/ Wot? No Denis MacShane thread?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Olaf Prot - on 02 Nov 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/02/labour-expels-denis-macshane-expenses

or

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9651100/MPs-expenses-scandal-Denis-MacShane-...

depending on which side you dress.

I'm sure we'd all like to know how he is not being prosecuted for fraud given that the false invoices were "plainly intended to deceive"??
Simon4 - on 02 Nov 2012
In reply to Olaf Prot: Are you inviting comment about fraud from the former Europe minister Kei... V..? Sorry, wrong former Europe minister, no its Dennis MacShame.

Must be something about that job - a bit like the age of consent, its different on the continent, but they forget they have come back to the UK.
Johnny_Grunwald on 02 Nov 2012
In reply to Olaf Prot:

Having read the two linked articles, I'm struggling to find much to support the hyperbole in the Chairman's statement.

"The Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee said it was the “gravest case” to come before MPs."

dale1968 - on 02 Nov 2012
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald: he should be in prison, headed paper with directors names on an organization that did not exist, and he held the account for? other than that, sure he was wonderful..
jonny taylor on 02 Nov 2012
In reply to Olaf Prot:
"Clearly I deeply regret that the way I chose to be reimbursed for costs [...] has been judged so harshly"

A masterful turn of phrase that sounds just like an apology but is actually anything but.
Sarah G on 02 Nov 2012
In reply to Olaf Prot:
In answer to the OP title;

Because he's a labour MP.


A tory or LDem would have been pilloried by the fluffy UKC collective.

Sxx
Dominion - on 02 Nov 2012
In reply to Sarah G:

> Because he's a labour MP.
>
>
> A tory or LDem would have been pilloried by the fluffy UKC collective.



I note that one of his roles in Europe wsa fighting anti-semitism, and that the issue of his expenses claims was raised by the BNP



NB This does not mean that his casual approach to writing himself cheques for expenses is in any way condoned.

Frankly I would like to have seen every MP who made fraudulent expenses claims - ie ones they felt obliged to pay back - had been kicked out of Parliament - after a trial, of course - then gaoled if found guilty, and barred from ever having any connection with a public office ever again.

Dominion - on 02 Nov 2012
In reply to Dominion:

I also note that he has now resigned as an MP, and there will be a by-election

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

Mr MacShane, who has has repaid the money, said he wanted to take responsibility for his mistakes.

A by-election is now expected in his Rotherham constituency, where he has been an MP since 1994.


Far too many MPs didn't have the basic honesty to do that during what should have been a major culling of cheats, and are still in Parliament...


Nic on 02 Nov 2012
In reply to jonny taylor:

> "Clearly I deeply regret that the way I chose to be reimbursed for costs [...] has been judged so harshly"

Yes, that was masterful. Must try it the next time I am done for lifting half a pound of Cheddar from Tesco..."Clearly I deeply regret that the way I chose to negotiate the vending of some cheesy comestibles has been judged so harshly"!

dale1968 - on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to Sarah G: hardly come out in force to denounce him, if it was a tory their would have been dozens of comments, left wing ukc...
Simon4 - on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to Sarah G:

> A tory or LDem would have been pilloried by the fluffy UKC collective.

The story has also become "un-history" on the BBC, thanks to a carefully timed spoiler last night "senior tory MAY have been paedophile". Screaming headlines on BBC newsprogrames/website, for a story that could have been launched at any time in the last 30 years, but just happened to be splashed the very day that MacShane was found bang to rights - and is in any case based on conjecture and rumour, rather than an actual conviction/tribunal judgement. Almost no reference at all to the MacShane story now on the BBC website, presumably it will be expunged from BBC news programs as well.

This is the same BBC that gave weeks of prominence to some bad language to a policeman from the chief whip, while this story of proven corruption from a former minister will sink without trace after the un-avoidable bare minimum of coverage.

The BBC can dish it out, but doesn't like to take it in return. By spreading rumours about a reported Tory paedophile, they distract attention from the fact that there is good reason to believe that BBC employees raped children on BBC premises, with the connivance/protection of senior BBC management - or at least their deliberate ignorance.

johncook - on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to Dominion: Rotherham seems to be able to select iffy labour (It would have to be labour in Rotherham!) MP's. This is the third one IIRC, who has been found to be 'up to no good'. Guess what party the MP will represent, after the by-election here, in good old Rotherham!
Wiley Coyote - on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to Simon4:
> (In reply to Sarah G)
>
> [...]
>
> The story has also become "un-history" on the BBC, judgement. Almost no reference at all to the MacShane story now on the BBC website,

Er...is this the same BBC website I've just read which actually reports that Macshane is a former BBC reporter?
In reply to Olaf Prot: It's a shame,

As well as being provided IT equipment by parliment he decided to claim for

11 March 2005: Notebook travel computer, £1,050
2 November 2005: Toshiba Tecra, £834.23
28 December 2005: Siemens portable computer, £554.96
11 February 2006: Packard computer, £563.97
5 December 2006: Sony portable computer, £1,276.59
22 June 2007: Toshiba T5300 laptop, £611.12
17 September 2007: Toshiba laptop, £578.99
31 December 2007: Toshiba laptop, £498.95

And

7 January 2005 19 December 2004 £650 Research and translation work as agreed
14 February 2005 22 January 2005 £850 Research and communication work as agreed
18 March 2005 10 March 2005 £850 Research and translation consultancy
31 March 2005 28 March 2005 £550 Agreed research and translation
14 June 2005 1 April 2005 £750 Research and translation as requested
18 July 2005 11 July 2005 £750 Research and translation as requested
10 August 2005 5 August 2005 £500 Research and translation as commissioned
17 October 2005 12 October 2005 £450 Research and translation as agreed
12 December 2005 9 December 2005 £550 Research and translation as agreed
7 February 2006 30 January 2006 £550 Research and translation as agreed
17 June 2006 13 June 2006 £750 Translations and research as agreed
19 September 2006 15 September 2006 £750 Research and translation as requested
24 October 2006 19 October 2006 £950 Research and translation as agreed
12 November 2006 8 November 2006 £550 Research and translation work as agreed
7 December 2006 29 November 2006 £850 Research and translation as agreed
31 January 2007 19 January 2007 £550 Research and translation as agreed
13 November 2007 30 October 2007 £850 Research and translation as agreed
10 December 2007 29 November 2007 £550 Agreed research and translation
11 January 2008 4 January 2008 £650 Research and translation as agreed

Presumably it would be the Met and CPS that would investigate fraud?
elsewhere on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to Olaf Prot:
The story was pretty much over when he resigned within hours of being censured.

It is curious he's not been prosecuted.

PS I extend my deepest sympathies to the persecuted Tories of UKC.
off-duty - on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to elsewhere:
> (In reply to Olaf Prot)
> The story was pretty much over when he resigned within hours of being censured.
>
> It is curious he's not been prosecuted.
>

My understanding is that at the time of the police investigation the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.
Subsequent to that, and protected by parliamentary privilege, McShane has made a number of admissions and further documentation has been disclosed.
My guess would be that the police will now be faced with the prospect of having to "parallel" those lines of enquiry to introduce them as evidence.
IF there is sufficient evidence a charge might result, but undoubtedly McShane's brief would argue that a fair trial is impossible with this publicity.
elsewhere on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to off-duty:
I'd guessed/read the first bit of that but certainly not the rest.
In reply to Simon4:
> (In reply to Sarah G)
>
> [...]
>
> The story has also become "un-history" on the BBC, thanks to a carefully timed spoiler last night "senior tory MAY have been paedophile". Screaming headlines on BBC newsprogrames/website, for a story that could have been launched at any time in the last 30 years, but just happened to be splashed the very day that MacShane was found bang to rights - and is in any case based on conjecture and rumour, rather than an actual conviction/tribunal judgement. Almost no reference at all to the MacShane story now on the BBC website, presumably it will be expunged from BBC news programs as well.
>
> This is the same BBC that gave weeks of prominence to some bad language to a policeman from the chief whip, while this story of proven corruption from a former minister will sink without trace after the un-avoidable bare minimum of coverage.
>
> The BBC can dish it out, but doesn't like to take it in return. By spreading rumours about a reported Tory paedophile, they distract attention from the fact that there is good reason to believe that BBC employees raped children on BBC premises, with the connivance/protection of senior BBC management - or at least their deliberate ignorance.

The fact that a large proportion of MPs are trough-snuffling wankers is the issue here, irrespective of their party affiliations.
Darron - on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to Simon4:
The Chief Whip story ran for weeks because he refused to confirm what he said to the policeman and did not resign. The McShane story will probably go away more quickly because he resigned quickly.
Wiley Coyote - on 03 Nov 2012
In reply to Olaf Prot:

The dispute over whether his admission letters should be admissible in court could give it legs.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.