bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27019782Is it just me that finds this unbelievable? They should have thrown the flipping book at him not allowed him to pay back what he stole from them and walk away.
Mind you it does seem this is the form for most MP's these days too.
Comments
In order to make a prison space - please release some sex crazed knife-wielding nutter who is 10% through his sentence.
#iwillgetmycoat
And they were asking if anyone could finger the guy too. AS he lives in a small village someone is going to work out who he is soon enough.
He made an out of court settlement, paid for five years without admitting guilt (he is an "hedge" manager after all) so what would be the benefit of charging him and sending him to court. He would end up paying roughly the same amount but only after much time and expense
:-)
The message this sends is that as long as you have the funds to settle up if caught go ahead and do it...which brings us back to where we are with our fiddling MP's.
What punishment would you have given him?
Let's put this in perspective, if you had been defrauded of £40k+ you'd expect there to be consequences for the criminal responsible beyond paying you back wouldn't you?
Traditional standards of morality are no longer a consideration in 21st Century Britain as exemplified by the actions of the parasitical scum whom masquerade as MPs and MEPs.
There was a time higher standards than the norm were expected in Public Life (eg the ostracism of John Profumo 50 years ago) but these days the Prime Minister gives his "support" (encouragement rather than athletic I assume) to the likes of Maria Miller.
If someone had 'defrauded' me out of a couple of hundred pounds (that's probably a realistic comparison as the rail company has much more money than me) I would not have chased them through the courts if they'd agreed to pay it back.
If it had been reported to the Police as fraud for criminal investigation, don't the police now just tell people to visit some website they've outsourced fraud investigations to ? In which case nothing probably would have happened - thus the train company getting their money is probably the best realistic outcome.
Surely when you see a ticket inspector standing next to the barrier you walk up to him and say "Excuse me mate, I just tapped out - so I can buy a ticket as I'm travelling out of London; however I've just realised that I can still save a bit of money just by buying a ticket from Zone 6. If I tap back in with my oyster card already, will I be charged double?". I'm not defending him either, I think it's good he was caught.
I wont lie, I often get on trains without tickets - but I know I'll be able to buy one on the train of a morning. Unfortunately there have been times when that hasn't worked out, and I've got fined twice. But, I take my risks just to leave 5 minutes later and avoid the queues of a morning, I then pay my price when it doesn't work out that way! I can't complain. (There's slightly more to it, like it being more expensive for me to buy a season ticket to work than it is for me to purchase daily...)
Reading between the lines here he has offered to repay what he fiddled for immunity from prosecution which might involve the train company having to spend some time and money proving the case. I understand the pragmatic approach but this doesn't sit comfortably with me. Others take a different view and presumably are not bothered by the lack of a deterrent in the future.
Oh no, sorry, they're only for mass murdering terrorists, not for serious offences like fare dodging or speeding motorists.
Rotten boroughs, sales of peerages (Lloyd-George & Wilson to mention just two). The Marconi scandal, the Shell crisis, Suez, the list goes on and on.
Miller's little bit of accountancy wouldn't even have registered in the old days. Who now remembers that Chruchill secretly took £5,000 (millions today) from Burmah oil to lobby for concessions in Persia.
He is a wealthy man. through the book at him.