[Closed] Thieving, lying labour MPs

Lest we forget, a Conservative peer was also up before the beak today. Although, I don't believe he asked if he could avoid sitting in the dock, as the Labour MPs apparently did!

I blame Thatcher

So what? I wish people would realise that politicians are all the same, doesn't matter which party they are. Thieving lying scumbags. I laughed at David Cameron on telly the other day, on about being British through & through, Britains interests at heart, blahdy ****in blah. Heard it all before. (& so on)

Classic torygraph - there is one Tory peer as well that was not reported!

My opinion - there should have been a lot more action on both sides of the house. Repaying a few quid is not enough - it isn't if you fiddle a few quid on your dole and get caught.

Browns response to the unfolding scandal was very weak and allowed a not quite so weak Cameron to make political capital when it really was an open goal for Brown given the opportunity for mockery of the Tories - duck islands and moats indeed. This was when I realized for certain that Brown had lost direction and lost sight of what the people of the country wanted

I think there should have been hundreds of MPs slung out of the house and by-election held and dozens prosecuted.

was very [s]week[/s] weak and allowed a not quite so [s]week[/s] weak Cameron

tut tut TJ, very disappointing....

TJ, the Telegraph has for a long time not been the Torygraph. In fact, they're losing readers by the bucketload as a direct result of their oddly loving stance with regards to Labour.

Perhaps the key difference here is that while there were legal claims for moats and duck houses on one side, there are potential criminals on the other.

Ahead of the court appearance new details of the charges against the three MPs and a Tory peer were revealed.

Esselgruntfuttock

politicians are all the same, doesn't matter which party they are. Thieving lying scumbags.

too true. Last general election I put up a poster saying
[center]
NEVER TRUST A POLITICIAN
VOTE[/center]

Didn't get canvassed much 🙂

The moat and duckhouse claims were both disallowed - one before one after the fact.

My point is that it was an easy opportunity for political point scoring by mockery. "Ok some of our chaps over claimed accidently for photocopying but your rogues claimed for duck houses and moats and clock tower cleaning!"

That combined with decisive action to remove the worst of the scoundrels and to prevent further abuses could have put labour on the front foot - deservedly or not. Instead Browns first thought was to go after the person who leaked and to play down the severity of the scandal. this allowed Cameron to take the moral highground.

Just bad politics.

As for Torygraph - it is still very rightwing no matter what you say - and like many I use nicknames for the papers - Torygraph, Grauniad, Daily Wail, The Scum, The Hootsmon etc

backhander, you have completely missed the point.

Any alleged wrongdoing was solely carried by the individuals. There is no suggestion whatsoever, that the Labour Party itself was in anyway involved. Nor that any Labour Party officials were aware of the alleged dishonesty.

Furthermore, the Labour MPs are being prosecuted despite the fact that we have a Labour government. Indeed this Labour government is [i]determined[/i] that they should face prosecution and [i]not[/i] be allowed use to their parliamentary privileges.

All of which, suggests a distinct lack of political corruption.

.....well in that respect anyway.

Excuse me, I'm looking for the moral high ground - some of you seem to believe there's one around here somewhere but all I can see is shite on all sides

can anyone help ?

May get slated (nothing new there) on this one - but I think their 1689 Bill of Rights defence is perfectly valid, this is an issue for the parliamentary authorities rather than the courts, theres no good reason why they're not being prosecuted within the house and then fined, expelled &/or confined in the tower.

Equally, I still believe that we shouldn't be fined prior to conviction, and that we hold a right to bear arms, as per the same bill of rights...

Interesting...the legal defence for the Labour MPs is coming from Cherie's chambers, Matrix.

May get slated (nothing new there) on this one - but I think their 1689 Bill of Rights defence is perfectly valid

No great surprise there ratty ............ you've always struck me as someone who looks back on the Dark Ages with a certain fondness and nostalgia.

Ernie, I'm not swallowing that.
These individuals were allowed to represent labour in the elections. They are thieves and this demonstrates poor judgement.
When in work hours an "employee" represents his/her company.
I disagree with Z-11, stealing tax money is a criminal offence. All 4 should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law IMO, we would be.

These individuals were allowed to represent labour in the elections.

And ? So ? ..........they weren't convicted criminals at the time. And they're still not.

Although I'm fairly confident that they will never be allowed to represent the Labour Party again.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that they are receiving no support from the Labour Party/Government.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that they are receiving no support from the Labour Party/Government.

Apart from the legal support they received from Gerald Shamash, the official solicitor of the Labour Party.

Dark ages, No Ernie, not at all - far more of a fan of a military coup returning HRH to power and getting rid of this silly little experiment in "democracy" 🙂

mind you, I rather thought you'd be a fan of Cromwell, regicide, a puritanical nation, getting rid of things like Christmas and music... would be just like the Soviet Union, you'd love it!

Though I do think that his dissolution of the Rump parliament could be a rather good speech for today:

“...It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
“Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
“Ye sordid prostitutes, have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd; your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse the Augean Stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings, and which by God's help and the strength He has given me, I now come to do.
“I command ye, therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. You have sat here too long for the good you do. In the name of God, go!”

I'd be happy if they were suspended without pay (as an MP pending criminal investigation).
I'm feeling Z11 on the military coup, would give us some leaders of substance.

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Interesting...the legal defence for the Labour MPs is coming from Cherie's chambers, Matrix.

Dark ages, No Ernie, not at all - far more of a fan of a military coup returning HRH to power and getting rid of this silly little experiment in "democracy"

Ah I see, not the Dark Ages - just a return to an Absolute Monarch.

Somehow, I never quite saw you as a big fan of King Charles of England. Is it his commitment to organic food what done it ?

Flashheart - don't confuse the right to a fair trial and legal representation, with being backed by the Labour Party. Although I'm sure you'd like to.

My thoughts are that there is so little honesty, integrity and accountability that I for one am totally disinclined to give any of the major parties my vote. I reckon most folk would welcome a viable alternative or at least a major purge throughout the current parliament and government. So much waste and thievery going on, constant bad decision making and the words of common sense falling on their deaf ears. They will be held to account one day and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

Not confusing it at all, Ernie, just pointing out that they had received official party support, contrary to your earlier point.

No Ernie, not an absolute monarchy - now, if you want to get into the long constitutional history of monarchy in the UK I'm happy to oblige, however, to keep it simple...

The Magna Charta settles the relationship between the Crown (note, the Crown, not the monarch) and the people, if the monarch breaches the protections laid out within the charters, then they forego their position, and there are clear protections within the Charter to unseat the monarch at the hand of the Barons and protect the constitutional relationship between the crown and the people. The great Charters recorded and affirmed the common laws and powers existing since time immemorial that are part of the English birthright.

Charles as monarch was in clear breach of the constitutional powers allowed to his position, as such he should correctly have been unseated, this was not done in accordance with the constitutional rules as laid out in Magna Charta.

So, I'm not a fan of absolute monarchy, but a complete fan of constitutional monarchy as per the common law of England

they had received official party support

Support for what ? For the right to a fair trial ?

Or are you saying they are receiving official party support for what they are alleged to have done ?

You are clearly trying to throw all sorts of innuendos around Flash - in the desperate hope that some shit will stick onto the Labour Government.

What's up mate........not enough things which New Labour can be fairly criticised over ? Or are you just embarrassed by how bad the Tories are ?

I wonder if they will be claiming on their expenses for the legal fees?

No, Ernie. Not at all, just that they had received support from the Labour party, as I mentioned earlier. Merely pointing out that, contrary to your statement, they had received official support from the party machine.

Not sure what you're ranting about, to be honest.

Good to see we let the courts decide on their guilt.........singletrack says lynch em

Merely pointing out that, contrary to your statement, they had received official support from the party machine.

But your claim is false. They are not receiving "official support" from the Labour Party. In fact, the Labour Party has very clearly stated that they [i]must[/i] stand trial, despite their protestations that they should be protected by parliamentary privileges.

As I said, you are relying on the power of innuendos.

They are not receiving "official support" from the Labour Party.

If a tory MP was receiving legal advice from the Conservative parties official solicitor, I have a feeling you would not apply the same rules...

not enough things which New Labour can be fairly criticised over

OK, three of their senior members/employees are on conditional bail facing criminal charges. You really must be blinkered if you do not think this is not fair criticism of labour.
Labour cannot distance themselves from this, they support them or fire them but DO something you spineless ****s.

politicians are all the same, doesn't matter which party they are. Thieving lying scumbags.

With regards to expenses, they are actually quite an honest bunch. Compared to the electorate. A much larger proportion of public consider fiddling their own work expenses to be perfectly acceptable behavior. And if people don't fiddle their own expenses they're not very judgemental of people who do, and they certainly don't consider it 'theft'. Many people feel that if expenses are available then they are missing out if they don't claim everything thats on offer, whether they have a legitimate reason to or not.

I think there should have been hundreds of MPs slung out of the house and by-election held and dozens prosecuted.

I have a feeling you would not apply the same rules...

Why not ?

Here, another article from the Telegraph :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7415407/Expenses-fraud-MPs-to-challenge-courts-right-to-try-them.html ]'Expenses fraud' MPs to challenge court's right to try them[/url]

Note : "MPs to challenge court's right to try them". And this, quote : [i]Mr Shamash told The Daily Telegraph: “There is a substantive constitutional argument to be had"[/i]

So their lawyer is very clearly arguing [u]against[/u] the Labour Government's position.
And the Labour Government's position is that they [u]must[/u] stand trial.

I look forward to you pretending that you still don't understand.

.

[i]You really must be blinkered if you do not think this is not fair criticism of labour.[/i]

No, it is not a fair criticism of Labour. It is however (if they are found guilty) a fair criticism of the individuals concerned.

There are plenty of things that I can think of, which New Labour rightly deserves to be criticised for. This isn't one of them. And it all smacks of desperation by Tories on here, imo.

singletrack says lynch em

BTW, also in the Telegraph article which I linked :

[i]"The three MPs, who have been barred by the Labour Party from standing in the next general election..."[/i]

Doesn't sound much like they are receiving "official support" from the Labour Party to me.

So their lawyer is very clearly arguing against the Labour Government's position.
And the Labour Government's position is that they must stand trial.

The job of a solicitor, even one paid for and supplied by the Labour party, is to defend their client to the best of their ability, not to support official party policy. The fact that they do that, does not mean that they are not part of the party machine.

The labour ones got caught, the con-servatives due to having a private education didnt get caught,as yet.

The job of a solicitor, even one paid for and supplied by the Labour party

Paid for and supplied by the Labour Party ?

From the Daily Telegraph of the 9th Feb 2010 :

[i]"The Labour Party announced last night that it would no longer be using Mr Shamash amid controversy over his work representing the three MPs."[/i]

So these 3 MPs have all been, suspended by the Labour Party, been told that they barred from standing in the next general election, must stand trial, and their solicitor has been told that he will no longer be representing the Labour Party.

And all this suggests that they are being "officially supported" by the Labour Party.

Yeah, right...............you guys really are desperate 😕

The only thing I can possibly think of that's worse than another five years of a Labour government is the Tories getting in power.

Until such time as politicians live in fear of being slung in the poor house if they lie, cheat or do anything unethical, nothing will change.

They're not individuals, they are paid members of a political party!
they committed a crime when at work for the political party. Just because labour have and left them high and dry and ran away, it doesn't mean they hold no responsibility for their members actions.

they are paid members of a political party!

I think you'll find that they are not.

They are Members of Parliament. They are paid for being Members of Parliament. Whether they leave the party, get thrown out of the party, or join another party, makes no difference - they are still Members of Parliament. They do not get paid for being members of a political party.

OK scratch the "paid". The sentiment sticks, labour cannot just instantly disassociate themselves with their MPs. It's disgusting. typical "bottler" brown

well i think this shows labour in a very bad light

Just 3 out of 600 or whatever bloated number it is, the fact that they are all from 1 party implies that the party in question attracts those on the scam, either that or they were just too arrogant and/or stupid enough to get caught. Although as there are 350 lab to 200 con increases the chance its a statistical fluke (if someone wants to do a chi squared or somethin....)

but it does demonstrate that labours 'policing' of their own members was very poor

and as leader gordon must bear responsiblity for that
however the allegations that hes being spineless for supporting them or not(make up your minds) is bollox, they are being tried he is not protecting them. Its a proper trial, and as much as the media love to try and affect the outcome of legal trials gordo is, so far, staying out as he should

BUT its painfully obvious that most of the 600 have been fiddling the system im shocked after the constant drip feeding of revelations from the telegraph and the number of members retiring in disgrace or deselected that ony 3 are being charged
thats what stinks

Kimbers I don't quite agree. It seems that there is no question if they have stolen and for that alone they should be sacked. If labour have decided not going to be sack them at this moment, then they should be supported. Labour are effectively sitting on the fence waiting to see what the judge decides.
The outcome of the trial should be irrelevant to their careers.
Also the party is irrelevant, it's the fact that it's our tax money.
For perspective; A british army SNCO was recently found to have defrauded the JPA (military pay system), he received a 12 month custodial sentence and had to pay back the £520.

labour cannot just instantly disassociate themselves with their MPs.

Well actually they can. And they have. And so they should.

These are very serious allegations.

Already the Labour Party has decided that whether or not there was intentional dishonesty and deceit in the claims, the claims should not have been made - even if they were only made by mistake. Therefore the individuals will not be allow to stand again as Labour candidates.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Not much can be done whilst they are still MPs, but they can be stopped from ever standing again as party candidates. And it is a position which as I understand it, both the Labour Party and Conservative Party are applying to other MPs who have made totally unacceptable claims - even those who's claims might have been actually legal.

what do you honestly expect?

the british democracy is not a real democracy.. it is a con..
therefore MPs are inherantly corrupt.. yaawaaawwwn

Surely they are all innocent until they are proved guilty - so let's await the verdict before everyone starts mud slinging.

The comments on here are more enlightening about people's political sympathies than anything else.

At the end of the day many politicians, commons and lords, left and ring wing etc, had their hand in the till - please throw book.

Many more made claims that were ridiculous but legal - this dates back to MPs (in particular IIRC) being offered an expenses rise instead of a pay rise (around 25 years ago I seem to remember). Pretty poor thinking by the MPs not to realise that high pay would be less offensive than stupid expenses.

Finally there are quite a few politicians (again of all hues) who seem to be fairly blameless.

So no surprises there really.

While the stretching of the rules that many MP's did is one thing (and bad enough in itself) the allegations for these (and a couple more labour MP's who will also probably be facing prosecution) is a whole different ball game. Take the Jim Devine example (of most interest to me as he's the closest) - we're talking about someone who allegedly obtained and submitted invoices for services that were never provided and, in some cases, by companies that didn't even exist.

The labour ones got caught, the con-servatives due to having a private education didnt get caught,as yet.

pppfffttt. Really? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being ironic...

there's ample [b]deceipt[/b] here

Pretty poor thinking by the MPs not to realise that high pay would be less offensive than stupid expenses.

They thought we wouldn't find out though.