Friday 3 December 2010


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 proc
edures 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.



    It's ten years since I berated Roger Helmer MEP (Con) in debate about the Tory slogan "In Europe but not run by Europe",
    pointing out that it was deliberately deceitful as it was impossible to be in the EU and not be run by every single one of its rules.

    If political pamphlets had been subject to Advertising Standards and Trades Description laws, then Mr. Helmer, his agent and the Conservative party would have been in court and severely punished.

    Having been in business, Roger owned up in a rather good humoured way that I had made my point.

    More recently (2008) Stuart Wheeler went to court to apply for a judicial review of the government's refusal to keep its promise of a referendum on the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty (identical in their effects).

    The government's defence, upheld in court, was that there is "No reasonable expectation" that any politicians will ever carry out any of the promises contained in their manifestos.

    So, you have been warned! What's more they will pick your pocket whilst they are reneging.

  2. Tris

    Chaytor wont go to prison he has already been told that already you see when you are up on charge. You(your QC) can ask quite probably before the trial starts if the Judge is considering you for a custodial sentence for your offence if you are found guilty.
    The judge can quite probably indicate yea or nay to imposing a custodial sentence if said Judge says nay to imposing a custodial sentence before trial he/she can not then change their mind and imprison you if you decide to have the trail and are found guilty.

    You can then decide to save the Crown the cost of trail and you will not have a custodial sentence......most likely a lower level penalty
    will be given

    How do i know this cos thats what i dun meself

  3. Ha ha CH... maybe indeed.

  4. Yes Mr S, that's pretty damning isn't it. We need to be reminded at every election that whatever the party, its manifesto and its intentions are likely to be pretty much at varience with one another.

    Nick Cameron is a case very much in point.

    His alter ego David Clegg too.

    Along with a House of Placemen stuffing their pockets with our money and not subject to our laws and an unelected head of state not subject to any law at all, I'm not entirely sure why we would even bother wasting money on an electionsgiven that whatever they promise is bound to be, and is allowed by law to be, a lie..

  5. Ah... yes Niko... that's all very clear.

    What you saying is if you slip the QC a little something and he slips it, minus commission, to the wiggy fellow on the bench (I bet it's not actually a bench. People who speak posh like that have to have cushioned seating. When people incessantly have plums in their mouth it seems to do something to their bums and they can't sit on the same kind of seats as ordinary people), anyway....then you say "guilty as charged me lord. I'm just one of life's tealeafs", you get away with being treated as if you were just an unemployed person?

    OK. I’ll remember that. But it makes some of the things they've been saying about FIFA a bit erm....wrong.

  6. Tris

    NO! you just do it the way i said it no bribery no corruption it is the way things are done.
    JUDGES can give an indication of the sentence they may consider given your criminal record if you are found guilty.

    Its not strictly plea bargaining and the judge doesn't have to indicate one way or another...But Trails are expensive and if someone can be aided to admit their Guilt and save the Crown a load of expense then the sentence will reflect a tariff for admission and remorse.

    Thats the way of it whether you choose to believe it or not...........And not a penny changes hands no need

    The Defense QC gets a pat on the back for a quick trial the Prosecution gets a quick conviction and no expensive Jury trail and the Judge gets to clear one of his court list...
    everybodys career is boosted And you get to stay out of jail.

    sorry if you thought things like this dont go on but they do its the norm.

  7. I suppose Niko, it's all about them getting their targets!

  8. The point is, are they going to be good MPs? We don't conscript. People join the army, hopefully fully aware of what may happen, and frequently did under Labour. There should be no special circumstances. We have already had compulsory all female lists and look at the kind of rubbish they threw up. Not any more, please. (With respect to servicemen.)