Private Eye – Number Crunching

[Hymie]

Just to keep all you people on AB up to date on our honourable MPs, and some less than honourable members of the public (from the current issue of Private Eye).

£40,000 - Parliamentary expenses wrongly claimed by David Laws, who failed to declare he had been living with a partner since 2001, for which he was described by the Prime Minister as ‘a good and honorable man’.

£42,000 – Housing and other benefits wrongly clamed by Stoke-on-Trent shopworker who failed to declare she had married in 2003 – for which she has just been jailed for 18 months (some mistake surely).

[VHG]

I think the difference is that David Laws WAS entitled to expenses, and in fact if he had wanted to he could have bought a second home in London and claimed for that, which would have cost us MORE money.

But he chose to keep secret the fact he was living with a gay partner and was paying the "rent" to him (a "rent" boy?).

I assume the woman in Stoke was not entitled to ANY benefits (or maybe far less than she claimed) so her sentence was more severe.

However I do take your point, that there does seem to be one law for the rich another for the poor.

Peter Mandelsson is thrown out the government TWICE for wrongdoings but still manages to find himself a "Lord" (ha ha) with a senior job in the EU and British government (until recently).

Jeffrey Archer spends time in prison but it STILL a "Lord" which is a scandal.

[VHG]

Here is the article about the lady in Stoke

http://www.thisisstaf...2-detail/article.html

Note it says:

> The court was told Frost has a long history of offences of dishonesty dating back to the 1970s.

Which i guess was taken in to account when giving her a prison sentence.

This is also why it is difficult to make judgements on court cases until all the facts are known.

[olddutch]

Thanks Hymie

http://www.dailymail....newsxml#ixzz0s2VnIATo

http://www.theanswerb...s/Question900516.html

In David Laws case of misappropriating £40000 of tax payers money, after all thats gone on with MPs expenses abuses, his sacking and prosecution would not have been inappropriate (morally speaking) - particularly to set marker for new higher standards for MPs. Yes, it was ridiculous that instead of burying David Laws, Government Ministers chose to praise him and talked of bringing him back as soon as possible ! And yes to those who will cite legal niceties in David Laws defence, I accept under the MPs rules and traditions - both “as was” and “as is” - a fitting punishment of Laws (and those of his ilk) cant/wont happen.


Yes, there does seem to be one law for the rich another for the poor. Yes, double standards abound in favour of the rich and privileged - and I think history shows they always will.