ChatterBank0 min ago
But its all the fault of the BNP ...
6 Answers
Despite
The Standards and Privileges Committee Chairman Kevin Barron saying it was "the gravest case" his committee had considered in its role as Parliament's sleaze watchdog.
Despite
Labour declared Mr MacShane's career as a Labour MP to be "effectively over".
He still thinks it is because of the BNP, nothign to do with the fact he was hiding the way he was caliming his European travel
And on top of that
"He also faced questions over bills for a constituency office which was in the garage of his South Yorkshire home."
I suppose the BNP made him claim that too?
http://
The Standards and Privileges Committee Chairman Kevin Barron saying it was "the gravest case" his committee had considered in its role as Parliament's sleaze watchdog.
Despite
Labour declared Mr MacShane's career as a Labour MP to be "effectively over".
He still thinks it is because of the BNP, nothign to do with the fact he was hiding the way he was caliming his European travel
And on top of that
"He also faced questions over bills for a constituency office which was in the garage of his South Yorkshire home."
I suppose the BNP made him claim that too?
http://
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Blaming the BNP is clearly his attempt to deflect the charges, but it will not work.I bhave no time for the BNP whatsoever - I believe their membership and constitution are repugnant - but they are not to blame for Mr. McShanes actions in defrauding the system.
He was the one who spent a lot of his time swanning around europe, submitting expenses for "translation and research" from the European Policy Institute - a body and bank account that was controlled by him. He knew fine well that only a limited number of foreign travel visits were allowable on expenses, and chose to circumvent that system deliberately.Submitting false invoices to claim money from the public purse is clearly an offence.
He is elected principally to serve the interests of his constituents, who I am sure would be shocked at the amount of time he spent travelling around europe.
He is also the one who submitted claims for 8 or more computers, many of which seemingly left and had to be replaced when various interns left his employ.
Does not matter which side of the political fence you are on - such actions should not be condoned and he has rightly been punished. He has had the whip withdrawn and I believe has been expelled from the Labour Party, and is expected to resign his seat to force a bye-election.
He should consider himself very lucky that the Police and CPS felt there was insufficient evidence to persue a criminal allegation.
He was the one who spent a lot of his time swanning around europe, submitting expenses for "translation and research" from the European Policy Institute - a body and bank account that was controlled by him. He knew fine well that only a limited number of foreign travel visits were allowable on expenses, and chose to circumvent that system deliberately.Submitting false invoices to claim money from the public purse is clearly an offence.
He is elected principally to serve the interests of his constituents, who I am sure would be shocked at the amount of time he spent travelling around europe.
He is also the one who submitted claims for 8 or more computers, many of which seemingly left and had to be replaced when various interns left his employ.
Does not matter which side of the political fence you are on - such actions should not be condoned and he has rightly been punished. He has had the whip withdrawn and I believe has been expelled from the Labour Party, and is expected to resign his seat to force a bye-election.
He should consider himself very lucky that the Police and CPS felt there was insufficient evidence to persue a criminal allegation.
>>>and he has rightly been punished.
I dont consdier he has been punished.
What he did was blatant fraud and all that has happened is that he has been suspended from the Labour party (ok his career is over).
He had aleady been suspended before (for expenses misuse) and was alloed back i nthe labour party.
Why one earth he was given access to so much money without any controls is beyond me.
He deserves to go to prison.
I dont consdier he has been punished.
What he did was blatant fraud and all that has happened is that he has been suspended from the Labour party (ok his career is over).
He had aleady been suspended before (for expenses misuse) and was alloed back i nthe labour party.
Why one earth he was given access to so much money without any controls is beyond me.
He deserves to go to prison.
According to this article, he has been expelled from the Labour Party.
http://
He has been punished by virtue of losing his job. He has been investigated by the police and the CPS. It is down to them whether he should have been prosecuted or not. One can only conclude that the CPS/Plice felt there was insufficient evidence to be confident of obtaining a conviction.
It is the committee, not the Labour Party, who recommended a 12 month suspension - they felt that was a sufficient penalty. You might not agree. Neither do I, as it happens, but from a practical point of view it looks like hte constituency will have a by-election soon.
The amount is question, especially when viewed against other expenses fraud, is actually fairly trivial - £12,000 or so, which he has had to repay. More serious was the evidence of a systematic intent to defraud in order to avoid public scrutiny of his european travels.
I agree that, given the scale of the original claims of expenses fiddling that he should have been punished more vigorously then. In fact, based upon what I have read, I am unsure as to why he was not prosecuted at that point.
http://
He has been punished by virtue of losing his job. He has been investigated by the police and the CPS. It is down to them whether he should have been prosecuted or not. One can only conclude that the CPS/Plice felt there was insufficient evidence to be confident of obtaining a conviction.
It is the committee, not the Labour Party, who recommended a 12 month suspension - they felt that was a sufficient penalty. You might not agree. Neither do I, as it happens, but from a practical point of view it looks like hte constituency will have a by-election soon.
The amount is question, especially when viewed against other expenses fraud, is actually fairly trivial - £12,000 or so, which he has had to repay. More serious was the evidence of a systematic intent to defraud in order to avoid public scrutiny of his european travels.
I agree that, given the scale of the original claims of expenses fiddling that he should have been punished more vigorously then. In fact, based upon what I have read, I am unsure as to why he was not prosecuted at that point.
nothing to do with the BNP; he should remind himself of the virtue of taking responsibility for your own actions.
As to whether he should be prosecuted, that's not the Labour Party's business; nor do they have a jail to put misbehaving MPs into. The country does have a CPS and a jail, however, so further inquiries should be redirected there.
As to whether he should be prosecuted, that's not the Labour Party's business; nor do they have a jail to put misbehaving MPs into. The country does have a CPS and a jail, however, so further inquiries should be redirected there.
1 to 6 of 6
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.