MPs expenses court appearance.

[mrgas]

Any lawyers out there?
Why did the 3 MPs accused of cheating their expences all appear in the dock at the same time?
They are not jointly charged and acted as individuals arent they?
Doesnt make sense to me!
Any ideas?

 

[joe-90]

It was probably just a preliminary hearing where they establish who is who and what they are charged with. We all know they'll get off anyway so why waste money on separate appearances?

 

[mrgas]

ANd why did the Lord appear on his own at a different time?

 

[joe-90]

Different house I guess.

 

[dextrous]

It was probably just a preliminary hearing where they establish who is who and what they are charged with. We all know they'll get off anyway so why waste money on separate appearances?

I've heard of a "class" action which involves several (sometimes thousands) people making a legal claim against a company. Seems a bit strange to have a prosecution against a "class" of alleged crooks.

Maybe it's the way forward - get a few hundred murderers, for example, in a dock altogether (figuratively of course ) and sort out the whole lot in one fell swoop. Save an absolute fortune in court time

 

[joe-90]

one fowl swoop.

Fowl can't fly - it's 'foul'.

 

[Stivino]

[quote="dextrous";

one fowl swoop.

Fowl can't fly - it's 'foul'. [/quote]

It's One FELL swoop!

 

[joe-90]

Oh of course it is. Didn't think it looked right.

 

[dextrous]

oopsy daisy. Thought it looked wrong when I originally posted it

 

[toptec]

mrgas.

Purely designed to save court time. Although they were summoned as individuals, they are similar offences committed in a similar way with a common victim, (The State). Their briefs can ask for a separate hearing but at this stage it is all procedural until they are committed to the Crown Court.... as they will be.

As far as the Lord is concerned, I think there is old Criminal Justice rules that prevent a Lord appearing with Commoners when they are not jointly charged. That would be my guess.

I find it interesting that they claim they have done nothing wrong but will all be trying to claim Parliamentary priviledge..... for something they haven't done???? F>F>S

 

[skitzee2k]

I'm with them 110%. They should not be tried in a court for something committed in Parliament buildings.
Might as well rip up the Magna Carta as well if we are just going to ignore established law and order for populist support.

If they HAVE done something wrong they should be investigated by the parliament themselves. Their PEERS.

 

[Infidel]

Might as well rip up the Magna Carta as well if we are just going to ignore established law and order for populist support.

Most of which does not apply now,even habeas corpus has been sidelined.

If they HAVE done something wrong they should be investigated by the parliament themselves. Their PEERS.

An Mp has no right whatsoever to usurp common law, I believe they are being prosecuted for fraud hence the magistrate hearing.

If you need clarification, if they where found ****ed out of their minds driving around Westminster and pulled by the old bill and found over the limit where would they be tried, buy their peers?.

 

[skitzee2k]

..if they were inside the parliment building when doing it, though I acknowledge that is unlikely , yes. I'd expect them to go before their peers.

Bit by bit they take away the safeguards to keeping us free and it is called 'progress'.

Just like the suspension/sidelining depending on your view of habeas corpus.

 

[Infidel]

Bit by bit they take away the safeguards to keeping us free and it is called 'progress'.

If your referring to Mp's I concur. However it did seem from your post that you are defending their scurrilous position with regards to their expenses claims.

 

[skitzee2k]

...Well, i don't know if they did it. I am guessing that is why they want an investigation of some form...if they have done something against the rules then they should be punished, but I am not in favour of judging them guilty because they did something which was ok by the rules when they did it just because it has become popular to do it.

...and i am certainly not in favour of changing law and process to appease the public who have been whipped up into anger by the media.