Chelmsford Cancer Charity Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Maria Miller
Can anyone explain to me the logic behind Maria Miller's "punishment", and that of Denis McShane who lost his job, went to jail, was fined and had to pay back a much smaller sum than Miller filched from the taxpayer?
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Denis McShane was found guilty in court of fraud - he had knowingly and deliberately set out to defraud the taxpayer by submitting false invoices. This is a far bigger crime than Ms. Millers. Ms. Miller is guilty of gaming the system as it then was. Many of her colleagues, across the political divide ( 389 of them, to be precise) have been found guilty of exactly...
10:17 Wed 09th Apr 2014
yeah easy one
in one it was proved and in the other it wasnt.
if you want you can go down your local nick and allege MM was guilty of theft.... which is what another MP did with D McS wasnt it ?
One of things she seems to have done is flip her parents house
and this means saying Dunroamin - her other house - is not her primarily residence and then when she comes to sell D-R, telling the tax man it is her primary residence ( which in fact the tax rules allow her to do it just stinks to high heaven )
in one it was proved and in the other it wasnt.
if you want you can go down your local nick and allege MM was guilty of theft.... which is what another MP did with D McS wasnt it ?
One of things she seems to have done is flip her parents house
and this means saying Dunroamin - her other house - is not her primarily residence and then when she comes to sell D-R, telling the tax man it is her primary residence ( which in fact the tax rules allow her to do it just stinks to high heaven )
I think it was her completely insincere 'apology' that did for her in the end.
These politicians still don't get the public's perception of their expense claims.
Yesterday Nadine Dorries (sp?) said that when she first entered parliament she was told to claim for anything and everything and see what happened!! flipping incredible!!
I suppose that is what happens when the MPs set rules for MPs.
I think it is time for us all to open our windows wide and shout 'I have had enough'
These politicians still don't get the public's perception of their expense claims.
Yesterday Nadine Dorries (sp?) said that when she first entered parliament she was told to claim for anything and everything and see what happened!! flipping incredible!!
I suppose that is what happens when the MPs set rules for MPs.
I think it is time for us all to open our windows wide and shout 'I have had enough'
'Cross-party' sounds as if it means even-stevens, but it doesn't. The three lay members had no vote and the ten MP voters were divided 6 Coalition and 4 Labour. Given the Government's desperation to keep the very few female Cabinet members they have, it's easy to see how the pay-back of some £45,000 was reduced to about a tenth of that.
It stinks almost as much as the behaviour of Miller did.
It stinks almost as much as the behaviour of Miller did.
The Chairman of the committee (Labour's Kevin Barron) has stated that he supported the committte's view. It was also reported that the 3 lay members had no disagreement with the decision. I'd be interested to know the vote split if it's been published.
But I agree that decisions like this should be taken away from MPs
But I agree that decisions like this should be taken away from MPs
Denis McShane was found guilty in court of fraud - he had knowingly and deliberately set out to defraud the taxpayer by submitting false invoices. This is a far bigger crime than Ms. Millers.
Ms. Miller is guilty of gaming the system as it then was. Many of her colleagues, across the political divide ( 389 of them, to be precise) have been found guilty of exactly the same offence as Ms. Miller, to a greater or lesser degree.
Many commentators have pointed out, quite rightly, that had such "misunderstandings and mistakes" been found in someones company expenses clam, they very likely would be facing gross misconduct and summary dismissal charges.
I would strongly support the introduction of a "right of recall" law, proposed by people like Zac Goldsmith MP and Guido Fawkes, the political commentator. And to make the assessment of expenses and repayment schedules entirely independent of MPs.
Ms. Miller is guilty of gaming the system as it then was. Many of her colleagues, across the political divide ( 389 of them, to be precise) have been found guilty of exactly the same offence as Ms. Miller, to a greater or lesser degree.
Many commentators have pointed out, quite rightly, that had such "misunderstandings and mistakes" been found in someones company expenses clam, they very likely would be facing gross misconduct and summary dismissal charges.
I would strongly support the introduction of a "right of recall" law, proposed by people like Zac Goldsmith MP and Guido Fawkes, the political commentator. And to make the assessment of expenses and repayment schedules entirely independent of MPs.
If any members of the committee were significantly at variance with the findings of the committee, they are perfectly at liberty to produce their own "minority report". It is a well established precedent. The fact that one has not been produced suggests that all the members of the committee, MP and lay members alike, were broadly in agreement with the committees findings.
I do not see this as a party political issue. The expenses scandal is a cross party problem. It is an issue of the political class and how they are regulated.
I do not see this as a party political issue. The expenses scandal is a cross party problem. It is an issue of the political class and how they are regulated.
1 to 11 of 11
