Why...

[bazwillrun]

...is this lowlife not being prosecuted.
surely this case should be handed over to the CPS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20178332

would you get away with this in your job ?

he is nothing but a thief

[baza]

not a very good tea leaf....he got caught.

[bazwillrun]

frikkin iPad !

"although Mr MacShane has apologised "

yeah hes sorry....sorry he got caught

[LazyGun]

Its already been through the police and the CPS baz - they declined to prosecute, and one can only imagine it was down to not having enough evidence to secure a conviction....

[bazwillrun]

they now claim to have some new evidence

[FredPuli43]

Curious that he claims that he made no personal gain. Why then was he submitting false invoices?

It is , of course, immaterial whether he got any direct financial benefit; a man who deliberately falsifies, or makes false, records for such an accounting purpose is guilty whether or not he makes money from the falsity. That is a necessary legal provision precisely because someone who submits false accounts may, by so doing, make it impossible to prove what losses or gains are hidden. And someone may submit false or falsified documents in the hope of getting promotion or to keep their job, by hiding their own incompetence, or for any number of other reasons which don't bring them immediate financial reward or produce any recognisable financial loss to another.

So, in short, he should be prosecuted, on the material now disclosed (or previously disclosed, on the face of it)

[pdq1]

For such a small relative amount he has certainly come out the loser.

[jno]

David Laws got away with it and is now back in Cabinet meetings

http://en.wikipedia.o...nsion_from_Parliament

£40,000 in his case, rather more than MacShame's £13,000. But he's a Tory, so that's different.

[anotheoldgit]

MPs don't commit crimes, they only do a little 'mischief' apparently.

/// The "real mischief" of Mr MacShane's actions, the commissioner added, ///

I wonder if he will lose his pension? I very much doubt it.

[Brenden]

He should have been sacked and then prosecuted for theft - we the people would have been - or are the MPs covered by Parliamentary privilege>

[jno]

Brenden: yes, apparently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../uk-politics-20189599

[andy-hughes]

Interestingly her referred to his hope that MP's can 'take responsibility for their mistakes' - which is nothing at all to do with the reason why he has resigned.

Everyone, including MP's make mistakes, but this was not a mistake, it was deliberate and intentional theft of public money, so it appears that as usual, as an MP, this man thinks he has 'made a mistake' which is patently not the truth.

Had he resigned with a confession that he is a thief, and has taken public money which could be used for the public good, then at least people would have some respect for his honestly, belated thought it is.

[tommy-h]

Clear case of malfeasance,hope the cps take a new look at this case and decide to prosecute.They are only too keen to take small benefit crimes to court,why not the high and mighty?

[FredPuli43]

re jno's link . If the CPS ruled that letters, sent by the MP to the man supervising expenses, in which the MP admitted or explained the falsity of his claims, were not admissible simply because of Parliamentary privilege, then they should seek counsel's advice in future. That's the kind of decision that only a lawyer in government employment, who'd never had to apply elementary principles of evidence in a court, would make. It's utterly wrong.

[LazyGun]

For those interested, here is a transcript of the CSP report on Dennis McShane.

As I understand it from this report, the police and CPS have seen all the evidence that the committee did, and made a decision to prosecute - I have no idea why not - his actions seem clearly criminal to me, regardless of the actual amount.

http://www.scribd.com...y-p4pxjyp119caj2ijoah

[LazyGun]

D'Oh! error in last post.

The sentence "made a decision to prosecute" should read "made the decision not to prosecute"