Is it right to press criminal charges over MPs expences?

[Stoo82]

If the authorities won't put sleaze MPs in court, the Mail will - with a campaign for private prosecutions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1181868/If-authorities-wont-sleaze-MPs-court-Mail--campaign-private-prosecutions.html

I for one say yes.

Not for people who have claimed for genuine 2nd home things. But for people who have clearly comitted fraud.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Bring on June the 4th and the next election.

 

[Gwylan]

While I'm fully hoping that the greedy pigs who have troughed up all that cash get their come-uppance at the next election, I don't see what criminal offence has been committed. As they never cease to tell us, they acted within the rules, so how can they be prosecuted?

The real scandal is the way that they've been allowed to police themselves and set those rules so loosely - that will have to change. I can't see any sort of criminal action succeeding, avarice is not a criminal offence.

 

[bhaexpress]

If they have broken the law then yes. If they are merely exploiting the system then that is their prerogative. After all, plenty of people pay less tax because they work the system legally.

 

[hitony]

Bring on June the 4th and the next election.

Not to sure what good that will do, all partys are involved in this expences issue.

I for one most definatly think any MP who has committed an illegal act should be bought before the courts, lets face it, we would be.

 

[OzMike]

I voted yes but we all know nothing will happen, I think a list of the MP's names, costituencies and the amounts falsly claimed shoud be made public.
They have to be publicly named and shamed.

 

[Gully]

Bring on June the 4th and the next election.

I am not sure either what good that will do, the problem here has been identified in MPs sitting in the UK Parliament, the elections in June are mainly for Europe...if people decide to register their displeasure with the mainstream political parties and vote in protest, for the other choices available, the main people to benefit will be the likes of the Greens and the BNP.

But I agree with hitony, if anyone is suspected of an illegal act then they should face the full legal process...as would any of us if our employer suspected us of fraud.

 

[little al]

From Todays Littlejohn column in the Mail.

" If I hear another MP protest that they were only acting within the rules, I'll scream.

The rules of any organisation, even the House of Commons, shouldn't over-ride the law of the land.

According to the unwritten rules of the underworld, murdering 'one of your own' is perfectly acceptable. But that didn't stop the Kray Twins going up the steps at the Old Bailey.

Giving back the swag never saved a burglar from prosecution. So why isn't Scotland Yard already feeling some collars at Westminster?

It's a couple of months since many serving and ex-coppers wrote to me saying that Jackboot Jacqui and Tony McNulty were in clear breach of the section of the Fraud Act which covers 'gaining pecuniary advantage by deception'. That could apply to any number of MPs.

I know that Scotland Yard has received formal complaints. I've got copies of the letters.
So what are they waiting for? "

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: I'm proud to announce that Britain leads the world in moat-dredging | Mail Online

 

[beorhthelm]

definately. though in the majority of cases there is no criminal action for the police to follow up. And as the furoe rolls on i begin to wonder if it isnt the papers presentation thats making this look more than it really is.

 

[The Large One]

definately. though in the majority of cases there is no criminal action for the police to follow up. And as the furoe rolls on i begin to wonder if it isnt the papers presentation thats making this look more than it really is.

Something you'd never expect the Daily Mail to do, surely...?

 

[mr sheen]

I just hope this new mood of social responsibility extends to all the self-employed businessmen and firms of accountants busily engaged in depriving the public purse of millions of pounds through tax avoidance and evasion.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I don't see what criminal offence has been committed. As they never cease to tell us, they acted within the rules, so how can they be prosecuted?

The bloke who was claiming for a mortgage that had already been paid off was quite clearly committing fraud. In cases like that, then yes thay should be prosecuted.

I like the way that some of them think "I made a mistake" is a valid excuse. If that is allowed now I think I might go a kill someone I don't like and use that as my defence

 

[Seagullible]

the fact that the government keep putting up taxes due to a shortfall in money and then use this to pay for stupid expenses really is criminal imho and those that abused the system should pay

 

[Spiros]

While I'm fully hoping that the greedy pigs who have troughed up all that cash get their come-uppance at the next election, I don't see what criminal offence has been committed. As they never cease to tell us, they acted within the rules, so how can they be prosecuted?

The real scandal is the way that they've been allowed to police themselves and set those rules so loosely - that will have to change. I can't see any sort of criminal action succeeding, avarice is not a criminal offence.

Exactly right, but I'm sure the Mail won't let that get in the way of some bandwagon jumping to push up the sales of their rubbish paper.

As you say, the real scandal is that they can do this without committing any crime. Let's just hope this gets raised again when the election comes around - strange as it seems now it'll probably be yesterday's news by then.

 

[British Bulldog]

If somebody was fiddling the social by claiming benefits they're not entitled too they would expect to be prosecuted if they got caught, so why should'nt MP's face the same prosecution if they're caught claiming benefits & expenses they're not entitled too? You cant have one rule for one and another rule for the other.

 

[Spiros]

The problem is that within the rules set they ARE entitled to claim for these things, mainly because they set the rules in the first place. If one of them has broken the rules then prosecute, but they all agreed these expenses with the Fees Office in the House of Commons, so technically none of them have broken the law. Or so it seems.

 

[sten_super]

Except in cases like the suspended Labour advisor, who claimed mortgage payments he wasn't making for 18 months. Surely that is fraud?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Bring on June the 4th and the next election.

Unfortunately the damage to politics, that this whole sory episode has done, is huge. The impact on the Euro elections (and presumably through to next years GE unless we go to war again) is quite sad.

I can only see that voting turn-out will be hit big-time or people voting for some of the minority parties (e.g. BNP) which will be disastrous. Griffin must be pissing himself laughing.

 

[Stoo82]

Exactly right, but I'm sure the Mail won't let that get in the way of some bandwagon jumping to push up the sales of their rubbish paper.

Its the taxpayers allience too.

from the rubbish paper

We are joining forces with the Tax-Payers' Alliance to launch a campaign for the private prosecutions of backbenchers and ministers who have pocketed thousands of pounds through dishonest claims.

 

[The Uninvited Guest]

MP's..We were only acting within the rules.
SS guards...We were only obeying orders.