Should be 12 months jail for MP's that indulge in fraud.
I believe that anyone can make a complaint to the police regard the theft and fraudulent activities of the corrupt McShane, if its true then make the complaint and see him squirm.
The guy on the Press preview was saying that MacShane was a popular MP amongst other MPs and the press.........
But I always thought he was very smug...........and if you watched parliament live he'd often start on a train of speech because he had a witticism to impart but he was so long winded that the moment had passed before he got to it..............:rolleyes:
What strikes me about most of these cases is how petty it is..........they're talking about fiddling a couple of thousand pounds a year for a guy earning double or treble the average wage and with a legitimate expenses allowance bigger than his salary..........
I don't think it's greed really in the sense of averice for money.........I think it's more that the kind of people who put themselves forward to be MPs are almost by definition arrogant, egotistical.........people with a sense of entitlement, people who think the rules are for the little people. They have a self-image as a Master of the Universe..........and they're incredibly clever of course. Far too clever to be caught .........I think it's the 'getting away with it' or the 'getting one over on the plodding bureaucrats' that appeals more than the often small amounts of money. It's coming up with what they think are clever ruses that appeals to them...........
Did anyone see the Interveiw with the Tory MP on BBC News saying that the Labour Party Dithered on Suspending from the Party and the News Reader said to him that it took Andrew Mitchell a month to resign and it took Mcshane a day:D
That interviewer is a bit of a dick for comparing the two.
Parliamentary privileges is a lot of rollicks. I'm sick to the back teeth of these guys sitting behind the House Of Commons walls and think they are bullet proof from any criminal investigation. His political career is over and hope the police and HMRC look into this and bring criminal charges against him.
the evidence cannot be more damning - Mcshane should go to jail.
It has nothing to do with benefit fraud, any more than it has to do with tax evasion - but both are examples of fraud against the public purse.
As for his punishment, that is up to the courts to decide if it ever comes to that, but if we are to jail everybody who has made false declarations on their tax returns, or bogus benefit claims we would need a few hundred more prisons.....
Denis MacShane claimed ' I appreciate the committee's ruling that I made no personal gain and I regret my foolishness in the manner I chose to be reimbursed for work including working as the prime minister's personal envoy in Europe. '
which is not 100% true - sure he may not have made any personal gain because he had to pay the money back but if a person is caught making a false benefit claim and they pay the money back ' they still face imprisonment '
The committee also investigated MacShane's claims for computer equipment. six came from the House of Commons and he claimed for eight on his expenses. Some of the equipment had been given to interns.
split down of the Computer equipment he bought ' with our money '
11 March 2005: Notebook travel computer, £1,050
2 November 2005: Toshiba Tecra, £834.23
28 December 2005: Siemens portable computer, £554.96
11 February 2006: Packard computer, £563.97
5 December 2006: Sony portable computer, £1,276.59
22 June 2007: Toshiba T5300 laptop, £611.12
17 September 2007: Toshiba laptop, £578.99
31 December 2007: Toshiba laptop, £498.95
you would have thought someone would have spotted this at the time.
Its just plain fraud and he should end up in court and if I had my way I would give him a stiff sentence which may discourage others from doing the same.
Flipping homes and making extravagant expenses claims is unacceptable but it was not fraud.
Falsifying invoices is outright fraud.
Anyone equating the two fails to understand the difference between a criminal act and immoral behaviour.
So what?
The Civil Service accountants who authorise MPs various expenses claims have no obligation to allow every claim as long as it isn't fraudulent.
They are perfectly entitled to refuse any claim simply on the basis that they don't feel it's valid.
As I said, private companies all over the world seem to manage employee expense claims far more efficiently than the Civil Service seems to be able to.
I see George Galloway is spouting off that McShane should prosecuted for fraud and that politicians should set an example of good behaviour.
Oh, George. Pot, Kettle. Black.
I suppose he can spout off about expenses since he hasn't been caught fiddling his.
With regards the issue of whether communication between MacShane and the HOC is privileged so cannot be used in a trial, is this only so for fraud cases or does it extend to other crimes like, say, paedophilia?
Clerk of the Journals Liam Laurence Smyth, who is responsible for parliamentary privilege issues, admitted that many people would find the situation "surprising", but said privilege was necessary for Parliament to function effectively.
Even if Mr MacShane had openly admitted criminal behaviour in his evidence, the police would not be able to rely on the comments in court, he said.
However, he suggested the police might now be able to use the letters as a "map" to further their own enquiries.
Conservative MP Philip Davies, who urged the Met to reopen its investigation, said it was a "sad state of affairs" that Mr MacShane was protected by parliamentary privilege.
So the police need to do their own investigation but can't use anything McShane has said to the Standards Committee in court.
Seems many MPs are unhappy about this situation - on both sides of the house.
So what's wrong with the police doing their own investigation? Given that MacShane has already admitted thieving to Parliament, can he really fail to fully cooperate with a police investigation? If the CPS fail to charge him, it'll be a cop-out IMO and not much to do with Parliamentary privilege.
Police sources said officers would seek advice from the Crown Prosecution Service on whether the MP’s frank admissions of abuses, made in letters to the Parliamentary authorities, could be used in a prosecution.
Police sources said officers would seek advice from the Crown Prosecution Service on whether the MP’s frank admissions of abuses, made in letters to the Parliamentary authorities, could be used in a prosecution.
Police have consulted CPS over false invoices, probe has been reopened.
This doesn't necessarily mean charges will be brought.
What is never explained in the press, is why MacShane says he didn't "gain" from the bogus invoices. Does this mean all the money obtained via the invoices was for legitimate purposes? If so he's not in the Magaret Moran league and indeed may not be prosecuted after all.
Comments
I believe that anyone can make a complaint to the police regard the theft and fraudulent activities of the corrupt McShane, if its true then make the complaint and see him squirm.
If he was my MP i'd happily gob in his corrupt smug face.
But I always thought he was very smug...........and if you watched parliament live he'd often start on a train of speech because he had a witticism to impart but he was so long winded that the moment had passed before he got to it..............:rolleyes:
What strikes me about most of these cases is how petty it is..........they're talking about fiddling a couple of thousand pounds a year for a guy earning double or treble the average wage and with a legitimate expenses allowance bigger than his salary..........
I don't think it's greed really in the sense of averice for money.........I think it's more that the kind of people who put themselves forward to be MPs are almost by definition arrogant, egotistical.........people with a sense of entitlement, people who think the rules are for the little people. They have a self-image as a Master of the Universe..........and they're incredibly clever of course. Far too clever to be caught .........I think it's the 'getting away with it' or the 'getting one over on the plodding bureaucrats' that appeals more than the often small amounts of money. It's coming up with what they think are clever ruses that appeals to them...........
That interviewer is a bit of a dick for comparing the two.
both are fraudulent claims on the public purse.
the evidence cannot be more damning - Mcshane should go to jail.
Which was exactly the point I made. I did not compare the two I simply said that they should be treated in the same way, as fraud.
Wow, impressive :rolleyes::D
I'm not sure thats necessarily a recommendation. The Press need MPs that feed them stories and are good at self promotion.
Popularity amongst other MPs means nothing either if he isn't a good constituency MP. McShane seemed to be more interested in Europe than Rotherham.
I wouldn't mind betting that he'll end up with an EU related sinecure once he's done his time.
Well they do pay very, very, very good expenses at the EU. That's why the politicians like it so much.
It has nothing to do with benefit fraud, any more than it has to do with tax evasion - but both are examples of fraud against the public purse.
As for his punishment, that is up to the courts to decide if it ever comes to that, but if we are to jail everybody who has made false declarations on their tax returns, or bogus benefit claims we would need a few hundred more prisons.....
which is not 100% true - sure he may not have made any personal gain because he had to pay the money back but if a person is caught making a false benefit claim and they pay the money back ' they still face imprisonment '
The committee also investigated MacShane's claims for computer equipment. six came from the House of Commons and he claimed for eight on his expenses. Some of the equipment had been given to interns.
split down of the Computer equipment he bought ' with our money '
11 March 2005: Notebook travel computer, £1,050
2 November 2005: Toshiba Tecra, £834.23
28 December 2005: Siemens portable computer, £554.96
11 February 2006: Packard computer, £563.97
5 December 2006: Sony portable computer, £1,276.59
22 June 2007: Toshiba T5300 laptop, £611.12
17 September 2007: Toshiba laptop, £578.99
31 December 2007: Toshiba laptop, £498.95
you would have thought someone would have spotted this at the time.
Its just plain fraud and he should end up in court and if I had my way I would give him a stiff sentence which may discourage others from doing the same.
Oh, George. Pot, Kettle. Black.
So what?
The Civil Service accountants who authorise MPs various expenses claims have no obligation to allow every claim as long as it isn't fraudulent.
They are perfectly entitled to refuse any claim simply on the basis that they don't feel it's valid.
As I said, private companies all over the world seem to manage employee expense claims far more efficiently than the Civil Service seems to be able to.
I suppose he can spout off about expenses since he hasn't been caught fiddling his.
With regards the issue of whether communication between MacShane and the HOC is privileged so cannot be used in a trial, is this only so for fraud cases or does it extend to other crimes like, say, paedophilia?
Indeed, LostFool. Galloway has a few skellingtons in his closet including certain friendships that are no longer mentioned :eek:: http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article88649.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/image-19-for-jimmy-savile-life-in-pictures-gallery-800040870.jpg
http://news.sky.com/story/1006399/expenses-macshane-letters-protected-by-rules
Clerk of the Journals Liam Laurence Smyth, who is responsible for parliamentary privilege issues, admitted that many people would find the situation "surprising", but said privilege was necessary for Parliament to function effectively.
Even if Mr MacShane had openly admitted criminal behaviour in his evidence, the police would not be able to rely on the comments in court, he said.
However, he suggested the police might now be able to use the letters as a "map" to further their own enquiries.
Conservative MP Philip Davies, who urged the Met to reopen its investigation, said it was a "sad state of affairs" that Mr MacShane was protected by parliamentary privilege.
So the police need to do their own investigation but can't use anything McShane has said to the Standards Committee in court.
Seems many MPs are unhappy about this situation - on both sides of the house.
John Mann:-
https://twitter.com/JohnMannMP
PS
Seen the word ''trougher'' used a lot about MPs and their excessive claims. Accepted usage now?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9653224/MPs-expenses-Police-take-first-step-towards-charges-against-Denis-MacShane.html
Police sources said officers would seek advice from the Crown Prosecution Service on whether the MP’s frank admissions of abuses, made in letters to the Parliamentary authorities, could be used in a prosecution.
Police have consulted CPS over false invoices, probe has been reopened.
This doesn't necessarily mean charges will be brought.
What is never explained in the press, is why MacShane says he didn't "gain" from the bogus invoices. Does this mean all the money obtained via the invoices was for legitimate purposes? If so he's not in the Magaret Moran league and indeed may not be prosecuted after all.
This article comes closest to an explanation:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/2013/01/21/ex-mp-s-expenses-probe-reopened-91466-32646318/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23267241
No she has not the 'claim' she is referring to is clearly for expenses - not benefits which are irrelevant.
Oh, sorry, it was ANOTHER Labour MP.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25492017