According to today's papers he may well be charged. If he isn't then that will put the whole legal process into disrepute, or should I say even greater disrepute
A lot of these practices are expenses that go on all the time within private business, I know the differance is that its our money but in reality it is in the private sector as well as it is us that their profits are created by.
This guy should have been sharing a cell with the likes of David Laws et al and not the House of Commons but it seems to me that provided you pay back what you've fiddled you can escape censure if you're an MP. Maybe we should just let every common criminal, which is what these scumbags are, pay back whatever they've nicked and let them carry on as before too? Laws has even got himself back in the flipping cabinet!
I'm still paying off a hefty UK tax bill from 2009-10 on the monthly, purely because I think thought EVERYONE should pay their bit, but when I read stories like this it does make me think why I didn't just swerve it and pay up if I got caught!
A lot of these practices are expenses that go on all the time within private business, I know the differance is that its our money but in reality it is in the private sector as well as it is us that their profits are created by.
I think the difference is that these people spend most of their lives telling Us what We should be doing and what We should be paying. In this particular case the fella had the front to dig out another politician (MEP), Nigel Farage, about miss-spending £2 million (even though it was proved to have been spent legitimately).
At least he did the decent thing and resigned. David Laws took 4 times as much and is back in the cabinet.
If you misrepresented your circumstances like that to claim that much income support or housing benefit, they'd put you away. Why should MPs be any different?
At least he did the decent thing and resigned. David Laws took 4 times as much and is back in the cabinet.
If you misrepresented your circumstances like that to claim that much income support or housing benefit, they'd put you away. Why should MPs be any different?
Are you seriously saying that he is, in fact, a decent person and that's why he's resigned? He never had a choice and should've got sacked before he had the chance to resign! MP's who call coppers "Plebs" resign, MP's who purposefully fiddle their expenses get tin tacked!
Rob you miss the point he is a Labour MP so him going doing the "decent thing" the fact that he is a usual socialist scum bag caught with his nose in the trough puting in false invoices welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll thats ok and can be overlooked after all was A TRUE LABOUR man.
Notice the reams of comments after a Tory twok calls Obill a naughty name but silence when one of the "moral majority " gets caught with his had in the till
At least he did the decent thing and resigned. David Laws took 4 times as much and is back in the cabinet.
If you misrepresented your circumstances like that to claim that much income support or housing benefit, they'd put you away. Why should MPs be any different?
Are you seriously saying that he is, in fact, a decent person and that's why he's resigned? He never had a choice and should've got sacked before he had the chance to resign! MP's who call coppers "Plebs" resign, MP's who purposefully fiddle their expenses get tin tacked!
Nope, the initial decision was that he would be suspended from the House of Commons for a year. He took the decision to resign as an MP, which he didn't have to do, and that's why I said he did the decent thing, as he could have held out and left his constiuents without representation in the Commons for that time. I'm just pointing out that if we're saying that MPs who fiddle their expenses should be sacked, there are bigger offenders who are not only still MPs but have been rewarded with a Cabinet position. It's clearly not something that automatically makes you deemed unfit to be an MP, even if we might think that's the case.
At least he did the decent thing and resigned. David Laws took 4 times as much and is back in the cabinet. If you misrepresented your circumstances like that to claim that much income support or housing benefit, they'd put you away. Why should MPs be any different?
Are you seriously saying that he is, in fact, a decent person and that's why he's resigned? He never had a choice and should've got sacked before he had the chance to resign! MP's who call coppers "Plebs" resign, MP's who purposefully fiddle their expenses get tin tacked!
Nope, the initial decision was that he would be suspended from the House of Commons for a year. He took the decision to resign as an MP, which he didn't have to do, and that's why I said he did the decent thing, as he could have held out and left his constiuents without representation in the Commons for that time. I'm just pointing out that if we're saying that MPs who fiddle their expenses should be sacked, there are bigger offenders who are not only still MPs but have been rewarded with a Cabinet position. It's clearly not something that automatically makes you deemed unfit to be an MP, even if we might think that's the case.
Laws should be pumped an all! But if you must compare the two, it was proved that, in Laws case, it wasn't for financial gain. MacShane done to line his pockets!
At least he did the decent thing and resigned. David Laws took 4 times as much and is back in the cabinet. If you misrepresented your circumstances like that to claim that much income support or housing benefit, they'd put you away. Why should MPs be any different?
Are you seriously saying that he is, in fact, a decent person and that's why he's resigned? He never had a choice and should've got sacked before he had the chance to resign! MP's who call coppers "Plebs" resign, MP's who purposefully fiddle their expenses get tin tacked!
Nope, the initial decision was that he would be suspended from the House of Commons for a year. He took the decision to resign as an MP, which he didn't have to do, and that's why I said he did the decent thing, as he could have held out and left his constiuents without representation in the Commons for that time. I'm just pointing out that if we're saying that MPs who fiddle their expenses should be sacked, there are bigger offenders who are not only still MPs but have been rewarded with a Cabinet position. It's clearly not something that automatically makes you deemed unfit to be an MP, even if we might think that's the case.
Laws should be pumped an all! But if you must compare the two, it was proved that, in Laws case, it wasn't for financial gain. MacShane done to line his pockets!
Did Laws give the money to charity then?
Both of them and all the rest who've been at it, regardless of the party they represent, should have done jail time.
Of course Laws did it for financial gain. If he didn't want people knowing about his personal circumstances, he didn't need to claim living expenses at all. He's a millionaire FFS!! All he had to say was, "I don't need the living expenses, so I'm not claiming them", and just claim for the costs of running his office.
Rob you miss the point he is a Labour MP so him going doing the "decent thing" the fact that he is a usual socialist scum bag caught with his nose in the trough puting in false invoices welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll thats ok and can be overlooked after all was A TRUE LABOUR man.
Notice the reams of comments after a Tory twok calls Obill a naughty name but silence when one of the "moral majority " gets caught with his had in the till
Actually GH ALL the MPs convicted and sentenced to gaol for fiddling their expenses were Labour and posters on this site were unanimous in their condemnation of them. The Peers who spent time locked up were Conservatives - so nice to see a balance between Members of both Houses of Parliament.
The problem here is that McShane only admitted his fiddling to Parliament and Parliamentary Privilege will probably apply to his wrtitten and/or any oral admissions. You can rest assured he will say nothing to the police if they now seek to interview him.
As for Aliwibble's view that McShane 'did the decent thing' by resigning, I am amazed. The 'decent thing' was not to have stolen public money in the first place and at the very least to have resigned years ago when this was first aired. He knew he was being dishonest, he didn't need Parliament to tell him.
Of course Laws did it for financial gain. If he didn't want people knowing about his personal circumstances, he didn't need to claim living expenses at all. He's a millionaire FFS!! All he had to say was, "I don't need the living expenses, so I'm not claiming them", and just claim for the costs of running his office.
Yeah okay and MacShane is a decent and upstanding bloke!
Comments
Total joke.
thinkthought EVERYONE should pay their bit, but when I read stories like this it does make me think why I didn't just swerve it and pay up if I got caught!It's the blatant hypocrisy that pisses me off!
If you misrepresented your circumstances like that to claim that much income support or housing benefit, they'd put you away. Why should MPs be any different?
Notice the reams of comments after a Tory twok calls Obill a naughty name but silence when one of the "moral majority " gets caught with his had in the till
Laws should be pumped an all! But if you must compare the two, it was proved that, in Laws case, it wasn't for financial gain. MacShane done to line his pockets!
Laws should be pumped an all! But if you must compare the two, it was proved that, in Laws case, it wasn't for financial gain. MacShane done to line his pockets!
Did Laws give the money to charity then?
Both of them and all the rest who've been at it, regardless of the party they represent, should have done jail time.
The problem here is that McShane only admitted his fiddling to Parliament and Parliamentary Privilege will probably apply to his wrtitten and/or any oral admissions. You can rest assured he will say nothing to the police if they now seek to interview him.
As for Aliwibble's view that McShane 'did the decent thing' by resigning, I am amazed. The 'decent thing' was not to have stolen public money in the first place and at the very least to have resigned years ago when this was first aired. He knew he was being dishonest, he didn't need Parliament to tell him.
You last point @legaladdick I totally agree with.