Chaytor sent down

[audidoody]

>plenty of Tories were at it too.

Indeed. And I think you'll find no-one here will rush to their defence.

[Get Karter]

Yes, there were a lot of weasels exposed, let us not forget:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039273.stm

[voicey]

dandarez said:

voicey said:

18 months is a result given the relatively low sum involved, the early guilty plea and his previous good character. No doubt he'll be appealing the sentence but at the very least he'll do a few days in the clink.

EFS

All the anti-Labour crap here, plenty of Tories were at it too.

I bet Lord Hanningfield – the Tory peer accused of theft by false accounting – on the question of privilege did not pursue a supreme court challenge like the 3 Labour dicks, might be colouring his pants now.
Chaytor gets 18 months for fiddling a few thousand quid. Hanningfield - do I remember he claimed 100grand for ONE overnight stay? (can that be right? can he be that stupid?).

Anyway, still stinks. All those who fiddled (sorry, claimed ), and that includes Cameron, Broon and Cleggie carry on regardless.

No anti labour crap from me. It's a result that our justice system has worked by prosecuting and imprisoning a fraudster who held the office of government and appeared to me to think he was above the law.

[Pesty]

audidoody said:

Yes but ..


What about ALL THE OTHER troughers from Brown down?

Why is Udin not checking into Holloway round about now along with Barbara Follett, Margaret Moran and the appalling Jacqui Smith?

What about Duck House Man?

Can't help thinking this fakir has been made a sacrificial lamb.

The system stinks.

this. Yeah great one is going down and there may be a couple others but there should hundreds of the s on all sides facing the courts

[GeraldSmith]

dandarez said:

Hanningfield - do I remember he claimed 100grand for ONE overnight stay? (can that be right? can he be that stupid?).

No, that's not right. He claimed 100k over a period of years, which he was entitled to for staying in London when attending the House. But it is alleged that rather than stay in London he went home, in which case he was not entitled to claim. 'Alleged' is the operative word though.

[GeraldSmith]

Pesty said:

Yeah great one is going down and there may be a couple others but there should hundreds of the s on all sides facing the courts

There are two different issues though. One is people like this who committed fraud, he put in claims for expenses that were false, he made up a fake tenancy agreement to show he was paying rent so he could reclaim rent that he wasn't actually paying. That was illegal.

The second is people who took advantage of a crazy, lax system to claim for things that were within the letter of the regulations, but outside the spirit of them. So people who did things that were more immoral than illegal.

[Pesty]

GeraldSmith said:

Pesty said:

Yeah great one is going down and there may be a couple others but there should hundreds of the s on all sides facing the courts

There are two different issues though. One is people like this who committed fraud, he put in claims for expenses that were false, he made up a fake tenancy agreement to show he was paying rent so he could reclaim rent that he wasn't actually paying. That was illegal.

The second is people who took advantage of a crazy, lax system to claim for things that were within the letter of the regulations, but outside the spirit of them. So people who did things that were more immoral than illegal.

I consider flipping as a bit more than immoral but I see your point.

(i'd still send them down)

[audidoody]

>So people who did things that were more immoral than illegal.

If I took SWMBO out for an expensive dinner and then claimed it on expenses HMRC would regard that as illegal. HMRC don;t do moral judgments. It's either legal or it's not. That's the law for the rest of us (the laws passed by the very people who swindled us)

[Digga]

audidoody said:

>plenty of Tories were at it too.

Indeed. And I think you'll find no-one here will rush to their defence.

But more Labour MPs - look at the stats.It's very telling that even inembezzlement they display the same air of entitlement as their scrounging voetrs.

[voicey]

The telegraph is reporting court sources saying he'll be going to Wandsworth prison tonight. Enjoy!

[5potTurbo]

voicey said:

The telegraph is reporting court sources saying he'll be going to Wandsworth prison tonight. Enjoy!

I expect the Torygraph loved reporting that.
It's common for prisoners to be sent to a tougher prison first, like Wandsworth or Wormwood Scrubs, before going somewhere easier. He will go to an open prison within a week and will be out on licence in <9 months.

EDIT: "prisoners" instead of "people"

Edited by 5potTurbo on Friday 7th January 16:15

[crankedup]

audidoody said:

Yes but ..


What about ALL THE OTHER troughers from Brown down?

Why is Udin not checking into Holloway round about now along with Barbara Follett, Margaret Moran and the appalling Jacqui Smith?

What about Duck House Man?

Can't help thinking this fakir has been made a sacrificial lamb.

The system stinks.

More former M.P's expenses claims are currently still being investigated. This story has a long way to run yet.

[voicey]

5potTurbo said:

It's common for prisoners to be sent to a tougher prison first?

Yes. Straight from court prisoners are sent to a remand prison, category B (A is the toughest, D is the holiday camp). Once there the prisoner is reviewed and categorised. Once a space is available in the appropriately categorised prison they get shipped there by bus. It could be a matter of two weeks or it could be months - depends on how many places there are. Remand prisons are tough - by their nature the "guests" are transient so nobody knows each other.

Edit to fix quotes.

Edited by voicey on Friday 7th January 16:30

[crankedup]

GeraldSmith said:

dandarez said:

Hanningfield - do I remember he claimed 100grand for ONE overnight stay? (can that be right? can he be that stupid?).

No, that's not right. He claimed 100k over a period of years, which he was entitled to for staying in London when attending the House. But it is alleged that rather than stay in London he went home, in which case he was not entitled to claim. 'Alleged' is the operative word though.

Yes thats my understanding, that he went home (alleged) by using the official car driven by a public servant and claimed expenses fro overnight stay in London. Lord Hanningfields supporters rallied around and spoke of his achievements in Public Office serving the electorate well.

[motco]

audidoody said:

Yes but ..


What about ALL THE OTHER troughers from Brown down?

Why is Udin not checking into Holloway round about now along with Barbara Follett, Margaret Moran and the appalling Jacqui Smith?

What about Duck House Man?

Can't help thinking this fakir has been made a sacrificial lamb.

The system stinks.

The duck house claim was never paid out, the office rejected it according to the BBC News today. They never tire of mentioning it though...

[MonkeyHanger]

1 down. 648 to go.

[SplatSpeed]

Soovy said:

I hope he gets f cked every single night.

F cking Chapagne Socialist Labour scum.

Edited by Soovy on Friday 7th January 14:38

and now with feeling

[Ed Fender]

audidoody said:

>So people who did things that were more immoral than illegal.

If I took SWMBO out for an expensive dinner and then claimed it on expenses HMRC would regard that as illegal. HMRC don;t do moral judgments. It's either legal or it's not. That's the law for the rest of us (the laws passed by the very people who swindled us)

The point is that "house flipping" etc wasn't actually illegal, though certainly immoral. Our Lords and masters were enjoying an expenses system so lax and ridden with holes that it's quite difficult to prove criminality, unless you catch them with forged mortgage documents and the like.

[Sticks.]

Ed Fender said:

audidoody said:

>So people who did things that were more immoral than illegal.

If I took SWMBO out for an expensive dinner and then claimed it on expenses HMRC would regard that as illegal. HMRC don;t do moral judgments. It's either legal or it's not. That's the law for the rest of us (the laws passed by the very people who swindled us)

The point is that "house flipping" etc wasn't actually illegal, though certainly immoral. Our Lords and masters were enjoying an expenses system so lax and ridden with holes that it's quite difficult to prove criminality, unless you catch them with forged mortgage documents and the like.

What about those who evaded CGT? Was just paying it back sufficient? I suspect proving intent is the difficult part.

[GeraldSmith]

Sticks. said:

What about those who evaded CGT? Was just paying it back sufficient? I suspect proving intent is the difficult part.

Did they evade or avoid? Illegal or immoral? For most, I think, it was the latter.