The four politicians facing fraud charges over their expenses today failed in their bid to avoid prosecution by using ancient Parliamentary privilege laws. Three former Labour MPs and a Tory peer will now face trial in a public court as any member of the public would. The Lord Chief Justice rejected their appeal against an …
all deny any wrongdoing ?
what happened with the "if you don't have to hide something you don't have to fear anything ?"
But that doesnt apply to *politicians*, only you small pointless people!
So if they are innocent, why are they so keen to avoid a trial !!
"All deny any wrongdoing" they say, in which case they have nothing to fear from a trial, all over and done with swiftly and no problems then?
Trying to wriggle out on a centuries old law that was never intended to cover fiddling one's expenses seems to suggest they have lots to hide.
So just a house of lords appeal, then an appeal to the European court (for infringing their human rights, by treating them as a regular person, obviously) to go. And perhaps another chain of appeals, the subject of which will no doubt be that because they received so much press attention from their first chain of appeals, they're unlikely to get a fair trial. And perhaps a judicial review or two. And then they can actually be tried for the common criminals they (allegedly) are!
Maybe I'm missing something here.
Surely if they deny all wrongdoing, they will want to face their accusers in court in order to clear their name?
Or is that a bit too close to "nothing to hide, nothing to fear"?
Ach, let's nail them as proxy sacrifices for all the shite we've had to put up with from our Lords & Masters down the years. Justice be buggered :-)
So rare they're virtually endangered
Members of the establishment actually appearing in a courtroom on the wrong end of a prosecution. They could do an encore and prosecute/discipline the coppers that get too much pleasure out of the Section XX stuff at the expense of the public.
and rotten tomatoes in Parliament Square. Cheaper than 2 weeks porridge. Check them for allergies first, of course.
Put it on ITV in HD and we'll avoid the double dip Clegeron are aiming for.
They know what's best for you and what's best for you is to do as they say, not as they do. Because what they want to do is take your money until it's all gone. So that they can spend it keeping their useless inbred family members on the public payroll. Having wasted their human potential doing sweet F-A they will make ceaseless claims to being smarter and more resourceful than the average prole even as they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are deficient not only in common sense, but also in the cognitive faculties necessary to display even a semblance of human decency or emotion. Having spent a lifetime conning ignorant and vulnerable people in to voting them into power, they are jaded and spiteful towards the public to an extent that prevents them from maintaining even the thinnest pretense towards being public servants. And they smell.
Ban the lot
Time for direct democracy (with optional proxying)? Having half the decision-making power in the hands of those of not more than average intelligence doesn't sound brilliant, but it would still be an improvement over professional politicians.
is that another name for the guillotine?
Brave of 'el Reg to leave comments enabled on an ongoing legal case, especially given the strength of feeling towards these, ahem, alledged, crooks...
No point sending them to prison..
..they will only claim for it as a second home allowance!
Under due process they are all *Alleged* unless found guilty
Please remember that.
Do *I* think they're innocent? What I think is my opinion. It's the jury's decision as to weather or not they *are*.
All joking aside this situation arose in the UK because MP did not have the *guts* to openly say "We believe we are worth more and here is the evidence to *prove* it."
Or how about an independent pay revue body (BTW when a BBC political programme had a group of the general public look at this,who were *very* hostile to the idea of am MP's pay rise they came round to scrapping expenses but *doubling* MP's pay).
Instead they decided to avoid that and just quietly (with *no* open debate) begin to raise the limits and forget any proof required.
They *made* this rod for their own backs.
It should be applied vigorously.
Proceed at flank speed to the court case.
There are many...
...other dormant laws of that period which might be applied. Why should they get to pick and choose?
Off with their heads!