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.
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.
what do you honestly expect?
the british democracy is not a real democracy.. it is a con..
therefore MPs are inherantly corrupt.. yaawaaawwwn
Surely they are all innocent until they are proved guilty - so let's await the verdict before everyone starts mud slinging.
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.
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.
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...
.... is this a form of dishonesty that specifically relates to falsifying your expense receipts?there's ample [b]deceipt[/b] here
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.
