If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Naughty Peers
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Things seem to have been a bit slow in P&D lately, largely because I think the news has been uninspiring, but this kind of peaked my interest, mainly because of my initial 'meh, more scandal' reaction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11567539
Can anyone else image their punishment being suspension if they were found guilty of misappropriating £125k? And these are just recommendations at this stage, they're not definitely going to be acted upon.
Does it speak to the notion that we harbour such low expectations of the people in the upper echelons of the political world, that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds can be creamed away and still a sacking isn't really deemed an appropriate response?
Baroness Uddin should be suspended until Easter 2012 and told to repay £125,349, the committee said.
...
Baroness Uddin has been suspended from the Labour Party and Lord Paul has resigned his Labour party membership.
Can anyone else image their punishment being suspension if they were found guilty of misappropriating £125k? And these are just recommendations at this stage, they're not definitely going to be acted upon.
Does it speak to the notion that we harbour such low expectations of the people in the upper echelons of the political world, that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds can be creamed away and still a sacking isn't really deemed an appropriate response?
0
Comments
Well it is wrong to swindle it out of honest taxpayers, much as it is to do it against the non honest ones.
I like how people do kick off so much about these things, I mean I agree with your point, but surely after the income has been taxed, its the government that is being fleeced, not the taxpayer. The taxpayer would still have paid the same tax irrespective of if this had occurred or not. Its just me being pedantic, considering its not technically the taxpayers money any more.
It is interesting with things like the Iraq war, where millions admirably turned up to protest against a war which was happening thousands of miles away. Yet when something happens like a lord swindling money, which sort of does directly effect the taxpayers pocket and not just their conscience, it is in the papers for a short while, but do you see masses of people taking to the street?
Right or wrong, people if they held the belief that the Iraq was was illegal, should have turned out to that protest. However in this case, with it being such a travesty of a misuse of taxpayers money, why do more people not care about this too? I know its not on the level of an illegal war, but to the extent the expenses scandal went on and the number of people jailed for swindling less, does it not tell you something about the British public, that en mass we are easily swayed by our consciousness if we are able to easily distance ourselves from the issue?
War or not, the MOD costs the tax payers pocket, admittedly more when in times of strife.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people didn't really care about the cost at the time, many did but I'm hedging my bets here and saying that if it hadn't been an illegal war, the same amount of people would have complained about the hit on the tax payer, but a lot less would have turned out to march. Thus showing that it may have primarily motivated by the moral issue.
There is a very clear difference.
One is use of taxation as it is intended. The other is theft.
So why is there not such the uproar that you would expect, if people were genuinely that pissed off with it? If this country can send near a million people to London to protest about a war which happened many thousands of miles away, why do these things such as expenses scandals seem to be 10 bods and a petition outside of somewhere?
Are people genuinely that pissed off that they want to practice arm chair politics?
I think the main thing that annoys me is that while someone can accurately and truthfully say something is wrong, the wider picture here is once again the media. Yes expenses swindling is wrong and illegal AFAIK, but so many things that are very wrong and quite important in this country get an arm chair response.
People seem to understand correctly that something is wrong, but in the odd few cases the media twist leads me to think that someone's ability to chose what to care about in today's world of right and wrong has been eroded to the point where people whilst correctly identifying and siding with each other when something is amiss, they don't see the forest because of the trees in front of them.
Im guilty of a little thing here, I didn't go to Parliament to complain about the expenses (I know some did) purely because I'm hypocritical to a degree and didn't think that one person would have made a difference. Now if there had been the response from the public, on the streets, and not just people getting incensed because it was everywhere in the papers, maybe I would have. I still to this day think that more people should have.
Papers and news today do too much analysis, it makes it easier for everyone, but in the end the analysis is still someone's viewpoint, and while its helpful to have a pinchful of it, it more people could analyse things for themselves, with a touch of "the wider picture" through people who actually know about things, I think the british public would be more reactive towards something like this if they came to a conclusion about something by themselves without being told the conclusion before the process, however similar the outcomes may have been either way.
It's pedancy here, but the bureaucratic function of a government deploying troops is legal, regardless of if the war they undertake is legal or not.
Plus it isnt theft from the taxpayer, as taxes have already been legally collected.
edit:
To clear this up a little, the "action" of a government being able to send troops out is legal, its what they are used for that is illegal/legal
Nope. Then it's a war crime. Primacy of legislation.
If you kill someone during a robbery, you will be charged with murder but not theft.
So swindling the taxpayer is ok if you don't get caught.
I might have to replace my favourite over used phrase "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
with something along the lines of "The crime is getting caught"