Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Rural South Midlands
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    Three former Labour MPs should face criminal trials over their expenses claims, the Supreme Court has ruled.

    It rejected an appeal by David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine that their cases should be heard by Parliament, not the courts.

    The three men, who all deny theft by false accounting, will face separate trials at Southwark Crown Court.

    The Supreme Court said the reasons for rejecting the appeal would be given at a later date.

    But the decision upholds a ruling by the Court of Appeal in July that the three were not protected by parliamentary privilege - an ancient right protecting MPs from legal action arising from proceedings in Parliament - in relation to their expenses claims.

    Former Bury North MP Mr Chaytor, 61, of Todmorden, West Yorkshire; former S****horpe MP Mr Morley, 58, of Winterton, north Lincolnshire; and former Livingston MP Mr Devine, 57, of Bathgate, West Lothian, are all on unconditional bail and face separate trials. The first, Mr Morley's trial, is expected to begin on 22 November.

    The full story available from here : BBC News - Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    Not a lot to add really......
    Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant only an intellectual could ignore it - Thomas Sowell

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,183
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    Parliamentary privilege was designed to protect MP's from prosecution in relation to their duties, not to protect them when they have actively and willingly broken the law or committed fraud.
    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency
    ~ Eugene McCarthy

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3,043
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    Quote Originally Posted by LA View Post
    Parliamentary privilege was designed to protect MP's from prosecution in relation to their duties, not to protect them when they have actively and willingly broken the law or committed fraud.
    Bang On..
    Left for a place without a childish and spite filled Moderator with a Hitler complex. A place of democracy and common sense where questions can be asked with a Mod getting their knickers in a twist because they lack confidence and are on a power trip.

    bet this gets edited. Take care all the decent people here. have fun.

  4. #4
    Major Sinic Guest

    Re: Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    Quote Originally Posted by LA View Post
    Parliamentary privilege was designed to protect MP's from prosecution in relation to their duties, not to protect them when they have actively and willingly broken the law or committed fraud.
    The attempted reliance of these erstwhile pillars of society on this ancient law, in order to escape being judged innocent or guilty by twelve of their fellow citizens, persuades a cynic such as I that they know they have been caught bang to rights. I believe that they each will be found guilty of theft, along with that awful, arrogant grasping creature Margaret Moran when she finally appears in the dock. A custodial sentence for a Member of Parliament convicted of thieving off the taxpayer is the only just outcome.

    The same should apply to those crooked members of the House of Lords, and it is a travesty of justice that enobled scum like Lord Taylor of Warwick, Lord Paul, Lord Bhatia and Baroness Udwin all found guilty by their peers of theft from the taxpayer, should escape the punishment which would be meted out to any commoner. This whole disgraceful situation provides ample evidence that the rights and privileges of both Houses need to independently reviewed with the express purpose of making each MP and peer as liable to the consequences of breaking the laws of the land as any common man. Members of Parliament and Peers of the Realm should be deprived of their titles, privileges and any honorariums in the event of a criminal conviction.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,183
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    They won't be guilty of theft, but fraud.

    Oh don't mention the Lords... three Asians were suspended at the same time - clearly racist according to them. Has nothing to do with the fact that they are lying, cheat, fraudulent scum.

    But Jeremy Kyle-esque language aside, its disgraceful. The MP's expenses system needs reform and can be so easily reformed if you look to countries like Sweden who operate a brilliant system.
    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency
    ~ Eugene McCarthy

  6. #6
    Major Sinic Guest

    Re: Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    Quote Originally Posted by LA View Post
    They won't be guilty of theft, but fraud.

    Oh don't mention the Lords... three Asians were suspended at the same time - clearly racist according to them. Has nothing to do with the fact that they are lying, cheat, fraudulent scum.

    But Jeremy Kyle-esque language aside, its disgraceful. The MP's expenses system needs reform and can be so easily reformed if you look to countries like Sweden who operate a brilliant system.
    I thought the charge was 'theft by false accounting'. By anyone's book this is both theft and fraud.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,183
    Thanks
    105
    Thanked 53 Times in 47 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Sinic View Post
    I thought the charge was 'theft by false accounting'. By anyone's book this is both theft and fraud.
    Hmm just did a quick look and according to cumbria police it's fraud...

    "False accounting involves an employee or an organisation altering, destroying or
    defacing any account; or presenting accounts from an individual or an organisation so
    they do not reflect their true value or financial activities.
    This type of fraud can include overstating assets and/or understating liabilities."

    That comes from Cumbria Constabulary

    Also, it may come under the remit of the Fraud Act 2006.

    However, don't quote me, I am not great with law.
    The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency
    ~ Eugene McCarthy

  8. #8
    Major Sinic Guest

    Re: Court rejects 'parliamentary privilege' expenses appeal

    Quote Originally Posted by LA View Post
    Hmm just did a quick look and according to cumbria police it's fraud...

    "False accounting involves an employee or an organisation altering, destroying or
    defacing any account; or presenting accounts from an individual or an organisation so
    they do not reflect their true value or financial activities.
    This type of fraud can include overstating assets and/or understating liabilities."

    That comes from Cumbria Constabulary

    Also, it may come under the remit of the Fraud Act 2006.

    However, don't quote me, I am not great with law.
    Frankly in this regard I am not bothered whether we call it fraud or theft. It does however seem almost certain that these 'scum bags' in one way or another acquired tax payers funds through a criminal act or acts, being at the time in a position which demands the highest standards of integrity and probity. Hundreds of MPs and at least dozens of Lords let us down from a moral and ethical standpoint, but only a comparatively small number crossed the boundary and made themselves into common criminals.

Similar Threads

  1. Rolling Back Religious Privilege
    By crazylilting in forum Religion, Faith and Spirituality
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 23-12-2010, 03:17 PM
  2. Labour Cannot Appeal to the Electorate
    By soloman in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 20-09-2010, 01:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •