Sunday, 17 January 2010

Fraudsters' Parliament -11

I met a couple of nice people at a party last evening...... discussion got round to politics... as it does!

This morning I checked  out my blog and noticed that it was lacking a little culture! Searched the web... as you do.... and found a lovely little song on YouTube .... yes it is dedicated to the MPs' expenses scandal!

Check it out on the link below;


Enjoy!


Also have a look at this gag reel of MPs' expenses excuses.... also found on Youtube;


Now for some more serious stuff! I had a look at Wikipaedia and found this information on The Fraud Act 2006. Look particularly at Sections 2-4 ('Fraud by false representation', 'Fraud by failing to disclose information' and 'Fraud by abuse of position');-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud_Act_2006

The link on the explanatory notes relating to the Act is rather interesting. I am no legal expert, but could not these notes have been written specifically to deal with MPs who make fraudulent expenses and other claims?

Check it out:-

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060035_en_1

I ask the question that does not appear to have been asked anywhere in the corridors of power;


Why have we, the taxpaying citizen voters of the UK, not heard the slamming of cell doors behind a not inconsiderable number of MPs in this Fraudsters' Parliament?

Monday, 11 January 2010

The Fraudsters' Parliament - 10

Now that we are pre-occupied with political events in Northern Ireland, the bad weather at home, temporary school closures, ungritted roads, etc., etc., etc., has anyone noticed that the public consultation  deadline details for the attempted 'watering down' of the Kelly Report on MPs' expenses have been announced with all the noise, pomp and razzamataz of a solitary ant tiptoeing past a mechanical digger at full throttle!!

You haven't? ..... Don't worry! We are getting used, in our so called democracy, to having bad news (for politicians) being slipped out or buried at a time of bad news!

The deadline for public consultation is approaching rapidly!

We the taxpaying citizen voters of  the UK have a number of choices;

a). Do nothing and allow those in this parliament who have merrily trousered taxpayers' cash  to continue to do so  ( I call this the 'politicians preferred option'!).

b). Register our feelings (and demand appropriate action against those guilty of misappropriation of public monies with an insistence that the fiddling stops) online at the IPSA consultaion site where the 'powers that be' (The 'crooks' to you and me!) have allowed us, the 'sheeple', to view an 'edited' version of the proposals with a restricted comment facility!

c). Register our feelings by commenting on the full proposals in writing, demanding that the Fraud Act 2006 be used against those who have misappropriated taxpayers' monies and demanding that all self enrichment be stopped!

Or am I just growing cynical in my advancing years!!

The address of the IPSA consultation site is;

http://mpexpensesconsultation.org.uk/

Is it just my old eyes but do the 'new' proposals seem to be a sseveral steps backward  from the Kelly proposals?

Sunday, 10 January 2010

The Fraudsters' Parliament -9

As promised, please find below the text of my comment to the The Herald/Sunday Herald website;


Dear heraldscotland,



Unlike Mr Darling, and many of those in what has become more widely known as the Westminster Fraudsters' Parliament, I am not a lawyer. As a taxpaying, voting citizen of the UK, I have read the Fraud Act 2006 which came into force in England in January 2007 and have come to the conclusion that it COULD have been written to deal specifically with those in this parliament who have been trousering taxpayers' monies!
The following text from the Act may cover the situation;


'1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).


(2) The sections are-


(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).


(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).


(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.


2 Fraud by false representation


(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.


(2) A representation is false if-
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.


(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of-
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.


(4) A representation may be express or implied.'




The explanatory notes accompanying the Act include the following text;


'Section 2: Fraud by false representation


10. Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.'


I would suggest that the many and various attempts by MPs to change, obscure, conceal and ignore attempts to 'flush out ' these practices must be held as evidence that those concerned were aware that their actions were dishonest and that their behaviour would be regarded by dishonest by reasonable and honest people.

I note that this case fulfills at least two of the common public interest factors contained in Section 5.9 of the current Prosecution Manual which is used to determine whether or not the Crown Prosecution Service will instigate a prosecution namely:-


5.9
a). a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
e). the defendant was in a position of trust;
o.) there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct;


As I mentioned earlier, I am not a lawyer... just a taxpaying citizen voter of the UK..... but am I the only one who is asking why this law has not been deployed against those MPs in the Westminster  Parliament who have 'misappropriated' public monies, irrespective of their political party or their level of seniority in that political party?


If the law DOES apply to MPs, as it applies to all of us in England (I am not sure of the situation in Scotland), when can I, a taxpaying citizen voter, expect to hear the slamming of cell doors behind the guilty?


Yours faithfully,


John L Bell
http://johnlbell.blogspot.com/

The web address of the website is;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/

The address of the article which prompted the comment is;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/chancellor-quits-law-body-as-expenses-inquiry-begins-1.997379

Fraudsters' Parliament - 8

I have just read an article on The Herald/Sunday Herald website relating to Alistair Darling resigning from from Scotland’s most prestigious legal body after it started an inquiry into his conduct surrounding his expenses as an MP!

You can read the article on the online version of the newspaper at the link below;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/

The link direct to the article is;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/chancellor-quits-law-body-as-expenses-inquiry-begins-1.997379

This paper has an online comment facility. It is necessary to register, confirm a regisration e-mail sent to your email box and then login.

I sent a comment in but there does not appear to be a confirmation system so I am not sure if my comment got through! ..... There was nothing new in the comment..... just the same statement followed by the same question! I have had problems including the text of my comment in this post so will try to include it in my next post. The comment is copyright free so feel free to cut and paste it into any bona fide letter.

Saturday, 9 January 2010

This Fraudsters' Parliament - 7

No mention of the UK MPs' expenses  scandal can be made without mentioning the role of The Daily Telegraph in dragging the sordid facts into the full glare of public scrutiny. At this point I have to admit that I was not  an avid telegraph reader prior to taking a taxpaying citizen voter's interest in the apparent ease with which MPs appeared to be trousering public funds.... the paper had always appeared right of centre.
 Even today, I prefer to 'graze' the national daily newspapers choosing at random at the newstand and cross referencing  with the online versions of rival papers on the internet.

When the details concerning 'MPs' expenses irregularities'......( Oh, Come on! I mean the frauds that were being carried out!) were being offered in Fleet Street, I expected the Telegraph only to target those Labour MPs who were being dishonest.
 There were already whisperings online that at least one newspaper was interested in acquiring the data but only intended it to be used against one political party! If this is true, there must be one newspaper who is dreading the day when it is identified and the targeted political party is identified.
You never know.... you might read about it on a blog like mine!
I was somewhat surprised (Sorry to the Editorial Team at the Telegraph!) to find that the information appeared to be published in quite an even handed way. Well done!

We now know much more about the dishonest practices which were commonly practised by MPs in parliament thanks to the ongoing series of articles published but the Daily Telegraph....... much more than we would ever have learned from the infamous 'redacted' data which was officially 'published' by parliamentary sources and which would have concealed all the fraudulent claims. I have used the word dishonest relating to many MPs' claims since coming upon the following text which is official advice on the deployment of The Fraud Act 2006 which came into force in January 2007



'Section 2: Fraud by false representation


10. Section 2 (Fraud by false representation) makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.'


I am no legal eagle, but I would suggest that the many and various attempts by MPs to change, obscure, conceal and ignore attempts to 'flush out ' these practices must be held as evidence that those concerned were aware that there actions were dishonest and that their behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.

You can find the online version of The Daily Telegraph by clicking on the link below;

www.telegraph.co.uk/news


The Daily Telegraph online edition has a search facility but do not seem to have the same online comments facility mentioned in my previous post.

Wednesday, 6 January 2010

This Fraudsters' Parliament - 6




I decided that I needed to find out a little more information about what appeared to be 'somewhat shady' financial practices going on in parliament! The first thing I did was buy a copy of Heathers Brooke's book Your Right to Know.  This was to be prove invaluable when composing Freedom of Information requests.







I was later to read Martin Bell's book  A Very British Revolution which gave a very comprehensive account of a one time insider's views on the shameful activities of those in this Fraudsters' Parliament! (My words-not Martin Bell's,- who, by the way is no relation!)



Another excellent source of information was to be the account of The Daily Telegraph's exposure of the whole affair in No Expenses Spared by Robert Winnett and Gordon Rayner.




All were available from Amazon or any good bookshop at both new and secondhand prices!

You may want to also have a look at Heather Brooke's forthcoming book which is due out in early 2010. There is also a BBC4 TV drama programme about Ms Brooke's Freedom of Information campaign relating to the MPs' expenses scandal which is due on air in early 2010 and entitled Bringing Down The House
Details can be found on the Your Right To Know website at;


or at;




I also discovered that the main newspapers in the UK have online editions... with online comments capability!

Now I could check out a story from several sources in an attempt get more of an overview of exactly what was happening and attempt to 'filter out' some political bias in individual newspapers when searching for 'facts'.

I was still a beginner at this but I was getting better!

I found that The Times welcomed online comments about its articles on political matters. The Times online edition can be found at;


If you want to check out their articles on the UK MPs' expenses scandal click on the link above and type in MPs' expenses in the SEARCH box. That will take you to their archive with an option to go to the most recent articles. In order to comment you have to login but this is an easy process!

The Daily Mail also has an online edition at;


Click on the above link and type in MPs' expenses in the SEARCH box. That will take you to their archive with an option to go to the most recent articles. In order to comment you have to login but this is an easy process!

The Guardian newspaper has an excellent comments capability and their online edition can be found at;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

It has simple formatting buttons to enable a reader to format the text in their comment including BOLD  and ITALIC for added impact.

Click on the above link and type in MPs' expenses in the SEARCH box. That will take you to their archive with an option to go to the most recent articles. In order to comment you have to login but this is an easy process!

The Daily Express also has an online edition. It can be found at;


The process for commenting is similar to that for the other newspapers shown.

The Independent also has a healthy comments capability. This online edition of this newspaper can be found at;




Saturday, 19 December 2009

The Fraudsters' Parliament -5

By 25th March 2008 the battle over MPs expenses was to hot up. By that date it was heading for the High Court after the House of Commons launched a late attempt to prevent the publication of details of the claims made by MPs.
They appealed against disclosure claiming that the publication of their second homes addresses would mean that they were less likely to 'speak their minds' which would 'inhibit democratic debate'. They also claimed that disclosure of addresses would present a security risk and may produce a potential bill for the taxpayer!

We now know, of course, that several MPs were looking at a prison sentence if the details of their claims came into the public domain.

For a clear overview of the developments in this story, try Wikipaedia's information on the MPs' expenses scandal at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPs

In the SEARCH box type in MPs' Expenses scandal. This will get you to the section giving the overview of the UK parliameentray expenses scandal to date!

The Information Tribunal had ordered the Commons to release MPs' individual claims and said that there was no reason why their second home details should not be revealed too. The then Speaker of the House was apparently responsible for the launching the appeal against disclosure. It was to cost him his job!...... at least in the House of Commons!

Friday, 18 December 2009

The Fraudsters' Parliament - 4

I was determined not to let the matter rest. On the 11th March 2008 I sent off a request for further information to the Committee on Standards and Privileges at the House of Commons. I still wasn't particular good at this! I would compose these letters when I had finished other work at home and often late in the evening.
I had also decided to have some sort of recorded delivery of these letters--- not only had MPs misappropriated taxpayers' monies, it was now costing me money to bring it to someone's attention. Note also that only a vague reference is made yet to the Freedom of Information Act!
The text of my letter was;

Committee on Standards and Privileges
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA





11th March 2008

Subject: Alleged embezzlement of public funds by an MP

Dear Sir/Madam,
As a tax paying UK citizen, I note that no official request for a police investigation has been made by parliamentary authorities into the recent alleged embezzlement of public funds by an MP.

I note that a recent request for clarification from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has not resulted in a request, by parliamentary authorities, for a police investigation by any police authority.

As a tax paying citizen, I have today made a formal request that such a police investigation into this matter be initiated.

I am requesting any information, minutes of any meetings etc. relating to the decision not to request a police investigation into this matter under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act(s).



Yours faithfully,



John L. Bell




It was at this time that I opened a folder on my computer entitled 'Parliamentary Embezzlement'.

I did not realise then how full this folder was to become!

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

The Fraudsters' Parliament - 3

I have to admit that the more I delved into the fraudulent attitude that MPs appeared to have towards their allowances and expenses, the more annoyed I became.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner had, apparently asked the parliamentary organisation supposedly policing MPs' behaviour (later to be dubbed the 'Parliamentary Watchpoodle'!) why the matter had not been referred to the police... to no avail.
I fired off a letter to the Metropolitan Police! Note that this letter was not exactly alive with legal knowledge or jargon....... It was, however, a bona fide letter of complaint from a taxpaying citizen! ....... I think it would be fair to say that our boys in blue (Met Division) did not exactly leap into action!!

Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG









11th March 2008

Subject: Alleged embezzlement of public funds by an MP

Dear Sir,
As a tax paying UK citizen, I am writing to confirm my question, made earlier by email, asking if a police investigation into the recent allegations of alleged embezzlement of public funds by an MP has been initiated.

If such an investigation has not yet been initiated, as a tax paying citizen, I am requesting that such an investigation be initiated.

Please consider this to be a formal complaint against any party who may have acted illegally.

I appreciate that you have asked why the parliamentary authorities have not requested action by the Metropolitan Police, with little positive response from those authorities.


Yours faithfully,



John L. Bell

Sunday, 13 December 2009

MPs' fraudulent expenses claims part 2

One member of the House of Commons rose to the occassion, although I later learned that a few, a very few, others had been campaigning against the sharp practices undertaken by some of their colleagues in parliament!
Mr Frank Field is one of that select band of MPs whose opinions I value when there is talk now of 'reforming' this Fraudsters' Parliament.
Immediately after the Conway scandal I merely asked questions assuming that there was one rotten apple in the barrel. I was stunned when Mr Field stood up in parliament and asked why there had been no effective action about the scandal and there was no effective reply from the 600+ members! I logged onto the internet that evening and found a recording from parliament of his statement. He compared the Commons' response to the Conway disclosures to their response if similar practices had been discovered in the equivalent of the parliamentary canteen!
As the extent of the fraudulent practices by a large number of MPs started coming into the public domain.... the penny dropped! There were very few who could be trusted to put the voters' interests before their own financial gain.

MPs, with the exception of Mr Field and a very small band of others, could no longer be trusted - at all!
We now (December 2009) need an election to get rid of all the fraudsters, from whatever party and whatever level of seniority, in this travesty of a democratic institution.
Far too many appear to have graduated from the MUGABE SCHOOL OF DEMOCRACY (Financial division) with 'honours'.
As a taxpaying citizen, I no longer want MPs to be beholding financially to any outside body! I do not want them even to have 'ownership of the rules' governing their behaviour and their ability to 'spirit away' their misdoings.
I want this in much the same way as I do not want the local burglar fraternity to have ownership of my house keys, my car keys, or the keys of any 'main' home I may have been designating, for the purposes of further defrauding the taxpaying public!

The new members of the next parliament must show that they are totally free of conflicting interest or outside financial influence - unless membership of parliament is to be deemed a 'part-time' activity. At sometime in the future ... ten to fifteen years down the line from here- can we review this question when it has become the norm for MPs' claims to be fully and independently audited with the full results in the public domain.

And when the next 'clean' parliament has hopefully been installed sometime next year, perhaps we can begin to address the abuse of influence in the Lords which has come to light recently!

Further searching of the internet disclosed the name of one individual who had for years been attempting to throw some light onto the 'goings on' in official circles in the UK- Heather Brooke, a journalist wwho was amazed at the lack of transparency she found in large areas of British governance. I checked out the website http://www.yrtk.org/ (the website of the Your Right to Know organisation). I would suggest that any taxpaying citizen voter should make frequent visits to this website. I bought a copy of her book 'Your Right to Know: A Citizens Guide to Freedom of Information' and my concern score in relation to MPs and theeir expenses, increased from 1 ('mildly concerned') to 5 ('getting annoyed')!