Thieving MPs to be charged!

[10 Pence Short]

esselte said:

rev-erend said:

I thought it a bit weak that they would consider using the parliamentary privilige rule - after all Geoffery Archer was sent to jail when still an MP ..

They're saying that they are immune 'cos it's a parliamentary issue...Archer's was out in the "real world"...it's a crock if they get away without being tried...

Not to mention Archer was stitched up, but that's another story altogether...

[theboyfold]

paddyhasneeds said:

Is anyone watching that daft sod Jim Levine on C4 news?

For those who missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf79TxtYuOY

[esselte]

theboyfold said:

paddyhasneeds said:

Is anyone watching that daft sod Jim Levine on C4 news?

For those who missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf79TxtYuOY

Did someone mention Political Elite somewhere..?

[AndrewW-G]

esselte said:

theboyfold said:

paddyhasneeds said:

Is anyone watching that daft sod Jim Levine on C4 news?

For those who missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf79TxtYuOY

Did someone mention Political Elite somewhere..?

Good grief, he cant even get the amounts he's supposed to have paid right, first it was £180pcm then £150pcm and back to £180pcm, let alone the total amount and the length of time the payments applied for

[F i F]

The word that springs to my mind is "unemployable."

Am I being unfair?

[Balmoral Green]

I just posted this elsewhere, but realised it should be on this thread too.

Balmoral Green said:

So, today, CMD has said he will remove parliamentary privilege if elected, so that in future, MP's such as those three involved in the expenses scandal can be hung out to dry.

This morning on R4, some woman or other was being interviewed about this, and was talking a lot of sense, I agreed with everything she said. She was logical and rational. Who the hell is this I was wondering? I like her. Then she said that last year they had proposed this very thing, for a bill, that CMD had come out with just now, but the Tories had rejected it, and because of them, it couldn't be made so, yet here was CMD coming out with all this bks about how he'd do this, when he'd vetoed the very same thing just a few short months back. Oh Bugger, I realised it's one of the labour wimmin', and not only is she making sense, she's pissed on CMD's chips big time too.

It turned out it was HH

[Office_Monkey]

AndrewW-G said:

esselte said:

theboyfold said:

paddyhasneeds said:

Is anyone watching that daft sod Jim Levine on C4 news?

For those who missed it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf79TxtYuOY

Did someone mention Political Elite somewhere..?

Good grief, he cant even get the amounts he's supposed to have paid right, first it was £180pcm then £150pcm and back to £180pcm, let alone the total amount and the length of time the payments applied for

It's OK because he didn't benfit from it. Why should the tax payer have to pay for cleaning anyway when the average joe has to clean up themselves I don't know.

10:11 in, "Money was moved across between budgets... It is a common practice". So WTF is the point of budgeting at all? If this is common, then this just highlights the inefficienies of government, and the accounts should be thoroughly audited in order to determine where cuts can be made to reduce spending without impacting services.

[Futuo]

esselte said:

Futuo said:

BrassMan said:

Futuo said:

High time we had some riots in the UK its been too long without one.

Bet the enquiry cost a hell of a lot more than was fiddled.

That's not the point. The courts aren't supposed to turn a profit (although it should cost less to run).

Very much the point if the whole thang about this is greedy MPs costing us the tax payer money to then spunk the same as they cheated telling us how they cheated it.

The taxpayer will lose money overall - because the repayments will be less than the total bill for the Legg review, which stands at £1.16million.

We'll maybe lose money this year but will probably save from now on.....what would it have cost us had we not found out about it all?

A lot less than the Public Sector wastes every day.

[esselte]

Futuo said:

esselte said:

Futuo said:

BrassMan said:

Futuo said:

High time we had some riots in the UK its been too long without one.

Bet the enquiry cost a hell of a lot more than was fiddled.

That's not the point. The courts aren't supposed to turn a profit (although it should cost less to run).

Very much the point if the whole thang about this is greedy MPs costing us the tax payer money to then spunk the same as they cheated telling us how they cheated it.

The taxpayer will lose money overall - because the repayments will be less than the total bill for the Legg review, which stands at £1.16million.

We'll maybe lose money this year but will probably save from now on.....what would it have cost us had we not found out about it all?

A lot less than the Public Sector wastes every day.

And now we've found it it will cost us even less...good news all round..

[loltolhurst]

£1.16 million - jesus id have done it for £1.1 million! how hard is it to go through some receipts ffs did it really need to cost that amount. wonder how much accountants would have chrged.

[Futuo]

What the MPs are fiddling is a drop in the ocean compared to what the Public Sector wastes or what the MEPs cost us all.

[bonsai]

Balmoral Green said:

I just posted this elsewhere, but realised it should be on this thread too.

Balmoral Green said:

So, today, CMD has said he will remove parliamentary privilege if elected, so that in future, MP's such as those three involved in the expenses scandal can be hung out to dry.

This morning on R4, some woman or other was being interviewed about this, and was talking a lot of sense, I agreed with everything she said. She was logical and rational. Who the hell is this I was wondering? I like her. Then she said that last year they had proposed this very thing, for a bill, that CMD had come out with just now, but the Tories had rejected it, and because of them, it couldn't be made so, yet here was CMD coming out with all this bks about how he'd do this, when he'd vetoed the very same thing just a few short months back. Oh Bugger, I realised it's one of the labour wimmin', and not only is she making sense, she's pissed on CMD's chips big time too.

It turned out it was HH

Can you post a link to a reference of this (the actual event of CMD/Tories rejecting that bill)

[anonymous-user]

Futuo said:

The taxpayer will lose money overall - because the repayments will be less than the total bill for the Legg review, which stands at £1.16million.

i think you miss the point entirely. these jokers are supposed to be running the country. they make decisions that effect tens of billions of pounds of public spending, decide how 50 million of us are allowed to live our lives, vote on sending our military abroad in our name and decide how much we should all pay for all this. if they are guilty of theft they are not suitable to make these decisions and need removing from public office. the fact that they are guilty of such crass stupidity should also preclude them but there are 500 other clowns in parliament we could level that charge at to.

[thatone1967]

fbrs said:

Futuo said:

The taxpayer will lose money overall - because the repayments will be less than the total bill for the Legg review, which stands at £1.16million.

i think you miss the point entirely. these jokers are supposed to be running the country. they make decisions that effect tens of billions of pounds of public spending, decide how 50 million of us are allowed to live our lives, vote on sending our military abroad in our name and decide how much we should all pay for all this. if they are guilty of theft they are not suitable to make these decisions and need removing from public office. the fact that they are guilty of such crass stupidity should also preclude them but there are 500 other clowns in parliament we could level that charge at to.

+1

[Futuo]

No, only 4 have been found out as unfit. So that means 300+ are fine.

As a taxpayer I'd rather the real waste be tackled first.

What is more important creating a few headlines to slaver over when a MP steals some mints from the House of Commons restaurant or that some bozo gets paid 100k a year to make sure children's books have 1 brown person per page?

[Pesty]

Futuo said:

No, only 4 have been found out as unfit. So that means 300+ are fine.

You really belive that?

just because they have not been charged they are fine? most of teh others had to pay money back so they are not fine in the slightest.

[Futuo]

I'd be quite happy for them to receive more money as long as they proved to be more capable than this current shower from Labour have been.

But I'd not want to plan an advertising campaign that nets you less than it costs, v poor business.

[F i F]

Futuo said:

No, only 4 have been found out as unfit.

4 have been found to have allegedly committed criminal offences where a prosecution is a) in the public interest and b) there is sufficient evidence that a successful prosecution would result, ie proof of evidence of criminal activity beyond all reasonable doubt.

Of the remaining 600 odd MPs plus members of the Lords there are many hundreds of cases where behaviour has fallen well below an acceptable standard even by their own admission. Many many of these have also broken their own internal rules, though not necessarily criminal.

But as said so often it's not about the money, it's that these people have not been doing their job and are not fit to run the country.

[anonymous-user]

Futuo said:

I'd be quite happy for them to receive more money as long as they proved to be more capable than this current shower from Labour have been.

But I'd not want to plan an advertising campaign that nets you less than it costs, v poor business.

Its not about the money. Its about weeding out the criminals and dishonest who are not fit to hold a job let alone public office. I'm all for firing all but 50 and paying the rest ten times as much. We might actually attract some competent people to run uk plc then, not just current crop of professional failures. Just one dumb idea, like say; selling our gold has cost more than Parliament will ever cost in our life times. You pay peanuts you get monkeys.

[Futuo]

Agree re the gold, Gordo is not fit for purpose. No argument there.

But we're in the middle of an epic financial crisis, everything should be done to turn that round, a duck house really isn't that big an issue.

It's just being hyped up by the media because it sells newspapers.

There are far bigger things to worry about.