Northern Ireland Assembly under section 47(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47).
(3) In this section “a member’s necessary overnight expenses” means additional expenses necessarily incurred by a member for the purpose of performing duties as a member in staying overnight away from the member’s only or main residence—
(a) in the area in which the Parliament or Assembly to which the member belongs sits, or
(b) in the constituency or region which the member represents.
294 EU travel expenses of MPs and other representatives (1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of a sum that is—
(a) paid to a Member of the House of Commons in accordance with a resolution of that House providing for Members of that House to be reimbursed EU travel expenses, or
(b) paid to a member of—
(i) the Scottish Parliament under section 81(2) of the Scotland Act 1998,
(ii) the National Assembly for Wales under section 16(2) of the Government of Wales Act 1998, or
(iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly under section 47(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,
and expressed to be made in respect of EU travel expenses.
(2) “EU travel expenses” means the cost of, and any additional expenses incurred in, travelling between the United Kingdom and—
(a) a European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg, or
(b) the national parliament of another member State or of a candidate country.
(3) In subsection (2) “candidate country” means Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia or Turkey.
(4) The Treasury shall by order make such amendments of the definition in subsection (3) as are necessary to secure that the countries listed are those that are from time to time candidates for membership of the European Union.
295 Transport and subsistence for Government ministers etc. (1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of the provision of transport or subsistence provided or made available by or on behalf of the Crown to—
(a) the holder of a ministerial office, or
(b) a member of the family or household of the holder of a ministerial office.
(2) No liability to income tax arises in respect of payments and reimbursements by or on behalf of the Crown of expenses incurred in connection with the provision of transport or subsistence to a person within subsection (1).
(3) “Ministerial office” means—
(a) an office in Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom,
(b) any other office which is one of the offices and positions in respect of which salaries are payable under section 1 of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (c. 27), and
(c) an office under one of the following Acts which corresponds to an office within paragraph (a) or (b)—
(i) the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46),
(ii) the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38), or
(iii) the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47).
(4) In determining whether a particular person holds an office within subsection (3)(b), it is irrelevant whether or not a salary is paid or payable to that person under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975.
(5) In this section references to the provision of transport to a person include references to—
(a) the provision or making available to that person of a vehicle with or without a driver,
(b) the provision of fuel for a vehicle provided or made available to that person, and
(c) the provision of any other benefit in connection with such a vehicle.
(6) In this section—
(a) “subsistence” includes food and drink and temporary living accommodation, and
(b) “vehicle” means a mechanically propelled road vehicle."


HMRC might well find that its hands are tied. Having said that, I have only quickly scanned the legislation and don't recall seing the catch all "wholly and necessarily incurred"....


editted to make sense (and delete a double post)
 
#19
If the regulations said they could rob us blind then I'm afraid it's not fraud if that's what they did. It would also be very hard to establish fraud if they were up front about their shameless claims for swimming pool maintenance etc. With those claims we should be equally outraged by whoever signed the cheque.

You can bet your cotton socks that many high ranking police officers, CPA lawyers and judges use imaginative accountancy to minimise their tax burden too, so don't expect then to be rushing to help close the loop holes.

Fraud is theft by claiming something that you believed a decent person would consider dishonest.
 
#20
I've voted yes, as long as i pull the lever for Hazel 'i will fight for you' Blears.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top