Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Different "Laws" + Standards?
13 Answers
An amputee has been sent to prison for having cheated the benefits system out of some £40k which is approximately the same amount allegedly unlawfully gained by the ex Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws MP.
Why ought Mr Laws be allowed to merely stand down from his post, still remain an MP, whereas this guy is jailed for what basically amounts to the same offence? Plus, of course, the dozens of MPs not only allowed to slip out the back door by standing down at the recent GE, but many of whom are about to receive an average of around the above amount as some kind of "severance pay".
As I understand it, there are only about 4 MPs currently being prosecuted for similar wrongdoings. Why?Double standards? Why should members of the public be prosecuted when many of the "Honourable Members" escape justice, including of course a criminal record, for misdemeanours of a more serious nature given the fact that they were in so called positions of trust?
http://www.express.co...-220-mile-jungle-trek
Why ought Mr Laws be allowed to merely stand down from his post, still remain an MP, whereas this guy is jailed for what basically amounts to the same offence? Plus, of course, the dozens of MPs not only allowed to slip out the back door by standing down at the recent GE, but many of whom are about to receive an average of around the above amount as some kind of "severance pay".
As I understand it, there are only about 4 MPs currently being prosecuted for similar wrongdoings. Why?Double standards? Why should members of the public be prosecuted when many of the "Honourable Members" escape justice, including of course a criminal record, for misdemeanours of a more serious nature given the fact that they were in so called positions of trust?
http://www.express.co...-220-mile-jungle-trek
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by OrcadianOil. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think you'll also find that afore mentioned MPs that were NOT prosecuted also got nice big GOODBYE paychecks.. TAX free.. some of up to £45,000
Reported on LBC yesterday morning - they had a call in - to ask if its fair these people who tried to outwit the expenses system should get yet more money to help them 'revert to a normal life'
What The Funicular????
Makes me FURIOUS!!!
If I diddled the system I would get banged up.. they get given MORE of our money!!
Reported on LBC yesterday morning - they had a call in - to ask if its fair these people who tried to outwit the expenses system should get yet more money to help them 'revert to a normal life'
What The Funicular????
Makes me FURIOUS!!!
If I diddled the system I would get banged up.. they get given MORE of our money!!
-- answer removed --
Orcadian
Apart from the obvious one law for them etc answer to this ...
You seem to be overlooking the main difference; the benefits system has rules that are enshrined in law. So anyone who breaks the rules is breaking the law.
David Laws didn't break any laws. He broke some rules although arguably in his case if he had complied with the rules he would have been due even more money.
Other than David Laws, the MPs who worked the system may have acted dishonestly or immorally in our opinion but they did not necessarily break any laws.
The 4 who are being done can be shown to have committed fraud and are being prosecuted on that basis.
.
Apart from the obvious one law for them etc answer to this ...
You seem to be overlooking the main difference; the benefits system has rules that are enshrined in law. So anyone who breaks the rules is breaking the law.
David Laws didn't break any laws. He broke some rules although arguably in his case if he had complied with the rules he would have been due even more money.
Other than David Laws, the MPs who worked the system may have acted dishonestly or immorally in our opinion but they did not necessarily break any laws.
The 4 who are being done can be shown to have committed fraud and are being prosecuted on that basis.
.
Zeuhl,
I take your point about David Laws having broken parliamentary rules etc. However, and this for me is the crux, his "rules breaking", to me, is no different to what the benefits claimant did, i.e. dishonestly obtaining public funds, which, to any intelligent individual adds up to a criminal act.
The disabled guy also "broke the rules" and has been jailed as a result. As far as I'm aware, again, I don't believe that similar actions by MPs could be covered by so called "parliamentary privilege", therefore why shouldn't they also be subject to our criminal laws as well? It sets a very disappointing example to the electorate who deserve better.
I take your point about David Laws having broken parliamentary rules etc. However, and this for me is the crux, his "rules breaking", to me, is no different to what the benefits claimant did, i.e. dishonestly obtaining public funds, which, to any intelligent individual adds up to a criminal act.
The disabled guy also "broke the rules" and has been jailed as a result. As far as I'm aware, again, I don't believe that similar actions by MPs could be covered by so called "parliamentary privilege", therefore why shouldn't they also be subject to our criminal laws as well? It sets a very disappointing example to the electorate who deserve better.
-- answer removed --
Well, guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always been under the impression that in the UK, the monarch is the only person immune from prosecution?
God help these politicians were our society akin to certain others where not only would there be open hostility and demonstrations against them, there would most probably be a few lynchings and outright revolution, too.
God help these politicians were our society akin to certain others where not only would there be open hostility and demonstrations against them, there would most probably be a few lynchings and outright revolution, too.
I really don't think that there is any point in trying to correct you.
What *ought* to be is certainly not the same as what *is*..............which is why some offence are prosecutable, and others aren't.
I agree that 'rule-breaking' and 'law-breaking' can be a matter of perception and semantics but until such a time as the legislation catches up some offences, however morally ambiguous will remain non-prosecutable.
What *ought* to be is certainly not the same as what *is*..............which is why some offence are prosecutable, and others aren't.
I agree that 'rule-breaking' and 'law-breaking' can be a matter of perception and semantics but until such a time as the legislation catches up some offences, however morally ambiguous will remain non-prosecutable.
1 to 13 of 13
