MPs investigated over expenses should not be named

[ronthenekred]

Even if people are found not to be guilty of what they're being investigated for mud still sticks..

 

That's a no win situation. Guilty or not guilty, mud sticks? That being the case better in the open. There will always be those that consider MP's crooks, crooks or not.

 

The only reason mud sticks is because of past reputations. A climate of trust could be gained through transparency. Locked doors have the opposite effect.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 14:25 ----------

 

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.

 

It's a record of accounts not guilt trial. I have no issue personally with transparency.

Edited October 7, 2014 by ronthenekred

[Anna B]

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..

 

After the last expenses scandal how many MPs were actually 'found guilty,' in spite of numerous examples of MPs getting away with abuses to the tune of many thousands of pounds?

 

If we hadn't known the details of the many abuses and who had made them, the media would have claimed only a few MPs were involved and dismissed it as a minor occurance not worth bothering about.

Happily, we now know the majority of MPs were actually involved, and the extent, (and cost) of the widespread abuse. And don't forget it was the press who investigated and uncovered the scandal in the first place.

 

No wonder MPs were eager to muzzle the press

 

I don't think it's a question of mud sticking, but of the public's right to know the truth about our elected representatives.

[truman]

After the last expenses scandal how many MPs were actually 'found guilty,' in spite of numerous examples of MPs getting away with abuses to the tune of many thousands of pounds?

 

If we hadn't known the details of the many abuses and who had made them, the media would have claimed only a few MPs were involved and dismissed it as a minor occurance not worth bothering about.

Happily, we now know the majority of MPs were actually involved, and the extent, (and cost) of the widespread abuse. And don't forget it was the press who investigated and uncovered the scandal in the first place.

 

No wonder MPs were eager to muzzle the press

 

I don't think it's a question of mud sticking, but of the public's right to know the truth about our elected representatives.

 

The problem is that even if an MP is found to not have been on the fiddle,the fact that he's been investigated will cause some people to think there's no smoke without fire...I'm not sure which way is right and which is wrong but it's not a simple "name everyone" situation...are some investigations random or are they all "intelligence" lead? If the former then it's definitely unfair to name names.. all my opinion of course

[Mecky]

What they don't know won't hurt them blah blah blah. What they mean is what they don't know won't hurt us

[truman]

What they don't know won't hurt them blah blah blah. What they mean is what they don't know won't hurt us

 

If you're that disbelieving then how do you trust that the ones we would know are being investigated are the only ones?

[Anna B]

The problem is that even if an MP is found to not have been on the fiddle,the fact that he's been investigated will cause some people to think there's no smoke without fire...I'm not sure which way is right and which is wrong but it's not a simple "name everyone" situation...are some investigations random or are they all "intelligence" lead? If the former then it's definitely unfair to name names.. all my opinion of course

 

Did the duckpond guy get prosecuted? Did Jaqui Smith and the bedroom fiddle get investigated? Did the house flipping MPs get investigated? There should have been dozens of police investigations, but there were so many MPs who had in fact committed fraud, that they were allowed to pay back the money and all was quietly forgotten?

 

It would be easier to name the few MPs who didn't fiddle their expenses.

 

How many people in the real world would not have been investigated and have been allowed to simply pay back money they had stolen?

[yellowperil]

Signed......

[Lotusflower]

Tory MP Mark Hoban claimed £35 on a toilet roll holder, £100 for a chrome shower rack and £79 for four silk cushion covers on his second home allowance.

 

All in the rules. The rules are made by the members.

 

Tory MP Mark Hoban, Employment Minister, says unemployed people have taken benefits for granted as a way of life and must "roll up their sleeves" and stop "playing the system."

 

Is this the sort of hypocritical behaviour they don't want the electorate to know about!

[truman]

Did the duckpond guy get prosecuted? Did Jaqui Smith and the bedroom fiddle get investigated? Did the house flipping MPs get investigated? There should have been dozens of police investigations, but there were so many MPs who had in fact committed fraud, that they were allowed to pay back the money and all was quietly forgotten?

 

It would be easier to name the few MPs who didn't fiddle their expenses.

 

How many people in the real world would not have been investigated and have been allowed to simply pay back money they had stolen?

 

It's an old story Anna...did the duckhouse guy get his money? I don't remember...did the other MPs break the rules (albeit ones they had set themselves)? I'm not sure it was fraud except for the few like Elliot Morley..you're proving my point about mud sticking...

[Anna B]

It's an old story Anna...did the duckhouse guy get his money? I don't remember...did the other MPs break the rules (albeit ones they had set themselves)? I'm not sure it was fraud except for the few like Elliot Morley..you're proving my point about mud sticking...

 

Fair point.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Anna B