MPs expenses court appearance.

[Infidel]

...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.

Erm like taxation or are they exempt?

 

[skitzee2k]

Infidel, when did you carry out your investigation? Or like everyone else did you let the papers do that for you and tell you what to think?

I, like you, do not KNOW what is going on, but to ignore laws and rules in order to try and race towards a judgement that is more based on what the media would like to report rather than what i would say is actual fact is not the right move.

As I said, we don't know yet, let justice...true, not mob, take place.

 

[dextrous]

As I said, we don't know yet, let justice...true, not mob, take place.

Quite right. All that we do know is that after investigation by the police, the CPS has decided that there is a case for them to answer. Also, since they are accused of stealing from the public purse, they should be tried in a public court. This is, after all, in accordance with the laws of the land that they have themselves contributed to by the nature of their jobs.

 

[skitzee2k]

...this is my point dextrous. In my opinion and i'm sure the opinion of many, parliamentary privilege stats that they should not be in a public court. These accused 'crimes' took place in the offices of westminster...meaning they are exempt from PUBLIC court.

I feel this is being overlooked for political means and that is sickening.

 

[dextrous]

...this is my point dextrous. In my opinion and i'm sure the opinion of many, parliamentary privilege stats that they should not be in a public court. These accused 'crimes' took place in the offices of westminster...meaning they are exempt from PUBLIC court.

I feel this is being overlooked for political means and that is sickening.

Not so sure to be honest. There is a difference between breaking parliamentary rules and breaking the law of the land. It would appear that, unlike others who made "inappopriate" (or at least unwise) expense claims, the current incumbents have been charged with more serious crimes involving intent to defraud. These crimes are beyond those protected by parliamentary privileges, or at least this seems to be the reason for a public prosecution to be pursued.

I'm yet to be convinced that there's anything more sinister going on, and given your previous posts on the matter skitz, I can't help feel that this should be your position too if you are to be consistent.

 

[skitzee2k]

I'm not quite sure what you mean dextrous, but if the law states that these charges SHOULD be dealt with in court, i would happily agree....I don't think they do though,...that is the thing, which I see as the government pandering to the public and breaking the rules in the process.

 

[dextrous]

I'm not quite sure what you mean dextrous, but if the law states that these charges SHOULD be dealt with in court, i would happily agree....I don't think they do though,...that is the thing, which I see as the government pandering to the public and breaking the rules in the process.

My last paragraph on the previous post was alluding to you wanting the full facts to become clear without prejudice (media driven or otherwise). Thus, you suggesting that there may be other "political" forces at work within these accusations seemed to contradict this. Maybe I've read you wrong on this though?

Also, to my knowledge, the government hasn't brought any charges or accusations against anyone, nor applied any pressure on the police nor CPS to act one way or another. So I struggle to see how they (or parliament itself, which is full of lawyers who are well versed with such matters) is "pandering" to anything or anyone.

 

[skitzee2k]

I'm not quite sure what you mean dextrous, but if the law states that these charges SHOULD be dealt with in court, i would happily agree....I don't think they do though,...that is the thing, which I see as the government pandering to the public and breaking the rules in the process.

My last paragraph on the previous post was alluding to you wanting the full facts to become clear without prejudice (media driven or otherwise). Thus, you suggesting that there may be other "political" forces at work within these accusations seemed to contradict this. Maybe I've read you wrong on this though?

Also, to my knowledge, the government hasn't brought any charges or accusations against anyone, nor applied any pressure on the police nor CPS to act one way or another. So I struggle to see how they (or parliament itself, which is full of lawyers who are well versed with such matters) is "pandering" to anything or anyone.

Like in the same way that Damian Green's office was invaded unlawfully by police, the speaker should have stood up for these MPs. The speaker was criticised for not intervening over Mr Green by other MPS...but no-one dare say anything now other it may upset the voters... That to me is political.

However, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[dextrous]

Like in the same way that Damian Green's office was invaded unlawfully by police, the speaker should have stood up for these MPs. The speaker was criticised for not intervening over Mr Green by other MPS...but no-one dare say anything now other it may upset the voters... That to me is political.

Didn't think it was unlawful, since if memory serves me correctly, they had a warrant. The police should have gone via the speaker as a matter of courtesy, and at the time Martin didn't protest too much, if at all.

I really do think that the current prosecutions are based on breaking common law, beyond the confines of parliament, and not institutional rules. A bit like perjury cases in the living past (Archer, and also that other case whose name elludes me).

 

[skitzee2k]

Like in the same way that Damian Green's office was invaded unlawfully by police, the speaker should have stood up for these MPs. The speaker was criticised for not intervening over Mr Green by other MPS...but no-one dare say anything now other it may upset the voters... That to me is political.

Didn't think it was unlawful, since if memory serves me correctly, they had a warrant. The police should have gone via the speaker as a matter of courtesy, and at the time Martin didn't protest too much, if at all.

I really do think that the current prosecutions are based on breaking common law, beyond the confines of parliament, and not institutional rules. A bit like perjury cases in the living past (Archer, and also that other case whose name elludes me).

This is it though, the Green case was a breaking of the rules. They officially DIDN'T have a warrant. He is my MP so i kept up to date. They were meant to ask permission instead...but didn't do that either.

 

[dextrous]

This is it though, the Green case was a breaking of the rules. They officially DIDN'T have a warrant. He is my MP so i kept up to date. They were meant to ask permission instead...but didn't do that either.

In which case, I stand corrected.

As for the current case, we are only going to carry on repeating ourselves and rephrasing the same points. So, it's time for us to agree to differ on this one, if you don't mind (even though you know I'm right )

 

[skitzee2k]

Lol. well only time will tell, if they are guilty I hope they trash the b&&&&ds...just hope they do it in the correct way.

Nice to have a reasonable debate without swear words flying around all over the place to be honest.

Ps I'm right p***k!

 

[dextrous]

Ps I'm right p***k!

Isn't this sentence missing an "a" in the middle of it?

 

[skitzee2k]

Ps I'm right p***k!

Isn't this sentence missing an "a" in the middle of it?

 

[lifesagasman]

stop talking b*ll*x, schizo