esme Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 MPs investigated over expenses should not be named - The Telegraph - Steven Swinford - 29 Sep 2014 MPs being investigated for alleged abuses of their expenses will have their names kept secret, the Commons watchdog has announced. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will no longer release the names of MPs under investigation and the public will be barred from hearings. ... Looks like our elected representatives lords and masters are at it again, personally I think in order to trust our MP's they shouldn't be hiding anything from us unless it's a matter of national security and unless they are subsidising trident with their expenses I don't see their expense claims falling into that category. There's a petition here if you think MP's expenses should be public knowledge, I'm not sure if there's one for keeping them secret I didn't bother looking tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Signed. ...................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SqueakyPete Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Signed also. You have to wonder just how independent the "Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority" is,when they make decisions like this. Who are we to question the "Right Honourables" eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Signed also. You have to wonder just how independent the "Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority" is,when they make decisions like this. Who are we to question the "Right Honourables" eh? Signed also. On their website it says "Transparency is one of our most important values.". Yeh right! http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/transparency/Pages/default.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Signed. An employer who provides money for the reclaiming of expenses is entitled to know the details of any such claims. As they are fond of telling us around election time, we are their employers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firemanbob Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 The watchdog claimed that the move was intended to protect the MPs from the "reputational damage" they would suffer because of "public scrutiny". Maybe this should apply to all citizens that are under investigation, until they are proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francypants Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Signed.................. with pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 The watchdog claimed that the move was intended to protect the MPs from the "reputational damage" they would suffer because of "public scrutiny". What damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firemanbob Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 What damage? The same kind or reputational damage anyone can suffer if they are publicly accused and investigated of wrong doing. Whats good for MP's should be good for everyone and no one should be named until found guilty of wrong doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 What damage? Even if people are found not to be guilty of what they're being investigated for mud still sticks...I suppose that's what they mean.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now