- This topic has 41 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by ernie_lynch.
-
Expenses MPs to get legal aid
-
TalkemadaFree Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8616261.stm
Good to see that the Legal Aid system is helping those who can't afford to pay for their own defence… 🙄
trailmonkeyFull Memberthems the rules. what's your point ? other than knee jerk dail mailism
brFree MemberNothing to do with afford, all to do with the right to a legal defence if you may go down – and its not like MP's are on big money, or in fact automatically rich.
TalkemadaFree MemberNo, I fully appreciate they have the 'right' to Legal Aid, I'm merely questioning the ethics involved, of individuals who are already clearly wealthy and who have already (allegedly) scammed the System, getting the Taxpayers to foot their bills. It's just not right, let's be fair. Fortunately this is all about to change, thankfully.
CaptainFlashheartFree MemberI rather agree, Talkemada. But, the key thing here is the image of it all. They should have made a public face of refusing legal aid, as to accept it so openly is to merely drag the already tarnished reputation of politics yet further in to the mire. Not good.
ShibbolethFree MemberHmmm… 6 figure legal bill? Or apply for legal aid…
6 figures buys an awful lot of moral high ground.
TalkemadaFree MemberNot a great deal of respect from the people that you've (allegedly) already scammed, though..
nickcFull MemberUsing money from the public purse to defend yourself over accusations that you helped yourself to rather too much of the same public purse..It has a certain circular precision to it…
ernie_lynchFree MemberShadow schools secretary Michael Gove said the news was a "slap in the face for every decent taxpayer in this country".
How is it a "slap in the face for every decent taxpayer in this country" ?
I'm guessing that shadow schools secretary Michael Gove has already decided that they are guilty,
before the trial has even started.So why even bother with a trial ?
All that money wasted on a pointless trial when they are clearly guilty, sounds like a slap in the face for every decent taxpayer in this country.
JulianAFree Memberb r – Member
Nothing to do with afford, all to do with the right to a legal defence if you may go down – and its not like MP's are on big money, or in fact automatically rich.CaptainFlashheart – Member
I rather agree, Talkemada. But, the key thing here is the image of it all. They should have made a public face of refusing legal aid, as to accept it so openly is to merely drag the already tarnished reputation of politics yet further in to the mire. Not good.Gonna have to slightly disagree with you here, CFH, much against my better judgement.
There used to be a presumption of innocence… and it should be applied regardless of position.
cynic-alFree MemberThey may have to pay it back if convicted.
Who'd have thought the Tories would have jumped all over it?
CaptainFlashheartFree MemberJulian, I agree that there is the tenet of "innocent until proven guilty", but the key here is the whole image of the thing. By taking the public penny in legal aid, they have, in my opinion, dragged an already unpopular political class further down in the public estimation. This is beside the whole issue of presumption of innocence, IMO.
StuMcGrooFree Membermight as well give my two penneth. as much as i sympathise with captainflashheart and talkemada the bottom line is that any defendant in a criminal case is entitled to legal aid, you can't go changing the rules just because there's been a lot of media attention/public opinion.
deadlydarcyFree MemberPresumption of innocence is a far more sacred tenet than any other being discussed.
Far dodgier characters have claimed legal aid I'm sure (when they were innocent). 😯
brFree MemberBy taking the public penny in legal aid, they have, in my opinion, dragged an already unpopular political class further down in the public estimation.
Hmm, I know lets make myself bankrupt as well as a criminal…
But I've no sympathy for any of them.
Except we've now the stupid situation where only either poor people or rich people would want to be MP's. They are been paid less than the level of a junior Manager in a corporate, and their expenses will probably not cover their outgoings.
MrAgreeableFull MemberSo would you object if someone rich (spit, spit) used the NHS? Or sent their kids to a state-funded school?
Non-issue IMO, unless you like your outrage to be as contrived as possible.
aracerFree MemberExcept we've now the stupid situation where only either poor people or rich people would want to be MP's. They are been paid less than the level of a junior Manager in a corporate, and their expenses will probably not cover their outgoings.
Why exactly wouldn't it appeal to somebody neither poor nor rich? I don't think I'm particularly poor (certainly not rich), but the remuneration of an MP is actually quite appealing (even if the rest of the job isn't). Junior managers in your corporate are getting paid a lot more than they are in my company. For sure it's not something to do if you want to get rich, but then we don't want people doing it for that reason.
TalkemadaFree MemberNo, they're entitled to it by Law, so fair enough. Can't complain at that.
It's just that after all the lying and the deceit, that it's now going to cost the taxpayers even more money. When you think of the 'privileges' these people get (remember, they are supposed to be serving society, not the other way around), it just doesn't seem 'right'. And you know they'll be getting top barristers and legal teams to defend them, not some trainee Duty solicitor…
Oh well, I suppose Brown/Cameron can just close another desperately needed local service in a deprived area to pay for it… 🙁
ernie_lynchFree Member….after all the lying and the deceit, that it's now going to cost the taxpayers even more money.
Not to mention what it will cost the taxpayers if they are sent to prison……..and what with all the luxuries they will be receiving at HMP too 😐
I couldn't agree with you more Talkemada. I suggest a strongly worded letter to the Daily Mail.
And don't forget to mention "all the lying and the deceit" ……….it's not as if these criminals are even innocent.
TalkemadaFree MemberOh come on, Comrade Lynch; moats? Duck houses? Etc etc etc?
Shysters, the lot of 'em.
NorthwindFull MemberCFH wrote, "But, the key thing here is the image of it all. They should have made a public face of refusing legal aid, as to accept it so openly is to merely drag the already tarnished reputation of politics yet further in to the mire. Not good. "
You're absolutely right. In fact, take that idea further, they should have immediately admitted guilt and saved us the cost of a trial.
ernie_lynchFree Membermoats? Duck houses? Etc etc etc?
I think you'll find that those were other MPs. Other MPs who aren't being prosecuted.
But I get your drift. They should be held accountable for what others have done. And the fact that, the cleaning of the moat or purchase of an ornamental duck house, had nothing at all to do with them shouldn't stand in the way of lynch mob justice.
TalkemadaFree MemberPfft.
This four have all (allegedly) dishonestly claimed expenses. Lots of money. For all sorts of dubious reasons.
These aren't 'poor' men, none of them. They all have other lucrative business interests (their MPs pay probably makes up just a small amount of their total earnings).
Regardless of their legal rights etc, which should obviously be upheld, these, and others, have bent and possibly broken the 'rule's about how much money they have claimed. Money which could have gone to better use.
Mr Morley, MP for Scunthorpe, has been charged with two counts of false accounting. The first charge alleges that between April 2004 and February 2006, he dishonestly claimed mortgage expenses of £14,428.
The second charge alleges that between March 2006 and November 2007 Mr Morley dishonestly claimed mortgage expenses of £16,000 for the same property when there was no longer a mortgage on that property.
That's over £30,000. If these allegations are true, this means this bloke, entrusted with a position worthy of honour and respect, a position charged with upholding Democracy, has wilfully cheated the very people he is supposed to serve. These are extremely serious allegations. If I cheated an employer out of such money, I'd rightfully probably be sent to jail.
These people have more than most in this country. And we're supposed to look up to them. They have the power to vote in or veto new Laws and bills which affect all of us. Laws to which they themselves must also abide.
Many other MPs have had to pay back some of the money they have claimed. They turn round and try to tell us that they made 'mistakes', or were 'unaware' their claims weren't legitimate. Bollocks. They knew what they were doing, they're not that stupid! They just relied on the fact that the general public wouldn't have a clue what was going on. Hurrah for Investigative journalism, even if it was the Telegraph!
More transparency and openness is needed regarding this sort of thing. Hopefully, this whole sordid affair means that we will get that from now on.
As for the 'innocent until proven guilty' crap; bollocks. They're all sneaky, conniving, duplicitous scum!
Lynch the bastards! 😈
Sadly, I fear they may all walk away scot-free. 🙁
StuMcGrooFree Membertalkemada. you go from "if these allegations are true" to stating that "They're all sneaky, conniving, duplicitous scum!" in a matter of a dozen lines.
i sincerely hope that if you are ever in trouble the judge doesn't take a similar line.
but not as much as i hope that if i am ever in trouble then you are not on my jury.
thinking on it, your new (or is that 500 year old) approach to justice would save a hell of a lot of taxpayers money, why not bring back hanging, drowning and burning at the stake to save on prison costs too.
cynic-alFree MemberNot to mention what it will cost the taxpayers if they are sent to prison
What is your point? That prisons are expensive? What alternative do you suggest?
……..and what with all the luxuries they will be receiving at HMP too
Such as?
A high point of LAME.
LiferFree MemberIf convicted someone defended under legal aid can be made to pay back their costs by the court.
GrahamSFull MemberYes, scandalous that they are demonstrating their faith in our legal system by using the legal aid that is available to everyone, rather than doing the right thing and using their wealth to employ a top legal team to get them off.
TalkemadaFree Membertalkemada. you go from "if these allegations are true" to stating that "They're all sneaky, conniving, duplicitous scum!" in a matter of a dozen lines.
Heh! 😆
Due process and justice are expensive, but worth it.
I totally agree. It's just that when you consider the number of people who don't get justice, simply because they cannot afford the legal fees, it just seems 'wrong', somehow, that wealthy people get to exploit a system that should be there to provide for those with real need. Of course they are entitled to legal representation, just like everyone else, they're just lucky they're being tried at Southwark, otherwise they might have to cough up themselves.
Yes, scandalous that they are demonstrating their faith in our legal system by using the legal aid that is available to everyone, rather than doing the right thing and using their wealth to employ a top legal team to get them off.
Anyone can have their choice of what firm defends them. Granted, Joe Bloggs might have difficulty in persuading Shyster & Conman (of Lincolns Inn Fields) to take on their case, but in theory anyone can have a 'top' lawyer. In practice, Sam Scrote might not be able to get Shyster and Conman to take on his LA case for scroting, and have to make do with Fumble and Stutter (of Peckham High St), but it is possible for even those of the lowest means to have a decent firm defending them.
GrahamSFull MemberYes, but the point is that if these MPs had chosen to privately employ Shyster & Conman then you'd be on here
ramblingraising concerns about how it is one rule for the rich, another for the poor, and how unfair that they were clearly using the proceeds of their crimes to pay big wigs to get them off.TalkemadaFree Memberthen you'd be on here
ramblingraising concernsI think you were right first time! 😀
Well, they're probably using the same firms they would if they had to pay for it, so it mkaes no difference really.
Taking all things into consideration, I've decided my rant is invalid, and in reacting in a knee-jerk manner, I have given inconsiderate consideration to the entire legal process, which is actually pretty bloody good in this country.
Everyone should be entitled to the same, equal legal rights, education, health care, regardless of wealth.
We know that his doesn't quite work out in the 'real' World, but then Life's not perfect.
It still doesn't seem 'right', but I suppose that's how it goes sometimes.
🙁
backhanderFree MemberAh, fallen into line behind ernie at last. Not surprising. Did he phone you and "have a word"?
TalkemadaFree Member'Fallen in line'?
Not at all. I've read what others have had to say, had a think about it, and decided I was being unreasonably reactionary, based on my prejudices towards these
scumpoliticians. I've had a bit of a read up on Legal Aid in the UK, and learned stuff.Better than coming to the point of realisation that my argument is somewhat flawed, and then carrying on with the same bollocks… 😉
BigDummyFree MemberI've decided my rant is invalid
I'm glad about this. While Morley and co smell bad and I've little sympathy, I can't get comfortable with the idea that they should forego legal aid, or be denied legal aid, either because we don't like them, or because it's somehow their duty to the reputation of politics to die for the sins of the house of commons.
GrahamSFull MemberGood lad.
The trouble with equal rights is sometimes you have to put up with some 'orrible scrotes having equal rights to far more deserving folk. But that doesn't stop it being the "right" thing.
GrahamSFull MemberBetter than coming to the point of realisation that my argument is somewhat flawed, and then carrying on with the same bollocks…
Hmm maybe you're not Fred after all then 😉
NorthwindFull Member"Not at all. I've read what others have had to say, had a think about it, and decided I was being unreasonably reactionary, based on my prejudices towards these scum politicians. I've had a bit of a read up on Legal Aid in the UK, and learned stuff."
You know, I don't think I've ever seen this happen on an internet forum before. We should put up a blue plaque.
The topic ‘Expenses MPs to get legal aid’ is closed to new replies.