singletrack says lynch em
That seems a bit unfair. Nobody deserves to be Ernied.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Thieving, lying labour MPs
-
That seems a bit unfair. Nobody deserves to be Ernied.Posted 2 years ago # -
BTW, also in the Telegraph article which I linked :
"The three MPs, who have been barred by the Labour Party from standing in the next general election..."
Doesn't sound much like they are receiving "official support" from the Labour Party to me.
Posted 2 years ago # -
So their lawyer is very clearly arguing against the Labour Government's position.
And the Labour Government's position is that they must stand trial.The job of a solicitor, even one paid for and supplied by the Labour party, is to defend their client to the best of their ability, not to support official party policy. The fact that they do that, does not mean that they are not part of the party machine.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The labour ones got caught, the con-servatives due to having a private education didnt get caught,as yet.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The job of a solicitor, even one paid for and supplied by the Labour party
Paid for and supplied by the Labour Party ?
From the Daily Telegraph of the 9th Feb 2010 :
"The Labour Party announced last night that it would no longer be using Mr Shamash amid controversy over his work representing the three MPs."
So these 3 MPs have all been, suspended by the Labour Party, been told that they barred from standing in the next general election, must stand trial, and their solicitor has been told that he will no longer be representing the Labour Party.
And all this suggests that they are being "officially supported" by the Labour Party.
Yeah, right...............you guys really are desperate
Posted 2 years ago # -
The only thing I can possibly think of that's worse than another five years of a Labour government is the Tories getting in power.
Until such time as politicians live in fear of being slung in the poor house if they lie, cheat or do anything unethical, nothing will change.
Posted 2 years ago # -
They're not individuals, they are paid members of a political party!
they committed a crime when at work for the political party. Just because labour have and left them high and dry and ran away, it doesn't mean they hold no responsibility for their members actions.Posted 2 years ago # -
they are paid members of a political party!
I think you'll find that they are not.
They are Members of Parliament. They are paid for being Members of Parliament. Whether they leave the party, get thrown out of the party, or join another party, makes no difference - they are still Members of Parliament. They do not get paid for being members of a political party.
Posted 2 years ago # -
OK scratch the "paid". The sentiment sticks, labour cannot just instantly disassociate themselves with their MPs. It's disgusting. typical "bottler" brown
Posted 2 years ago # -
well i think this shows labour in a very bad light
Just 3 out of 600 or whatever bloated number it is, the fact that they are all from 1 party implies that the party in question attracts those on the scam, either that or they were just too arrogant and/or stupid enough to get caught. Although as there are 350 lab to 200 con increases the chance its a statistical fluke (if someone wants to do a chi squared or somethin....)
but it does demonstrate that labours 'policing' of their own members was very poor
and as leader gordon must bear responsiblity for that
however the allegations that hes being spineless for supporting them or not(make up your minds) is bollox, they are being tried he is not protecting them. Its a proper trial, and as much as the media love to try and affect the outcome of legal trials gordo is, so far, staying out as he shouldBUT its painfully obvious that most of the 600 have been fiddling the system im shocked after the constant drip feeding of revelations from the telegraph and the number of members retiring in disgrace or deselected that ony 3 are being charged
thats what stinksPosted 2 years ago # -
Kimbers I don't quite agree. It seems that there is no question if they have stolen and for that alone they should be sacked. If labour have decided not going to be sack them at this moment, then they should be supported. Labour are effectively sitting on the fence waiting to see what the judge decides.
The outcome of the trial should be irrelevant to their careers.
Also the party is irrelevant, it's the fact that it's our tax money.
For perspective; A british army SNCO was recently found to have defrauded the JPA (military pay system), he received a 12 month custodial sentence and had to pay back the £520.Posted 2 years ago # -
labour cannot just instantly disassociate themselves with their MPs.
Well actually they can. And they have. And so they should.
These are very serious allegations.
Already the Labour Party has decided that whether or not there was intentional dishonesty and deceit in the claims, the claims should not have been made - even if they were only made by mistake. Therefore the individuals will not be allow to stand again as Labour candidates.
This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Not much can be done whilst they are still MPs, but they can be stopped from ever standing again as party candidates. And it is a position which as I understand it, both the Labour Party and Conservative Party are applying to other MPs who have made totally unacceptable claims - even those who's claims might have been actually legal.
Posted 2 years ago # -
what do you honestly expect?
the british democracy is not a real democracy.. it is a con..
therefore MPs are inherantly corrupt.. yaawaaawwwnPosted 2 years ago # -
Surely they are all innocent until they are proved guilty - so let's await the verdict before everyone starts mud slinging.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The comments on here are more enlightening about people's political sympathies than anything else.
At the end of the day many politicians, commons and lords, left and ring wing etc, had their hand in the till - please throw book.
Many more made claims that were ridiculous but legal - this dates back to MPs (in particular IIRC) being offered an expenses rise instead of a pay rise (around 25 years ago I seem to remember). Pretty poor thinking by the MPs not to realise that high pay would be less offensive than stupid expenses.
Finally there are quite a few politicians (again of all hues) who seem to be fairly blameless.
So no surprises there really.
Posted 2 years ago # -
While the stretching of the rules that many MP's did is one thing (and bad enough in itself) the allegations for these (and a couple more labour MP's who will also probably be facing prosecution) is a whole different ball game. Take the Jim Devine example (of most interest to me as he's the closest) - we're talking about someone who allegedly obtained and submitted invoices for services that were never provided and, in some cases, by companies that didn't even exist.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The labour ones got caught, the con-servatives due to having a private education didnt get caught,as yet.
pppfffttt. Really? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being ironic...
Posted 2 years ago # -
there's ample deceipt here
.... is this a form of dishonesty that specifically relates to falsifying your expense receipts?Posted 2 years ago # -
Pretty poor thinking by the MPs not to realise that high pay would be less offensive than stupid expenses.
They thought we wouldn't find out though.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
