CHAYTOR THE CHEATER: WOOLAS THE....WOOL ASS

It’s not been a good day for our MPs.

It’s official, David Chaytor has admitted being a thief, or as the CPS (the Procurator Fiscal in England) put it, he admitted ‘dishonesty’.

Earlier this week Chaytor was told that he, along with two other Labour ex-MPs, that he had lost an appeal against being tried by a court like ordinary people. The “Supreme Court” ruled that parliamentary privilege does not cover ordinary common or garden crimes like stealing.

Apparently he has been granted unconditional bail and so was free to go home. Either the prisons must be full or we are already seeing preferential treatment.

Chaytor stole £1,950 claiming for IT services; he also claimed £1,175 a month to rent a flat in Regency Street, London, which he owned. That theft came to a total of £12,925; additionally he rented a cottage from his mother and illegally charged us £5,425.

An investigation by the Telegraph showed Chaytor to be a serial flipper having changed the designation of his second home six times, including to houses owned by his son, his mother and himself and claiming mortgage or rental for them.

Although he had originally complained that he was being unfairly treated (that’s a bloody laugh), he must have realized that ‘the ba’ was in the slates’ and admitted that he had acted “stupidly and inexplicably”. “There has been an unforgivable error in my accounting procedures for which I apologize unreservedly,” he is reported to have said. I’ll say there has David, it’s called greed.

Chaytor was one of these MPs who claimed the maximum he could for everything. It seems that his whole family was to benefit from him being an MP. He had his wife working for him; he claimed food allowances, stamp duty and bought new furniture when he flipped and moved home. He managed to use every allowance to the max. He even had a new door for one of the properties which cost £881.

The maximum he can serve for this crime is 7 years, however, I will bet that he gets a far lighter sentence and that he serves most of it in a nice comfy open prison.

In other criminal ex-MPs stories today Phil Woolarse has had his appeal against the ruling that he is barred from standing as an MP, overturned. He was found guilty of lying on his election material.

It’s just as well that’s not a criminal offence per se, otherwise the English Prison Service would have to find a vast number of spare cells.

In a way it’s a pity. The wool-brained, witless joke of a minister was always amusing to watch as he made a complete mess of everything he touched. My particular favorite is him standing in front of the cameras like a naughty boy agreeing with every word that Joanna Lumley was saying, whilst looking down at his shoes and swaying. Government minister , ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

Pratt more like.

Oh how we laughed and laughed and laughed...... and then, of course, we cried.

The 3 ex-Labour ex-MPs who were accused of fiddling their expenses have gone and got themselves a bucketful more of taxpayers’ money to help pay their legal bills... and it comes to them just a few weeks before the introduction of means testing for legal aid.

Chaytor, Morley and the inappropriately named Devine are accused of diddling the taxpayer collectively of around £60,000 with a variety of ploys such as false mortgage claims, rent claims and false invoices.

They are, under current rules, eligible for legal aid to fund their defences and that includes unbelievably the argument that they too superior to be tried in an ordinary court with ordinary people because they are...erm were ... politicians. One of the arguments that we will be paying for them to put forward is that they are covered under the English Bill of Rights which has never been revoked. It’s great what REAL money can do. Ours.

If they take their legal appeal all the way to the English Supreme Court, which, of course, now that we are paying, they would be mad not to do, the total cost of prosecuting the four (including Tory Lord Hanningfield), could exceed £3 million. We wanted them tried and now it will cost us millions to put them behind bars for a collective 'alleged' fraud of around £60,000.

David Cameron made much of the decision to granting them legal aid. Hanningfiledalso in the dock, but with different solicitors has not (at least yet) applied for the state aid. Mr Cameron also noted that they had unsuccessfully asked that they should be spared from standing in the dock when they appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court last month
.
He said that there would be a review of legal aid under a Tory government and said that there would not be legal aid available for MPs who are accused of fiddling their expenses. I’m not sure how he’ll manage that as I think that English law is based on “innocent until proved guilty” as is our own.

The three have engaged some of England’s top, and most expensive barristers, who charge hundreds of pounds an hour. I thought that when you were on legal aid you took whatever was going even if it was rubbish.

That’s the way it works for ordinary people.... but I keep forget these people think that they are on the same level as the Queen, who as I understand it, is not above the law, but IS the law and therefore cannot face justice in one of her own courts

The politicians could face up to seven years in jail if found guilty of stealing taxpayers’ cash. But who’s betting on that?

Pictured: The prisoners at the bar, except of course they aren't prisoners, them being who they are.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO REFORM THIS PLACE?

How embarrassing for Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Three Labour MPs and a Conservative lord yesterday pled not guilty to fraud, and insisted that English Courts should not try them as they were parliamentarians.

Morley, Chaytor, Devine and Hanningfield said the charges against them should be heard by parliamentary authorities (which, as we all know, let MPs off with most stuff, and Lords off with everything).

They insisted that they were protected from criminal prosecution by parliamentary privilege citing the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The MPs asked to be spared the humiliation of being forced to stand in the dock of the court like the rest of the criminal fraternity because they were something special. Much to his credit the magistrate denied the request.

The barrister for the MPs trotted out some nonsense about his clients of course not feeling that they were above the law, insisting that parliamentary privilege is a part of the law and had been since 1689. He did not think that his clients should not stand trial, but (and I admit, I paraphrase) not in the kind of court that was suitable for ordinary people.

Hanningfield, in a separate case, pled not guilty to charges relating to his allowance claims. His barrister said he would also challenge the jurisdiction of the court. He too apparently feels that what is right for ordinary people wouldn’t suit him too terribly well.

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, had the men charged with false accounting. When they indicated that ordinary people’s courts did not have the right to try the likes of them Mr Starmer replied that prosecutors had decided that the matter should be tested in court.

Interestingly when Princess Anne was charged in court (albeit with far less serious charges) no similar claim for superiority was made.

The charges, according to The Times, are as follows:

Morley, MP for Scunthorpe, faces three charges alleging that he claimed £30,428 more than he was entitled to in second home expenses between 2004 and 2007.

Chaytor, MP for Bury North, also faces three charges. He is accused of fraudulently claiming £18,425 in second home allowances and of using a false invoice to claim £1,950 in IT services.

Devine, MP for Livingston, faces two charges alleging that he claimed £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.

Hanningfield faces six charges of false accounting, relating to 13 claims of between £154.50 and £174 for overnight allowances between 2006 and 2009.

In a separate case it was announced today that Uddin had got away with what had been alleged as fruadulent claims for housing allowances. In what some will see as a complete travesty of justice the case against Mrs Uddin was thrown out because of a recent ruling by the Lords authorities which decided that peers could nominate a property as their "main" home even if they only "visit" it once a month.

Given the generosity of overnight expenses this has cleared as legal the practice of nominating a main home out of London, as long as a visit for a few minutes can be arranged once a month. Nice little earner.

No wonder these people want to be tried by parliament. We’d probably end up paying them compensation and they would all be made Privy Councilors and be given knighthoods and a slap up dinner at Buckingham Palace.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO REFORM THIS PLACE?


Picture, from The Times, shows Elliot Morley (second left), David Chaytor (second right) and Jim Devine (right) arriving at court with their lawyers.

==========

WHAT PLANET DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE ON?

The Priviliged Three and the Noble Lord Hanningfield

IN THE BUSINESS of Parliamentary Expenses it has been revealed that England’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer, has decided to press forward with charges on Morley, Devine and Chaytor from the Commons, and Hanningfield from the House of Lords, with investigations still ongoing in the case of Uddin (also from the Upper House).

Mr Starmer will, however, have to overcome the ancient doctrine of parliamentary privilege after the three Labour MPs announced they would use it to fight the charges.

A joint statement from the three (who, it is believed are using the Labour Party’s solicitors for the case) indicated that they thought the issue was one for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards rather than the police and the courts as it would be for ordinary people. They were, they said, extremely disappointed that the DPP had decided to instigate proceedings against them. They pointed out that the Parliamentary Commissioner's job was to enforce the rules.

Of course they are disappointed it hasn’t been left in the hands of the Parliamentary Commissioner. He would have let them off and told them to apologise to the House.

Although it is an ancient doctrine, parliamentary privilege has had a huge role in thwarting recent attempts by the police to investigate alleged wrongdoing by MPs and peers, including the expenses claims of the Tory MP Derek Conway who started the whole expenses saga, and the Cash for Peerages saga. Mr Starmer said: “Lawyers representing those who have been charged have raised with us the question of parliamentary privilege. We have considered that question and concluded that the applicability and extent of any parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court.”

You can’t help wonder what world and what century these people are living in.

Quite clearly the DPP wouldn’t have gone forward with such high profile cases unless he could be very sure of his facts. But these three men seem to feel that they are in the same position as the Queen, who cannot be charged with an offence because she is the embodiment of the law.

Of course all three of these low lifes are standing down at the next election... (yes, they are still on the payroll; we are paying them as I write, at £65,000 pa, and they will be entitled to a grant at the end of parliament) so we can’t even punish them at the ballot box.

Hanningfield was suspended from the Parliamentary Conservative Party today and resigned his position as a frontbench business spokesman in the House of Lords. He, to his credit, appears (so far) not to think himself above the law, although he denies any wrong doing. Perhaps if the case is tested in the courts and found for the MPs, Hanningfield’s case will be dismissed anyway.

I hope that Mrs Harman’s famed Court of Public Opinion will be making it very clear to these MPs that we don’t think that they are above the law, and that we want them to stand trial in one of the same kinds of court that all other criminals have to tolerate.

In my opinion they should not be granted bail. They are certainly not to be trusted.

Afterthought:

If you are convinced of your innocence and if you have faith in the English justice system (and why wouldn’t you; you who have been sitting for years in the parliament that controls it), then why would you be unhappy about facing the same form of justice that you have foist on the rest of that nation?

BILL OF RIGHTS (1689) MAY PROTECT MPs FROM PROSECUTION

According to The Times three Labour MPs being investigated for expenses fraud are arguing that they should not be prosecuted because their suspect claims are covered by parliamentary privilege. The MPs have hired legal experts to assert that the 1689 Bill of Rights protects them from prosecution. They contest that the House of Commons rulebook on expenses is “privileged” and cannot be subject to scrutiny by the courts.

So, not only have they “allegedly” stolen money from us, they also think that under some 17th Century law, they are excused from facing the courts because they are above the law. The legal manoeuvre raises the prospect of the case against the MPs being thrown out before it reaches trial or being bogged down for months in legal argument.

Elliot Morley and David Chaytor, are being investigated by police over allegations they received taxpayers’ money for nonexistent mortgages on second homes. Jim Devine is alleged to have submitted a claim for £2,157 for rewiring his London flat using a receipt bearing a bogus VAT number.

Apparently they hope that the tactic will keep the case out of the courts for long enough that it will not be headline news in the run up to the election.

You couldn’t make this up could you? Just how deluded are these people? The issue isn’t the small sums that they and their colleagues fiddled. Even added all together, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. What matters to us is that people placed by us in a unique position of responsibility and trust have taken money that was ours because they could. And now they are going to say.... “Nah nah nah nah nah... you can’t touch us...we’re special, we’re above the law...”

The MPs’ lawyers have advised them that because of the legal questions hanging over the inquiry, they are within their rights not to co-operate with the police.

WHAT? Now the law states that MPs don’t have to co-operate with the police?

Liberal Democrat MP anti sleaze campaigner, Norman Baker, said: “Parliamentary privilege exists to safeguard democracy not to subvert it. It certainly does not exist to allow MPs to rip off the taxpayer with impunity. Whether or not these MPs have committed a crime, they should not be allowed to subvert the court process with arcane technicalities that threaten further to undermine the standing of parliament.”

Mr Baker is 100% right. This nonsense needs stamping on NOW. MPs in the Duck House Parliament have made the UK a laughing stock all over the world. To try to wriggle out of their responsibilities on the basis of an ancient piece of legislation that puts them above the law is beyond belief. Labour needs to understand that this will do far more harm than good to them in the run up to the election.