Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
6 February 2010
09:2239741we are now starting to hear that the Mp's and the Lord are to urge that they should not be prosecuted and have parlimentary privalidge If that happens, once again it will get even more people switching off politics.
Why should they be able to use out of date laws to be able to hide behind breaking the law?
This is out of order, and wrong, I hope they lose the legal challenge
They are damaging even further the political system.
How can anyone say they are above the law?
6 February 2010
10:4139747They just don't get it do they? We are pi££ed off with them to the max, have no trust in them, think they are scum, and the they still think that they can hide behind a clearly outdated and inappropriate piece of legal poop to save their skins. They need to leave and close the door on their way out.
6 February 2010
11:0439752Whatever we may think, ALL four individuals are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. If the law is wrong that is another matter.
6 February 2010
13:1239771Exactly - but for them tio try to hide behind some antiquated feudal law is pathetic and certainly does not increase any respect there may have been left for them.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
6 February 2010
15:3439776Parliamentary Privilege is important for democracy and is by no means an antiquated feudal law as it is a guarantee of Parliamentary freedom and free speech.
What is wrong is to abuse that Privilege and this is what these are trying to do. I hope and trust that they wont get away with it and will take the opportunity to clear their names (or otherwise!).
6 February 2010
16:4239783They didn't spend the money within parliamentary walls...........
6 February 2010
22:5039850I didn't think there was a Parliament in Feudal times, just a Privy Council.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
6 February 2010
22:5339852the fact remains that privilege is being used as an escape route.
bad enough with diplomatic immunity.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
7 February 2010
00:0539859cant be allowed to happen
7 February 2010
01:1539863okay - I over-egged with the feudal thing, but it was poetic licence! Howard, however, is right: whatever the roots, the accused are trying to hide behind an inappropriate smokescreen.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
7 February 2010
10:1439866fully agree, these MP's must not be allowed to hide away on this issue.
If they feel the are not guilty, then fight therre corner in th courts.
7 February 2010
11:3839872But when I read the reports in more detail, it seems the "accused" aren't trying to hide behind any sort of privelidge at all. Their legal counsel are the ones looking at this on their behalf. basically doing the job they are being paid for, finding a way to defend their clients. That might be morally or even ethically reprehensible, but, how can we deny someone the right to a fair defence based on the laws of the realm?
There is nothing wrong with using the law of the land to defend yourself against accusations. If we find that law offensive we can get it changed, but until that time, the four politicians are entitled to use whatever legal means are available to them.
Remember, innocent until proven guilty.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
7 February 2010
12:1939883Sid, I'm with you - innocent until proven guilty; however, Parliamentary Privilege is not about a legal defence for false accounting, it's about the rights of MPs to debate openly without fear of libel or slander laws. Whilst I agree that everyone is entitled to a fair defence, I do get the impression that this attempt at invoking Parliamentary Privilege is wheedling a way out of answering to the accusations against them in a court of law.
Misuse of Parliamentary Privilege in this manner only further serves to the impression that they may be guilty; they would be better served by simply turning up in court and facing their accusers face to face.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
7 February 2010
12:3139886They should be tarred and feathered and run out of town if they are found innocent after coming up with 'Parliamentary Privilege'. Does anyone know when an MP's legal counsel last used this 'opt out' clause in a court of law?
7 February 2010
12:4839888Barry, I don't think it has ever been used, but, it IS possibily a legitimate form of defence. THe legal team want to put it to the test and see this as a good opportunity to do so.
The four politicians are now almost an irrelevance and testing the "Privelidge" main focus.
Andy, if the privelidge allows for its use this way, then that cannot be misuse.
7 February 2010
12:5539890Wouldn't it be lovely if we could all be financed for a home in the town in which we choose to work? From the viewpoint of a non political person what these people have done is morally reprehensible and it appears that "laws" have been manipulated to allow MP's to live virtually expense free. Why should these people not have to pay the ordinary expenses of life that all the rest of us have to fork out for? MP's should only be allowed to represent constituencies in which they live and work prior to becoming an MP. In this case they would not need to claim for umpteen homes and they would actually know what was going on at grass roots level. Additionally, some old big old hotel in London (I don't mean the West End!)could be bought and MP's having to stay overnight could perch there. They should NOT be living in the lap of luxury. Too soon they forget what it is to be like the rest of us.
7 February 2010
13:21398977 February 2010
15:0339904I note that Gerald Kaufmann appears to have thought he could not manage without (among many other things) 2 Waterford Crystal grapefruit bowls at my expense. I wonder if I could possibly claim for some cutlery or crockery on my expenses? It would be just as legitimate..........
My mate had an affectionate term for politicians: a shower of ba****ds
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
7 February 2010
17:3439914I find the MP's expense claims very hard to accept, but at least we have the ability to vote them out.
The Lords however, I find inexcusable. The proposed reforms to the House of Lords expense system has caused a great deal of upset...for the Lords of course! Lord Palmer suggested the proposed £200 a day allowance was "an utter insult" and that the additional £140 overnight payment would force elderly female peers to face "the scary experience" of getting a taxi to the outskirts of London to get a Hotel, suited to their standing.
How out of touch is this? To suggest that these people could make decisions for the populace is ridiculous. When we talk about antiquated ideas we need to remeber how absurd the House of Lords is. At the Beer Festival yesterday myself, my Dad and some friends ganged up on a guy that was suggesting these people are more suited to making decisions than the elected house because they had "no personal agenda". (It was suggested at one point he should move to Zimbabwe as this is the norm).
How anyone can support the notion of the democracy and still defend the Lords, I don't know!
7 February 2010
18:3339918Well DT1, we've had BOTH houses for centuries and they have, in their unique way, served the nation very well. What's that maxim? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don't subscribe to getting rid of everything because we can and it is old and outdated. Change needs to be fully justified and planned before it gets my support.
A quick think about devolution will tell anyone with half a brain that changing something to suit a political vote puller isn't necessarily a good thing, particularly when done badly. I would prefer to see our legislature focus on putting right the wrongs and inequalities of the devolution bills before taking an axe to sometihng else. When I have the same rights as the Scots, and to some extent the Welsh and Northern Irish, I will happily sit down and consider how best to deal with a second chamber, if there is to be one.
We should also remember, this is meant to be the UNITED Kingdom, not 4 republics! For the others, their strength and security has only been acheive through being united with the English. Unpalatible for seccesionists, but true nevertheless.
