MP,s expense,s and The 'Met'

[Leekbrookgull]

Met commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson along DPPS chief Keir Starmer are to set up a panel to investigate current and ongoing expense disclosures.

 

[element]

....

 

[element]

 

[The Uninvited Guest]

Don't worry, another cover up on it's way. Waste of time, waste of money. Let the people decide. We know what the house of PORKLIAMENT has been up to. Expect the offices of The Telegraph to be closed down and an injunction taken out to stop any more expense details being printed whilst the Police carry out their investigations.
Revolution PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[element]

[yt]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fhcflDSUMvc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fhcflDSUMvc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Waste of time, really only a PR stunt by the cops who will wait for this to disappear from the headlines when they will then quietly announce that prosecutions against MP's are not in the public interest.

 

[sparkie]

Biggest winner in all this is Sir Freddie Goodwin.

Was public enemy #1.

Now seems like a hard working pensioner enjoying his retirement... !!

 

[clapham_gull]

Waste of time, really only a PR stunt by the cops who will wait for this to disappear from the headlines when they will then quietly announce that prosecutions against MP's are not in the public interest.

I doubt whether it's a PR stunt by the police at all. I'm sure they'd the rather the whole thing went away after the bad publicity surrounding the last time they entered Parliament.

More than likely it's a response to the numerous members of the public who have made official complaints, plus the Daily Mail which is also pushing for it.

Personally I'm not sure it is in the public interest. The slow drip drip from the newspapers has been more than satisfactory and the public will get their chance to show their opinion soon anyway.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I doubt whether it's a PR stunt by the police at all. I'm sure they'd the rather the whole thing went away after the bad publicity surrounding the last time they entered Parliament.

More than likely it's a response to the numerous members of the public who have made official complaints, plus the Daily Mail which is also pushing for it.

Personally I'm not sure it is in the public interest. The slow drip drip from the newspapers has been more than satisfactory and the public will get their chance to show their opinion soon anyway.

A publicity stunt as such, in terms of being seen to act whilst public opinion and also papers like the Daily Mail are making demands for action. Imagine the outcry if the police chose to ignore these stories, resulting in claims / headlines along the lines of that MP's are above the law. The reality is that they will not charge and prosecute any MPs as the CPS will decide its not in the public interest.

 

[clapham_gull]

A publicity stunt as such, in terms of being seen to act whilst public opinion and also papers like the Daily Mail are making demands for action. Imagine the outcry if the police chose to ignore these stories, resulting in claims / headlines along the lines of that MP's are above the law. The reality is that they will not charge and prosecute any MPs as the CPS will decide its not in the public interest.

They don't have any choice unfortunately though.

If someone reports a "crime" they have to investigate it, MP or not. They simply can't or won't ignore it.

The CPS may decide there hasn't been a crime committed, but the police involvement can't in any terms be described as a publicity stunt.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

They don't have any choice unfortunately though.

If someone reports a "crime" they have to investigate it, MP or not. They simply can't or won't ignore it.

The police don't always respond to reports of a crime, one of my ex-neighbours was an elderly, a group of youths would repeatedly damage her garden fence, usually by jumping against it causing the panels to break, the eldery neighbour lives alone and found the situation frightening.

Usually when this happened, (usually people heard the noise of the fence breaking or saw the people responsible carrying this out) the Police were called, and the criminal damage reported, and to this day no Police arrived to follow this up, no 'investigation' has taken place, no effort has been made to catch these individuals despite witnesses to the damage taking place.

Now all that happens is the fence is repaired by a neighbour, and no one even bothers reporting it anymore as they know nothing will happen. How different is it between an actual crime that after being reported, isn't followed up, or MPs acting within the rules of Parliament on their expenses claims.

The person or people who should be looked at and questioned by the public / papers are those who agreed to pay the more outragous claims and find out why, they should face the sack.

The CPS may decide there hasn't been a crime committed, but the police involvement can't in any terms be described as a publicity stunt.

The CPS can decide that a crime has been committed and that it is likely a prosecution would be successful but decide that it is not worth persuing. (cost outweighs the benefit / likely sentance)

 

[clapham_gull]

The police don't always respond to reports of a crime, one of my ex-neighbours was an elderly, a group of youths would repeatedly damage her garden fence, usually by jumping against it causing the panels to break, the eldery neighbour lives alone and found the situation frightening.

Usually when this happened, (usually people heard the noise of the fence breaking or saw the people responsible carrying this out) the Police were called, and the criminal damage reported, and to this day no Police arrived to follow this up, no 'investigation' has taken place, no effort has been made to catch these individuals despite witnesses to the damage taking place.

Now all that happens is the fence is repaired by a neighbour, and no one even bothers reporting it anymore as they know nothing will happen. How different is it between an actual crime that after being reported, isn't followed up, or MPs acting within the rules of Parliament on their expenses claims.

The person or people who should be looked at and questioned by the public / papers are those who agreed to pay the more outragous claims and find out why, they should face the sack.




The CPS can decide that a crime has been committed and that it is likely a prosecution would be successful but decide that it is not worth persuing. (cost outweighs the benefit / likely sentance)

Yes I know how the system works, I'm married to a solicitor. I just disagree that the police involvement is a "publicity stunt".

You are talking about the possible misuse of public funds, which is a very serious offence and once reported they will have to investigate.

Same thing happened up here with Lee Jasper and he found not guilty.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes I know how the system works, I'm married to a solicitor. I just disagree that the police involvement is a "publicity stunt".

You are talking about the possible misuse of public funds, which is a very serious offence and once reported they will have to investigate.

Same thing happened up here with Lee Jasper and he found not guilty.

Publicity stunt may not be the best words to use, but their decision now to announce that a group of senior officers is to meet to decide whether these claims are a matter worth the time and expense of a full investigation or not is something that we really didn't need to know, that announcement was aimed at trying to look active and interested in this saga rather than just dismiss it out of hand. Doesn't this sort of decision normally lie with the Mets top officer (commisioner) anyway

Did we need to know that those officers are deciding this, or is it just spin to try to put the Police in a good light after the bad publicity they have received following the G20 protests.

 

[newhaven seagull 85]

they are probably having a meeting to see if its financially beneficial to start an enquiry and if the MP's would get a fair trial,which i doubt,also would the house of commons authority have to back the prosecution and could it appear as a witness as in most cases the "fees office" have agreed the claims made by mp's.

 

[bigc]

Same thing happened up here with Lee Jasper and he found not guilty.

I was just thinking about that actually, after all that has happened recently, Lee's "crimes" certainly seem far less serious than people buying plush furniture or upkeeping moats on expenses.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The problem they'll have in terms of criminal investigations is that, as far as I can see, all these expense claims have been approved by somebody, and were within the rules, as all these back-pedalling greedy bastards are only too keen to stress. It's the rules that have allowed them to do what they've done, and therefore the rules that are stupid.

To constitute fraud, it would need to be proved that there was some kind of deception going on, which I'm not entirely sure they'll be able to do.

Morally, of course, it's a bloody disgrace, but I think the vast majority will get away with it on criminal grounds, unfortunately, unless there has actually been some kind of dodgy dealings- ie submitting false receipts or something like that.

 

[element]

The problem they'll have in terms of criminal investigations is that, as far as I can see, all these expense claims have been approved by somebody, and were within the rules, as all these back-pedalling greedy bastards are only too keen to stress. It's the rules that have allowed them to do what they've done, and therefore the rules that are stupid.

To constitute fraud, it would need to be proved that there was some kind of deception going on, which I'm not entirely sure they'll be able to do.

Morally, of course, it's a bloody disgrace, but I think the vast majority will get away with it on criminal grounds, unfortunately, unless there has actually been some kind of dodgy dealings- ie submitting false receipts or something like that.

What, like the MP who was claiming for a mortgage that had been paid off?

Wouldn't that constitute 'dodgy dealing' or perhaps he would argue it had slipped his mind?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I said the majority, not all. Again, it depends what's in their little rule book, doesn't it?

If the parliamentary rules allow them to claim for a mortgage that's already been paid, then he'll get away with it, no matter how wrong it appears to you or I.

 

[element]

I think the voting in the upcoming European elections will be interesting

Fringe parties are likely to make a good showing I would guess