I see that David Chaytor has pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in January. While he may get some credit for pleading guilty and saving us tax payers a few bob by doing so, I do hope that the judge takes into account that he wriggled like the devil to avoid justice and only gave in at the last possible moment.
Might I suggest a day in the stocks in his constituency with plenty of advance publicity of when & where. Naked. In January. Fruit & veg throwing encouraged (coconuts anyone?).
John
|
Nothing changes! Check this out, re T Dan Smith, from the early 60s in Newcastle.
However, Smith's personal desire to make money began to get linked with his political desires. Already it had been spotted that Smith's painting and decorating firm received more than half of the contracts for council housing. In 1962 he established a public relations firm to support redevelopment of other urban centres in the north-east, and later nationwide. This company formed links with John Poulson, an architect keen for the business and known for paying those who could supply it. Smith eventually received £156,000 from Poulson for his work, which typically involved signing up local councillors on to the payroll of his companies and getting them to push their councils to accept Poulson's prepackaged redevelopment schemes. Poulson earned more than £1,000,000 through Smith.
|
Fruit(coconuts anyone?).
>>
Tits like coconuts !
Ted
|
"Nothing changes! Check this out, re T Dan Smith, from the early 60s in Newcastle."
If you're interested in all that, make sure you check out the 90s mini-series 'Our Friends in the North'
|
While he may get some credit for pleading guilty and saving us tax payers a few bob by doing so, I do hope that the judge takes into account that he wriggled like the devil to avoid justice and only gave in at the last possible moment.
I suspect that a day in the stocks is unlikely to happen because of some EU regulation.
The Telegraph says that he faces a maximum of seven years in jail. My own feeling is that this would be inappropriate, since if he went to jail, he would be costing the tax payer - who he has already robbed - even more money.
If the punishment is to fit the crime, it should be a financial penalty rather than a prison sentence. Instead of depriving the man of his liberty, my opinion is that his house, furniture, motor vehicles, bank accounts and other investments should be seized. And probably his loose change, and the contents of his wardrobe and refrigerator, as well.
|
He's coughed to £20,000 for which he won't go to prison.
Much will be, and is already being, made of the fact the money's being repaid:
"Chaytor's QC James Sturman told the judge, Mr Justice Saunders that £13,000 had already been repaid: "There are many misconceptions about the case which we will wish to put right on January 7.
"Obviously he accepts this is a serious matter. There is no loss to the public purse. Any sums claimed have been, or will be, repaid."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11904007
|
As benefit claimants guilty of fraud are forced to repay their ill gotten gains AND go to prison, an MP should be no different.
Indeed, he should be treated more harshly as he should know simple law : viz: theft is wrong.
I look forward to seeing Mr A Blair in dock :-(
|
>>as he should know simple law : viz: theft is wrong.<<
I don't think that warrants any harsher treatment, surely it is something everyone should know?
Pat
|
Indeed, he should be treated more harshly as he should know simple law : viz: theft is wrong.
I would say that he deserves harsher treatment, not on the basis of the fact that he should know the law, but on the basis of the fact that as a Member of Parliament, he is a maker of laws. The government that he loyally supported for 13 years created 4300 new criminal offences (tinyurl.com/y8cgfcr) in an effort to criminalise the rest of us. It seems to me that those privileged people who make laws should face harsher penalties for breaking them than those of us who are powerless to do so, and who must do as they say.
|
>>It seems to me that those privileged people who make laws should face harsher penalties for breaking them than those of us who are powerless to do so, and who must do as they say. <<
That's not really a rational argument unless someone actually breaks the law they made....
Pat
|
"He's coughed to £20,000 for which he won't go to prison."
I wonder how much he got away with in earlier years and which we will never see.
John
|
>> Tits like coconuts !
>>
>> Ted
Fruit flies like bananas.
|
>> Fruit & veg throwing encouraged ...........
Us OAPs can't afford to waste any of our five-a-day.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 4 Dec 10 at 09:23
|
>> >> Fruit & veg throwing encouraged ...........
>>
>> Us OAPs can't afford to waste any of our five-a-day.
Then wait until you have extracted the nourishment from them, and throw the digested remains ...
|
Obviously he knowingly defrauded the tax payer. A mixture of a modest prison term and a long period of community service might do the trick.
What annoys me is that the others who claimed absurd expenses, such as the Luton MP who claimed for a home in Southampton (what?) will most probably get off scot free.
It is shocking that so many were in it for themselves, and stuff the tax payer.
|
...A mixture of a modest prison term and a long period of community service might do the trick...
A jail term is most unlikely, although I think sentencing guidelines allow for a short stretch.
The guy in this story stole a similar amount of money and is the same age:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334981/17k-benefits-cheat-Keith-Walklate-barely-walk-caught-playing-badminton.html
|
Sentence will be interesting. As observed above he's repaid and will get credit for copping a plea; albeit rather late.
OTOH the fraud appears to be planned and to have been continued over time. Creating false documents etc ups the ante; its not just a spur of the moment tweaking of the figures.
|
>>>>It seems to me that those privileged people who make laws should face harsher penalties for breaking them than those of us who are powerless to do so, and who must do as they say. <<
That's not really a rational argument unless someone actually breaks the law they made....
Pat
It is based on the principle that with power and privilege comes responsibility, or, to put it another way, to whom much is given, much is required. Legislators have been given the power to strip people of their possessions and their liberty (judges and juries are only, for all practical purposes, carrying out orders). That, it seems to me, is an absolutely awesome power, something that we too easily forget.
I accordingly think that because the power that is entrusted to legislators is that of stripping people of liberty and possessions, then the corresponding responsibility that comes with that power is to pay more heavily in terms of one's own liberty and wealth when one breaks a law.
|
I'm of very mixed feelings on this one.
This idiot produced fake documents and invoices to allow him to claim his expenses. Clearly this crosses a line and needs to be punished.
However, I think there is a lot of misconception about the wider picture. £65k is a low salary for a senior, responsible position. Assuming you accept that, and you may well not, but assuming that you at least accept that it is way below the market rate for a good and experienced senior executive, the picture makes more sense.
The salary was so low because the MPs, correctly, surmised that a reasonable salary would not be judged acceptable by the British press. Therefore, the expenses system was, unofficially, used to top up the salary to a more acceptable level. Claims varied by politician, but in the main, they just had to provide receipts to justify them being paid the rest of their salary. That may not have been the official policy (and I've read the official policy from the relevant time - there's nothing rotten about it, it's a thoroughly sensible document), but that was the understanding by every single person involved. Ridiculous claims for duck houses and suchlike were nothing more than simply claiming what was accepted as a salary.
So, were many, many ridiculous and unacceptable claims made? Yes, of course, no argument there. My point is that the claims were not made, in the main, because of gross dishonesty, but because that was the paperwork that needed to be done for the ‘salary’ to be paid.
Apart from the criminally foolish, I fail to see what we gain from bringing the whole system into disrepute. If we want decent politicians, and god knows we need them, we need to be realistic about how much people are motivated by noble intentions and how much people can put up with in terms of an income. I would argue that the system as it is now is laughably low (and no, I don’t earn as much as an MP). You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. And I know many here will argue that £65k is not peanuts. You’re right, it’s not, but it is compared to what any decent businessman in their 40s or older could expect to earn. That is the nub of it.
Just my two penneth. I’ve got my flack pants on.
Last edited by: Statistical Outlier on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 17:39
|
>>but assuming that you at least accept that it is way below the market rate for a good and experienced senior executive,
In my world, MPs would be paid 350k. There would be 200 of them. And then we would get captains of industry/senior lawers/accountants/senior army officers applying to be elected.
If only he had faked his expenses claims intelligently - rather than producing fake documents.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 7 Dec 10 at 17:48
|
The majority of MPs are intelligent, driven, capable and extremely hard working people.
They should get a salary commensurate with that skill-set and market.
Expenses should also be paid in line with corporate policy, eg legitimate business expenses only backed up by valid receipts.
|
You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Alternatively, "You offer big salaries, you attract those who are very interested in money."
I remain highly sceptical that paying MPs a larger salary would mean that MPs were less likely to fiddle their expenses. My experience of life tells me that by and large, the more money people have, the more interested in money they become, and the more determined they are to hold on to what they have.
|
|
Tyro, I have a lot of sympathy for that viewpoint, but do you feel setting the salary to a level that a good candidate in a professional job could expect to achieve by their late 20s is the correct level? I'm not sure I do, £100k, or roughly what the salary was with expenses, feels more like a good balance.
|
"do you feel setting the salary to a level that a good candidate in a professional job could expect to achieve by their late 20s is the correct level?"
I must confess a certain level of ignorance as to what salary "a good candidate in a professional job could expect to achieve by their late 20s." If you are looking at academics or secondary school teachers, I suspect that a lot of very good candidates would not be earning as much as £40,000 by the time they reached 30 - or even 40. In other lines of work, it might be different.
Setting the salary of MPs is a tricky business.
The law of supply and demand - and this is what we are really talking about - would seem to tell us that when competent people (though it may be difficult to get agreement on exactly what constitutes competence) cease to seek the nomination of the major political parties, then either the salary is too low, or there is something about the job which is not attractive enough.
My gut feeling is that if you brought the salary down to £25,000 a year, you would still get considerably fewer competent people going into politics, but if it was only dropped to £40,000, then you would lose very few. Equally, I don't believe that doubling the current salary would attract many more competent people.
|
|
The brightest and most hard working of my friends, excluding those who went into city jobs gambling with other people's money, could expect to be earning £60k by their early 30's. I'm talking programmers, lawyers, attorneys, engineers combining technology with management. They are the sort of people I would hope would later wish to go into politics for the right sort of reasons.
|
I'm mostly with SO on this - IIRC Maggie was one of the first to introduce extra "allowances" which were intended as "top-up" to a rather low pay. More allowances have since been added, and I think there was a new one last year to do with communication of somewhere around £10k, which I believe is still being paid.
Many MPs seem to have directorships and consultancy roles which bring in not inconsiderable amounts of dosh alongside their MP salary, and also many of those leaving the House (in particular the more senior ones, as well as senior civil servants) end up working for companies which were suppliers to their old departments. That's all a little whiffy, but who doesn't tap up old contacts when one doesn't have a job?
And how many senior people in commerce get freebies (golf days, corporate events etc etc) and/or other perks or expenses which are really not essential to their job?
|
MP pleads guilty - Perky Penguin
