Lord Hanningfield - trial begins
Discussion
I suspect that the prosecution may not be the sharpest tool in Lincoln's Inn: From the BBC website:
"He also claimed for a 15-mile journey from Chelmsford railway station to his home in West Hanningfield when the journey was actually only 7.5 miles, jurors were told"
On the assumption that claiming milage for this journey was allowed, then it's reasonable to expect the journey both to and from be allowed, hence 15 miles!
"He also claimed for a 15-mile journey from Chelmsford railway station to his home in West Hanningfield when the journey was actually only 7.5 miles, jurors were told"
On the assumption that claiming milage for this journey was allowed, then it's reasonable to expect the journey both to and from be allowed, hence 15 miles!
Today's update from BBC local news is : he claimed for expenses for overnight accommodation in London. His chauffeur driven car (paid for by Essex C.C.)was always used, his chauffeur states that he never drove to any London hotel for his Lordship, always back to Essex where his Lordship lives. And yet the prosecution states that expenses were claimed for overnight accommodation. Lord Hanningfield states that the 'allowances' were used as a recompense for out of pocket expenses and the fact that Peers are not paid for their work.
Sounds to me like a custodial sentence looms for his Lordship, we shall soon know.
has been correctly pointed out to me that 'allowances' are different to expenses, therefore my use of the term 'allowances' is incorrect, it should be expenses.
Sounds to me like a custodial sentence looms for his Lordship, we shall soon know.
has been correctly pointed out to me that 'allowances' are different to expenses, therefore my use of the term 'allowances' is incorrect, it should be expenses.
Edited by crankedup on Friday 20th May 15:46
StevieBee said:
I suspect that the prosecution may not be the sharpest tool in Lincoln's Inn: From the BBC website:
"He also claimed for a 15-mile journey from Chelmsford railway station to his home in West Hanningfield when the journey was actually only 7.5 miles, jurors were told"
On the assumption that claiming milage for this journey was allowed, then it's reasonable to expect the journey both to and from be allowed, hence 15 miles!
I'm looking forward to hearing the outcome to this trial, his Lordship has convinced himself that he is innocent of any crime (maybe he is). But apparently using a Essex County Council credit card for expenses and then allegedly claim same expenses from Parliament seems strange. Is this the first Peer to be judged in court for alleged expenses fraud?"He also claimed for a 15-mile journey from Chelmsford railway station to his home in West Hanningfield when the journey was actually only 7.5 miles, jurors were told"
On the assumption that claiming milage for this journey was allowed, then it's reasonable to expect the journey both to and from be allowed, hence 15 miles!
crankedup said:
Today's update from BBC local news is : he claimed for expenses for overnight accommodation in London. His chauffeur driven car (paid for by Essex C.C.)was always used, his chauffeur states that he never drove to any London hotel for his Lordship, always back to Essex where his Lordship lives. And yet the prosecution states that expenses were claimed for overnight accommodation. Lord Hanningfield states that the 'allowances' were used as a recompense for out of pocket expenses and the fact that Peers are not paid for their work.
Sounds to me like a custodial sentence looms for his Lordship, we shall soon know.
There is a subtle, but significant difference between a claim for an overnight allowance and a claim for an overnight accomodation expense - you don't need to incur any costs to claim the allowance. Sounds to me like a custodial sentence looms for his Lordship, we shall soon know.
youngsyr said:
There is a subtle, but significant difference between a claim for an overnight allowance and a claim for an overnight accomodation expense - you don't need to incur any costs to claim the allowance.
Yes I agree, the Lords use an expenses system and it is this that Lord Hanningfield is alleged to have used and claimed for overnight accommodation, the prosecution state that he did not stay overnight but used the Chauffeur driven Essex County Council car to be driven home in.crankedup said:
Yes I agree, the Lords use an expenses system and it is this that Lord Hanningfield is alleged to have used and claimed for overnight accommodation, the prosecution state that he did not stay overnight but used the Chauffeur driven Essex County Council car to be driven home in.
He is tory therefore completely innocentthinfourth2 said:
He is tory therefore completely innocent
Yup, he is indeed, he represented a Tory constituency too, Essex. Leader of Essex County Council for years. All those nasty people slurring his good name, won't be long before his court case concludes, couldn't have happened to a nicer fellow 
For those that perhaps do not see the trial reports, Lord Hanningfield has taken to the witness box, he has stated that he thought the 'allowances' were available to be claimed regardless, as lots of other Peers seemed to be claiming the maximum. He did not read the allowances guidance booklet he was given upon being made a Lord! I have been out of pocket carrying out my duties, I do not get paid for my work.
Thus far it sounds like the same old story we all heard from the old MPs.
Thus far it sounds like the same old story we all heard from the old MPs.
For all you avid followers of the trial, today Lord Hanningfield is being cross examined. He only spent around one minute a month filling out his expenses form, asked why only one minute he replied 'because I was so busy with my work (duties. Asked why he did not have a staff member fill out the form for him, reply 'because they were to busy'. When addressing the jury Lord Hanningfield struggled on several occasions to remain composed. He re-iterated that most of the other Lords used the allowance/expenses system in the same way that he had, and yet 'I am here and they are there'. (scapegoat?)
Lord Hanningfield's Public Office life started in 1970.
Just another snippit from Anglia News : Lord H was claiming 24k for his assistants salary, which is all good and dandy. Here comes the but : he only paid his assistant half of that money! the remainder was 'making up' Lord H loses.
Lord Hanningfield's Public Office life started in 1970.
Just another snippit from Anglia News : Lord H was claiming 24k for his assistants salary, which is all good and dandy. Here comes the but : he only paid his assistant half of that money! the remainder was 'making up' Lord H loses.
Edited by crankedup on Tuesday 24th May 19:02
anonymous said:
[redacted]
During the trial he did speak of 'almost all of the other Peers were doing the same as me' counts for nothing of course. Paul White enjoyed the extravagance of a Council supplied chauffeur driven car, not sure if it was greed or stupidity which drove him (no pun). But to claim travel expenses whilst using that car,paid for by Essex County Council, beggars belief. To much power for too long - Power corrupts in the end it seems.thinfourth2 said:
Look don't you get it
He is a tory so therefore he must of been framed
The tories can do no wrong
So just p
s off with your stupid lefty ideas
He is a tory so therefore he must of been framed
The tories can do no wrong
So just p
s off with your stupid lefty ideas
Yup, the whole jury must have been 'leftie' nutters, mind coming from Essex it must have been hell to find them!
Guilty M'lud, send im' down.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff