ChatterBank1 min ago
Nick Griffin Bankrupt Mep?
24 Answers
Nick Griffin has been declared a bankrupt but still plans to stand as an MEP.
A 1986 act stops bankrupts from standing as an MP but not an MEP.
Each member state has its own rules on who can and who can't stand so this is up to the UK not the EU
Should we change this to bring it into line ?
Or now that he's declared his intention would changing the law now be seen as an undemocratic act of retrospective legislation targeted at an individual?
A 1986 act stops bankrupts from standing as an MP but not an MEP.
Each member state has its own rules on who can and who can't stand so this is up to the UK not the EU
Should we change this to bring it into line ?
Or now that he's declared his intention would changing the law now be seen as an undemocratic act of retrospective legislation targeted at an individual?
Answers
I don't think we should change the law just because one undesirable may benefit from the status quo.
12:23 Fri 03rd Jan 2014
Standard 2010:
// The British National Party chief, who was elected last year as Euro MP for the North West of England, has submitted claims for more than £200,000 for his work in Brussels.
The costs, which come on top of his £82,000 MEP salary, include some £18,000 in "consultancy fees" and £10,000 in "agent fees".
The BNP leader won his party's first seats in Strasbourg after attacking MPs for having their "snouts in the trough".
After being accused of failing to be more open about his expenses, he has now published a version of his claims on his personal website.
Mr Griffin claimed £175,000 in "staff costs" for eight employees with titles ranging from "European researcher" to "campaigns co-ordinator". A further £31,000 was for "office management costs", including an office in his home. His "office costs" included £2,800 on "furnishings" and over £4,000 on "repair, maintenance and security". Mr Griffin made a pre-election pledge to be transparent about his expenses. But he is yet to reveal how much he has claimed of his £270-a-day MEP's subsistence allowance, worth £40,000 tax-free every year, or how much he has claimed for travel.
Fellow BNP MEP Andrew Brons has not published any details of his expenses. He and Mr Griffin are jointly entitled to expenses of up to £530,000 a year. As well as staff allowances, both receive a "general expenditure allowance" worth more than £44,000 annually. //
// The British National Party chief, who was elected last year as Euro MP for the North West of England, has submitted claims for more than £200,000 for his work in Brussels.
The costs, which come on top of his £82,000 MEP salary, include some £18,000 in "consultancy fees" and £10,000 in "agent fees".
The BNP leader won his party's first seats in Strasbourg after attacking MPs for having their "snouts in the trough".
After being accused of failing to be more open about his expenses, he has now published a version of his claims on his personal website.
Mr Griffin claimed £175,000 in "staff costs" for eight employees with titles ranging from "European researcher" to "campaigns co-ordinator". A further £31,000 was for "office management costs", including an office in his home. His "office costs" included £2,800 on "furnishings" and over £4,000 on "repair, maintenance and security". Mr Griffin made a pre-election pledge to be transparent about his expenses. But he is yet to reveal how much he has claimed of his £270-a-day MEP's subsistence allowance, worth £40,000 tax-free every year, or how much he has claimed for travel.
Fellow BNP MEP Andrew Brons has not published any details of his expenses. He and Mr Griffin are jointly entitled to expenses of up to £530,000 a year. As well as staff allowances, both receive a "general expenditure allowance" worth more than £44,000 annually. //
-- answer removed --
Is it me, or is this a bit cryptic
// “He was in Welshpool magistrates,” the spokesman said. “He tried to have a settlement with the firm of solicitors who were after him. They simply refused…they weren’t having anything other than bankruptcy. //
Is there another story here? This possibly
// Monday, 7 November 2011
I've just heard that a court in London has just found against Nick Griffin and the BNP. We believe that he now has to find another £90,000 to pay off the 'Decembrists' - a group of former members and party employees who challenged his leadership and were subsequently sacked and expelled. They were sacked in February 2008 and the case came to court in December 2010.
This could turn out to be a very expensive day for Nick Griffin. The party is also appearing in a Bristol court for the latest saga in the on-going Employment Tribunal hearing relating to Michaela MacKenzie, another former party employee who was sacked after falling out with the party leadership. She successfully won an Employment Tribunal in June 2010 but Griffin has refused to pay the £25,000 she is believed to have been awarded in the settlement. //
// “He was in Welshpool magistrates,” the spokesman said. “He tried to have a settlement with the firm of solicitors who were after him. They simply refused…they weren’t having anything other than bankruptcy. //
Is there another story here? This possibly
// Monday, 7 November 2011
I've just heard that a court in London has just found against Nick Griffin and the BNP. We believe that he now has to find another £90,000 to pay off the 'Decembrists' - a group of former members and party employees who challenged his leadership and were subsequently sacked and expelled. They were sacked in February 2008 and the case came to court in December 2010.
This could turn out to be a very expensive day for Nick Griffin. The party is also appearing in a Bristol court for the latest saga in the on-going Employment Tribunal hearing relating to Michaela MacKenzie, another former party employee who was sacked after falling out with the party leadership. She successfully won an Employment Tribunal in June 2010 but Griffin has refused to pay the £25,000 she is believed to have been awarded in the settlement. //
Apart from the fact that an undischarged bankrupt - and one whose bankruptcy seems a bit dubious to say the least - would probably fit hand in glove with the corrupt organisation that is the EU, the EU should get its act together. To allow individual members to decide the eligibility rules for MEPs is rather like individual counties in the UK deciding the rules on who can stand for the Westminster Parliament. It somewhat laughable that individual nation states can decide that for themselves but they cannot decide how to deal with their wetlands because wildlife protection is subject to EU diktat.
It would make a super Yes Minister plot wouldn't it.........
MP the big parties hate falls foul of employment law
MP is sued by former employees
scene of 'senior official' meeting with the law firm representing the employees and 'suggesting' that they accept nothing but a 'bankrupt' verdict.
fact or fiction? Mmm.
MP the big parties hate falls foul of employment law
MP is sued by former employees
scene of 'senior official' meeting with the law firm representing the employees and 'suggesting' that they accept nothing but a 'bankrupt' verdict.
fact or fiction? Mmm.
//the EU should get its act together. To allow individual members to decide the eligibility rules for MEPs is rather like individual counties in the UK deciding the rules on who can stand for the Westminster Parliament//
Was that NJ just asking for more power to be given to the EU!!??!!!
Of course the difference is that despite protestations to the contrary MEPs come from Soverign nation states empowered to make decisions on eligibility of those to represent them.
Parliamentary constituancies are not such nation states (No not even Yorkshire) and so I'd say it's completely right that that power remains at a national rather than supranational level.
But well done to Tora for being pretty much the only one to address the actual question about whether the law should be changed!
Was that NJ just asking for more power to be given to the EU!!??!!!
Of course the difference is that despite protestations to the contrary MEPs come from Soverign nation states empowered to make decisions on eligibility of those to represent them.
Parliamentary constituancies are not such nation states (No not even Yorkshire) and so I'd say it's completely right that that power remains at a national rather than supranational level.
But well done to Tora for being pretty much the only one to address the actual question about whether the law should be changed!
An MP is the peoples representative for a particular constituency in the UK Parliament. An MEP is the peoples representative for a particular constituency in the European Parliament.
If we have one rule for one, should the same rule not apply to the other? So either bankrupts should be able to stand as MPs or MEPs, or neither, it seems to me.
And I do not see how changing the law now would be undemocratic. It is Nick Griffins own circumstances that have highlighted this inconsistency, and when such inconsistencies are highlighted, legislation should follow, as time allows.
If we have one rule for one, should the same rule not apply to the other? So either bankrupts should be able to stand as MPs or MEPs, or neither, it seems to me.
And I do not see how changing the law now would be undemocratic. It is Nick Griffins own circumstances that have highlighted this inconsistency, and when such inconsistencies are highlighted, legislation should follow, as time allows.
//And I do not see how changing the law now would be undemocratic.//
OK maybe not undemocratic but there is a general principle that laws should not be retrospective - very few have been and the war crimes bill being a notable and sorry example. That was passed basically to make something someone did in the past illegal and to allow him to be prosecuted. No other person has been prosecuted under it.
If the law was changed now it would allow Nick Griffin to play the martyr, to claim that the law had been specifically changed to target him - he might even be right, would a less high profile case have drawn sufficient attention?
I agree there should be parity - it's just a shame nobody thought or cared about it enough before Griffin opened his mouth.
I have to grudingly admit that politically it's quite a clever move
OK maybe not undemocratic but there is a general principle that laws should not be retrospective - very few have been and the war crimes bill being a notable and sorry example. That was passed basically to make something someone did in the past illegal and to allow him to be prosecuted. No other person has been prosecuted under it.
If the law was changed now it would allow Nick Griffin to play the martyr, to claim that the law had been specifically changed to target him - he might even be right, would a less high profile case have drawn sufficient attention?
I agree there should be parity - it's just a shame nobody thought or cared about it enough before Griffin opened his mouth.
I have to grudingly admit that politically it's quite a clever move
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.