MP's your knicked...............or a special case?

[SteveT]

Have any of the many crooked... er rule adhering MP's been prosecuted yet for the 'mistakes' on their expenses forms?

The following misdeeds may have been mentioned,

Fraud

Deception

Theft

Lying to the public, if that is a criminal offence?

I was curious to know if any of the 600+ had been suitably chastised by the DPP.

[????]

This many....

[woofmarkthedog]

Ooooooo "Prosecution"

Sounds a bit like "Execution" doesn't it MrT & "we" like all that...

Are you all excited now ( well in the areas that still respond, as it were ) at the impending trials

Out of interest & on a sliding scale which bits would you cut off ?

Ie: ?40 k = An arm....ect

Let's see the "Stevie Scale" please

W**F

[SteveT]

I would like to see 'justice' is the same for MP's as for the rest of the 60 odd million population.

I do not expect to see them getting off with a nod and a wink.

I do not see what is contraversial about those wishes woof.

Perhaps you would enlighten us to what you expect to happen to the seemingly chosen ones.

[SteveT]

I am amazed you found this thread quids, full marks for endeavour.

[????]

Search function is your Friend Steve...I was actually looking for the big one on MPs expenses searching "expenses" but this seemed more appropriate

[SteveT]

Soooo to recap then 600 odd MP's wrote their own rules on expense claims

and then they broke their own rules

and 4 out of the six hundred plus get punished

no real point in having your own rules is there?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Steve - do you deliberately misunderstand the facts to fit your own worldview, or is it out of your control?

[*Bob*]

[SteveT]

We all know it's a storm in a tea cup,

but for all those people who have been convicted of fraud I would like to speak for the benefit of those poor saps who (would be like you and I) had the indignity and misfortune of reaping the wrath of the state for being found against.

Sorry if these 'facts' don't agree with your world view Sean.

I cannot bear to see this injustice go unchallenged, because I do not see them as a special case, but more snout-troughing over-indulged, smug, thieves.

Apart from that I am sure there are some who are honest and straight,

it is right and proper for the 'good ones' to see them get their just deserts.

Otherwise why be honest and straight?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Steve, we aren't discussing world views here. Stick to the factts - real facts and not your opinions masquerading as facts.

If you or I do a tax dodge, and get caught then we know full well we deserved it

That isn't what was happening with MPs expenses (by and large) - you and I might not like the system that was in place, and is being reformed, but you can't say all those MPs broke the law and should be convicted - because they just didn't

[SteveT]

It was quoted on the news that 580 of the 600 odd had in fact been receiving monies they were not entitled to,

in other words they were caught 'at it' Sean.

Sean wrote:- If you or I do a tax dodge, and get caught then we know full well we deserved it

Sadly the case with me is that I submit my books to an accountant, who signs them off as a fair and true account.

Now that we know what they were doing, getting tax free, illicit claims, we would like to see some fair play.

Has the order for the Goose Green stocks and gibbet been activated yet?

[*Bob*]

Steve, are you absolutely sure you don't submit your books to an accountant, who then gets away with as much as he possibly can - on your behalf - arguably within the parameters of 'the rules'.. and then signs them off as 'a fair and true account'?

If not - I suggest you change your accountant.

[Roll Deep]

"If not - I suggest you change your accountant."

And hire your MP.

[SeanMacGabhann]

any chance you could link to that story about 580 out of 600 Steve?

And whilst you are at it, I'd be interested in *bob*' (admittedly) rhetorical question being answered by you?

[Roll Deep]

Or answered on your behalf, at least.

[????]

1) I don't think Steve is an elected member of parliament making our laws and telling us how to behave

2) Sean, you don't seem as willing to stick up for the other current witchhunted 'the bankers', who again haven't broken any laws,

3) No, as this review shows only a few of them are going to be prosecuted. I think some of the rest hhave paid back approaching ?2 million in the same way the Inland Revenue also gives tax avoiders a chance to pay back.

4) From top to bottom, prior to the exposure, MPs right up to the PM tried to NOT let the public see any of this as they knew how bad it was.

5) Millions of ordinary boring old tax payers and retired ex-tax payers of dull old middle england aren't and never have been 'at it', haven't got accountants and/or expense accounts and expect some honesty and straightforwardness from their MPs, but they're just dull non-urbanites many of whom probably read the Daily Mail

[Brendan]

Teacup.

Storm in a teacup.

That! Is clearly a pot.

[Brendan]

Or perhaps some sort of unlikely milk jug.

[SeanMacGabhann]

1) I don't think Steve is an elected member of parliament making our laws and telling us how to behave

Not sure this is that relevant? They are either breaking the law or they aren't..

2) Sean, you don't seem as willing to stick up for the other current witchhunted 'the bankers', who again haven't broken any laws,

I'm inherently more sympathetic to public servants on 60-120 grand a year than I am people earning 10 times that. More importantly, bankers (some) are responsible for the aggresive manner in which they nearly brought the globe to the brink and STILL they resist any changes. Unlike politicians (by and large)

3) No, as this review shows only a few of them are going to be prosecuted. I think some of the rest hhave paid back approaching ?2 million in the same way the Inland Revenue also gives tax avoiders a chance to pay back.

4) From top to bottom, prior to the exposure, MPs right up to the PM tried to NOT let the public see any of this as they knew how bad it was.

And I have some sympathy with that view. Given that the reason the system had become so bad was because of self-flagellatory pay freezes over successive governments...

5) Millions of ordinary boring old tax payers and retired ex-tax payers of dull old middle england aren't and never have been 'at it', haven't got accountants and/or expense accounts and expect some honesty and straightforwardness from their MPs, but they're just dull non-urbanites many of whom probably read the Daily Mail

Not as dull as making that same pointless, boring reference again and again. I'm not sure I have ever met anyone who fits the saintly description you paint either. - depends what you mean by "at it" I suppose. I think people (and they ain't all "poor people") who think ?5 for a pair of jeans from some sweatshop is a bargain, regardless of the suffering behind it are "at it"

[Siduhe]

My understanding is that 350 MPs have been asked to make repayments (some more may have repaid voluntarily?). However, the majority of repayments are being sought because the expenses were not "specific and proportionate expenditure...needed for the performance of Parliamentary duties". Not because they weren't technically permitted under the then existing rules.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8496729.stm

[????]

Graet Sean's world - slip a copper ?50 and no speeding fine or points on your license, come on the world's a corrupt old place. Lawmakers and holders of the public purse expected to behave with some probity, Nah, don't be stupid, oi look the barmaids not looking grap a pint.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Have YOU been grabbing the pints?

I'm not sure what points you are trying to credit me with but there is nothing I can see in that post that I recognise as mine

[*Bob*]

It is possible to agree that money should have been repayed; to agree that a few who have totally taken the piss should be charged with criminal offences; to agree that the whole established system (for that is what is was) was a joke and needed to be changed.. and even to enjoy the parading the 'moat-claimers' for the purposes of univeral and public derision (and hope they lose their seats).

It is possible to agree without all these things, without adopting the screaming, hyperbolic, and often hypocritical tone as egged-on in vast swathes of column inches by half the UK press - as other actual matters of life and death are swept to the back of the paper in order to make way for the feeding frenzy.

Unfortunately, not agreeing to play the game and stamp your feet and beat your chest in the same manner as the rest of the mob seems to unleash a kind of 'with us or against us'.. like suddenly, you're as bad as they are, for even daring to have - dare I say it - a somewhat more realistic and reasoned take on events.

[????]

but where's the fun in that?