Coruption endemic in Britain's ethnic minorities says Attorney General

[LeMaquis]

Isn't that just Labour MPs?

 

Labour MPs were jailed but all parties were all at it. Tories Anthony Steen and Julie Kirkbride stood down in disgrave. Duck islands, moats and arboretums expenses claims were from the Tory side. Cameron claimed for cutting back his wisteria. In future he can get Coulson or Brooks to do his pruning for him as they'll be unemployable elsewhere.

[boyfriday]

That's odd I always considered election fraud, ballot rigging, intimidation, murder, kidnap, rape etc as far more serious than claiming a few quid on your expenses.

 

I don't think I mentioned 'claiming a few quid on expenses' and Im certain Dominic Grieve didn't associate Pakistanis with murder, kidnap, rape, intimidation etc-he was speaking particularly of election fraud.

 

However he later went on to withdraw his comments as indicated in the article the OP linked to

 

Mr Grieve later issued a statement in which he said: "If I gave the impression that there is a particular problem in the Pakistani community, I was wrong. It is not my view.

 

"I believe the Pakistani community has enriched this country a great deal as I know full well from my extensive contact with the community over a number of years."

 

 

I never said you were a Pakistani or a Muslim, but it is pretty clear to everyone on the forum that you are their number 1 PR man.

I'm not really sure why that's relevant, your contributions would have more value if you challenged what I say rather than speculated on what I am.

[Anna Glypta]

Labour MPs were jailed but all parties were all at it. Tories Anthony Steen and Julie Kirkbride stood down in disgrave. Duck islands, moats and arboretums expenses claims were from the Tory side. Cameron claimed for cutting back his wisteria. In future he can get Coulson or Brooks to do his pruning for him as they'll be unemployable elsewhere.

 

I notice that you are deliberately missing the point. Submitting an expenses claim for a duck house wasn't against the rules, nor was it a criminal offense. All expenses claims were put through the speakers office and many including the duck house rejected.

The MPs you mention submitted expenses claims that were legitimate at the time and were passed by the speakers office. When the rules were changed many MPs were required to pay back money. Julie Kilbride was hounded from office by petitions "from her constituents" which later turned out to be from politically motivated people from outside her constituency.

 

That is all a far cry from the 6 Labour MPs who were charged and convicted of fraud. They submitted fraudulent claims and fake invoices for money they had never spent and as a consequence jail sentences were handed out. EVERY MP WHO WAS CONVICTED OF FRAUD WAS A LABOUR MP.

[LeMaquis]

I notice that you are deliberately missing the point. Submitting an expenses claim for a duck house wasn't against the rules, nor was it a criminal offense. All expenses claims were put through the speakers office and many including the duck house rejected.

The MPs you mention submitted expenses claims that were legitimate at the time and were passed by the speakers office. When the rules were changed many MPs were required to pay back money. Julie Kilbride was hounded from office by petitions "from her constituents" which later turned out to be from politically motivated people from outside her constituency.

 

That is all a far cry from the 6 Labour MPs who were charged and convicted of fraud. They submitted fraudulent claims for money they had never spent and as a consequence jail sentences were handed out. EVERY MP WHO WAS CONVICTED OF FRAUD WAS A LABOUR MP.

 

I never said they were but I pointed out 2 Tory MPs who stood down as a result of their claims. Some Labour MPs stood down too. Labour were the worst but the convictions for fraud weren't the whole story. In 2009 Cameron repaid £680 from his own claims and ordered the shadow cabinet to repay expenses where relevant;

 

"Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, will repay £7,000 in furniture expenses; Alan Duncan, the shadow leader of the Commons, will repay more than £5,000 in gardening costs; and Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, will repay £2,600 claimed for home improvements"

 

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5315053/MPs-expenses-David-Cameron-orders-Tories-to-pay-back-claims.html

 

The rules by the way were brought in by Thatcher and allowed MPs of all parties to take the pee. They massively discredited politicians of all parties. If you're trying to turn this issue into purely an anti-Labour one by limiting it to convictions for fraud it won't work. Labour were the worst but the corruption was much wider than that.

[Anna Glypta]

I never said they were but I pointed out 2 Tory MPs who stood down as a result of their claims. Some Labour MPs stood down too. Labour were the worst but the convictions for fraud weren't the whole story. In 2009 Cameron repaid £680 from his own claims and ordered the shadow cabinet to repay expenses where relevant;

 

"Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, will repay £7,000 in furniture expenses; Alan Duncan, the shadow leader of the Commons, will repay more than £5,000 in gardening costs; and Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, will repay £2,600 claimed for home improvements"

 

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5315053/MPs-expenses-David-Cameron-orders-Tories-to-pay-back-claims.html

 

The rules by the way were brought in by Thatcher and allowed MPs of all parties to take the pee. They massively discredited politicians of all parties. If you're trying to turn this issue into purely an anti-Labour one by limiting it to convictions for fraud it won't work. Labour were the worst but the corruption was much wider than that.

 

Oh it will work. Rules were rules. The rules were the one that a Labour Government seemed happy to keep for their 13 years in office. Folk who committed criminal activity were all charged. Did I mention that ALL THOSE WHO SUBMITTED FRAUDULENT CLAIMS WERE LABOUR MPS. This is why THOSE LABOUR MPS WENT TO JAIL. After the rules were changed expenses claims were reassessed and many MPs were asked to repay money that was now considered inappropriate to have claimed. This wasn't because of criminal intent. It was because of a lax system that had allowed this.

 

Totally different from taking a piece of paper and printing a bogus invoice for work or goods that didn't exist. That is fraud and 6 Labour Mps were convicted of it. FRAUD.

[boyfriday]

This wasn't because of criminal intent. It was because of a lax system that had allowed this.

 

..and a profound lack of judgement and integrity on the part of those MPs.

[Anna Glypta]

..and a profound lack of judgement and integrity on the part of those MPs.

 

I don't see it that way. If you work for a company it isn't inappropriate to stick in an expenses claim for overalls, a suit, even the petrol you might use driving to work. It is up to the company whether they pay you out or not. So the appropriateness of putting in a claim for expenses is dependent on what the system allows and if you overstep the mark the system will reject the claim.

 

That isn't the same as sticking in a claim for overalls, a suit and petrol using fake invoices because you never bought the items. That would be fraud.

 

So many MPs made claims for items that you or I would think inappropriate but the office dealing with claims thought fine. Subsequently the rules changed and many MPs handed back money they had claimed legitimately under the rules before the rules changed.

 

The folk who committed fraud were charged and most sent to prison. I am unaware of anyone who committed a crime who wasn't charged. 6 Labour MPs faced trial for fraud and were all found guilty.

[ricgem2002]

. 6 Labour MPs faced trial for fraud and were all found guilty.

yes makes you wonder that they were only labour

[boyfriday]

I don't see it that way. If you work for a company it isn't inappropriate to stick in an expenses claim for overalls, a suit, even the petrol you might use driving to work. It is up to the company whether they pay you out or not. So the appropriateness of putting in a claim for expenses is dependent on what the system allows and if you overstep the mark the system will reject the claim.

 

That isn't the same as sticking in a claim for overalls, a suit and petrol using fake invoices because you never bought the items. That would be fraud.

 

So many MPs made claims for items that you or I would think inappropriate but the office dealing with claims thought fine. Subsequently the rules changed and many MPs handed back money they had claimed legitimately under the rules before the rules changed.

 

The folk who committed fraud were charged and most sent to prison. I am unaware of anyone who committed a crime who wasn't charged. 6 Labour MPs faced trial for fraud and were all found guilty.

 

I agree, claiming for things which a reasonable person might consider is required to perform your duties is perfectly acceptable, but MPs run into difficulty due to the nature of their work and the 'calling' which brought them to it.

 

They're not known as 'honourable members' for nothing, it was supposed to be their selfless commitment to furthering the cause of their fellow man which motivated their desire to join public office. Of course we later discover (long before the expenses scandal btw) that it seems to be a boy's club where they choose the rules and seek to profit from them-that isn't usually the nature of the relationship between an employer who subsidises overalls or work petrol for their employees.

 

Or to put it another way, imagine being able to tell your employer what you want to earn, how much pension you want to receive, what expenses you'd like to be able to claim for and then vote on the outcome yourself..those businesses would be a laughing stock...and quickly go bust!

 

Aside from the expenses scandal, more relevant to the corruption issue is the associations many MPs form with businesses which they later profit from when they've left parliament. It brings into question patronage, political lobbying and compensation for it which has serious consequences for the administration of democracy.

 

---------- Post added 24-11-2013 at 11:46 ----------

 

yes makes you wonder that they were only labour

 

Labour MPs nick your money, Tories have their palms greased by the higher echelons

[SevenRivers]

I don't see it that way. If you work for a company it isn't inappropriate to stick in an expenses claim for overalls, a suit, even the petrol you might use driving to work. It is up to the company whether they pay you out or not. So the appropriateness of putting in a claim for expenses is dependent on what the system allows and if you overstep the mark the system will reject the claim.

 

That isn't the same as sticking in a claim for overalls, a suit and petrol using fake invoices because you never bought the items. That would be fraud.

 

So many MPs made claims for items that you or I would think inappropriate but the office dealing with claims thought fine. Subsequently the rules changed and many MPs handed back money they had claimed legitimately under the rules before the rules changed.

 

The folk who committed fraud were charged and most sent to prison. I am unaware of anyone who committed a crime who wasn't charged. 6 Labour MPs faced trial for fraud and were all found guilty.

 

I don't think it was only the system at fault. Sure the system should have seen claims for duck houses, moat cleaning and fixing bell towers rejected, but you have to question the judgement of those who submitted the claims who obviously didn't give a second thought about the moral validity of those claims.