IF NOT "Beyond Reproach" in public office THEN "misconduct in public office"
I have been following the "expenses" problem at Westminster over the last few weeks. I have written to my MP asking for him to deal via the House of Commons and the Prime Minster, Gordon Brown. I have asked for two lists - those who have abused and those who have not.
I was concerned this evening to see the news - Government appear to have placed any modicum of credibility we may have had in the Speaker for what appears to be the hefty cost price of £100,000. The outcome is to be "reforms" of the expenses system as opposed to making folks accountable and responsible where they NEED to be accountable and responsible. Credibility appears to have the value of a plug, dog food, gardening, plasma tvs, moat clearing, horse manure, "House Flipping", house repairs and expensive/lavish kitchens, even office garages come rather expensive to the state, etc etc etc. Everyone appears to think they can just pay it back with no consequences. The Speaker even had colleagues who suggested he was a "scapegoat".
First things first, if not "beyond reproach" in public office, then there has to be constituency elections = democracy.
If the failure of the beyond reproach is actually "misconduct in public office" = crime (mens rea)A + (actus reus)B + (Offence)C or "inchoate" A+1 or more + C = conspiracy or B +C = attempt. Misconduct in public office as far as I am aware is a penalty of life sentence (ie 16 years) - and there was an attempt on Damian Green MP (Conservative) not so long ago in political life to bring this OFFENCE down to a matter of discipline without criminal consequences - perhaps we now know one of the reasons why!
Now I am aware the Liberal Democrats appear almost "lily white" concerning their expenses - there is just the issue of "knowledge" - did they know that abuses of the expenses system were occurring and possibly by whom - and if they did - what "did" they do about it! The New Labour and Conservatives camps appear well and truly caught.
So, what are the police waiting for, it is not as if there is not enough EVIDENCE to put before the CPS. My MP should be able to produce the "Abusers List" shortly as he has been asked to provide it to me.
Yes, reform is a good thing -but after the entire system is first of all cleared up - why would you "reform" something without first adhering to the rules of public office and clearing out that which is already rotten, thereby ensuring that any ensuing reforms are "improvements" and good.
I was pleased to read the article relating to John Wick, an ex-SAS man (it probably is not his real name) and thinking it made sense for an SAS man to be seen to be doing the RIGHT THING at 60 years old. I saw merit and mirth in the challenge: rather than being in fear of waterboarding and/or prosecution, I thought "be not afraid"/"light" where there is darkness, the most a court could do is what they usually do with "likeable rogues" state the fact objectively in a judgment - if needs must use the words "in the interests of justice" via "independence of the judiciary to use "equitable discretion", ie judicial subjectivity over objectivity of the application of the rule of law! The mirth the government attempting to pursue an SAS bod who is effectively saying "make my day punk". It might be wise for the Government not to try.
On the issue of reforms, what about :
Hotels - one each for the main parties : sheets get laundered and bed numbers are known, no house repairs and expensive kitchens, no "flipping", no need for horse manure, moat clearing, helipads, no MP's double claiming where partnered, no gardening for 600 + politicians homes. You would have an in-house restaurant, a concierge and a really really good security system, parking, internet, office facilities and rooms come with Plasma TV and plugs and lighbulbs and you can ensure the whole exercise is "not for profit" and monitor and evaluate who is checking in and who is checking out concerning workload and ensure that all expenses are recorded in the hotel record and the cost forecasted and budgetted for on a reasonable premis to the taxpayer. You could even have a dog kennelled. All second homes would be historical. Grace and Favour appartments you could lease or sell them on, no longer necessary.
The reason - you are elected to serve the people, not yourselves.
Lastly, please remember that those engaged in the Welfare Reforms agenda from the core jobless categories: lone parents, homeless, disabled, mentally disabled, ex-prisoners, alcohol and substance abusers, NEET - not in education, employment or training (young people), AGED 50+, and any others which I cannot recall on this list for the moment - may be "volunteering" in the Third Sector to fill gaps in their CV's, pick up skills or assist recovery and receive no "non-financial benefit", nor increase in their benefits other than the yearly increase whether engaging because they meet the engagement criteria for welfare reforms or who have voluntarily engaged in the welfare reforms. Working for no benefit other than altruism or work reforms as a volunteer grates with MPs abusing the system. The suggestion that politicians caught up in this political mess they created are similar or same to benefit abusers is offensive, not least because a benefit abuser would be prosecuted.
Moreover, it appears that a lot of effort goes into investigating and prosecuting lower-economic societal echelons, who may cause criminal damages on a micro scale, but similar/same qualities appear "attractive" at the upper-economic societal echelons and are not being prosecuted to jail-time or at all. "Fred the Shred" caused £26 billion of damage to the RBS (or in his other guise "pin-strip hoodie"). There is a material difference: upper-economic societal echelons are allegedly "educated" (to degree level ? ponsi scheme - no one did that module!) and also "trained" (professional qualification) - so there really is no excuse. Concerning abusing MPs on the list that may be sent to me - some will be lawyers, accountants, doctors, academics, bankers with resultant degree certification and practising certificate - the professional bodies need to take their right to practise off them as a material issue concerning evidence where they are not "beyond reproach" or can be prosecuted for "misconduct in public office" - their professions may like to issue writ or certainly be a member of the panel of scrutiny and evaluation.
Beyond reproach MUST mean BEYOND REPROACH. Democracy MUST mean Democracy. I am hoping that the widespread abuse of the expenses system has not been a form of bribery - the reason I am suggesting the issue of bribery IS BECAUSE THERE IS AND HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION POLITICS! I am also aware of what is being covered up in society - Alternative Dispute Resolution (Mediation). There is probably a Directive on Mediation due for harmonisation in the UK and Europe - Arlene McCarthy MEP's undemocratic processing of the Consultation Paper re the Directive on Mediation which interviewed 2 out of 27 published responses and refused to interview me on request where I was proposing the "Competition Model" over the "coercive regime model" implemented via the Woolf Reforms in England & Wales via the Access to Justice Act 1999: CPR Rule 26 and then interviewed 5 experts SHE calls expert (but I don't) managed to get passed by the European Parliament and is being harmonised in Scotland and Europe - it could also be scrapped and Arlene McCarthy MEP and her team investigated for "misconduct in public office" by reason of an undemocratic consultation process which results in the undermining of the rule of law, enables compromise of rights and the possibility of having no rights at all. Society is not safe and just - as is abundently clear - is designed, engineered, concerted and deliberate not inadvertent.
The Queen had the power to deal with the Speaker and appears not to have done so, or effectively, or at all. The Prime Minister appears to see the need to deal via the House of Commons. The House of Commons appear to lack power to make people "accountable and responsible", restore democracy or arrange prosecution or even constituency elections - but they will having abused the system agree to reform it! NOT DEMOCRACY THEN. Where is our power and transparency, let alone trust and confidence.
I was listening to Bob Marley & the Wailers this evening - I thought "Exodus" for those on the abusers list and Punky Reggae Party for those who have not abused might be appropriate in the House of Commons at the moment. John Wick - Well done. Mr Speaker we do not have any credibility at all and the price to loose any we did have appears to be £100,000.
I was concerned this evening to see the news - Government appear to have placed any modicum of credibility we may have had in the Speaker for what appears to be the hefty cost price of £100,000. The outcome is to be "reforms" of the expenses system as opposed to making folks accountable and responsible where they NEED to be accountable and responsible. Credibility appears to have the value of a plug, dog food, gardening, plasma tvs, moat clearing, horse manure, "House Flipping", house repairs and expensive/lavish kitchens, even office garages come rather expensive to the state, etc etc etc. Everyone appears to think they can just pay it back with no consequences. The Speaker even had colleagues who suggested he was a "scapegoat".
First things first, if not "beyond reproach" in public office, then there has to be constituency elections = democracy.
If the failure of the beyond reproach is actually "misconduct in public office" = crime (mens rea)A + (actus reus)B + (Offence)C or "inchoate" A+1 or more + C = conspiracy or B +C = attempt. Misconduct in public office as far as I am aware is a penalty of life sentence (ie 16 years) - and there was an attempt on Damian Green MP (Conservative) not so long ago in political life to bring this OFFENCE down to a matter of discipline without criminal consequences - perhaps we now know one of the reasons why!
Now I am aware the Liberal Democrats appear almost "lily white" concerning their expenses - there is just the issue of "knowledge" - did they know that abuses of the expenses system were occurring and possibly by whom - and if they did - what "did" they do about it! The New Labour and Conservatives camps appear well and truly caught.
So, what are the police waiting for, it is not as if there is not enough EVIDENCE to put before the CPS. My MP should be able to produce the "Abusers List" shortly as he has been asked to provide it to me.
Yes, reform is a good thing -but after the entire system is first of all cleared up - why would you "reform" something without first adhering to the rules of public office and clearing out that which is already rotten, thereby ensuring that any ensuing reforms are "improvements" and good.
I was pleased to read the article relating to John Wick, an ex-SAS man (it probably is not his real name) and thinking it made sense for an SAS man to be seen to be doing the RIGHT THING at 60 years old. I saw merit and mirth in the challenge: rather than being in fear of waterboarding and/or prosecution, I thought "be not afraid"/"light" where there is darkness, the most a court could do is what they usually do with "likeable rogues" state the fact objectively in a judgment - if needs must use the words "in the interests of justice" via "independence of the judiciary to use "equitable discretion", ie judicial subjectivity over objectivity of the application of the rule of law! The mirth the government attempting to pursue an SAS bod who is effectively saying "make my day punk". It might be wise for the Government not to try.
On the issue of reforms, what about :
Hotels - one each for the main parties : sheets get laundered and bed numbers are known, no house repairs and expensive kitchens, no "flipping", no need for horse manure, moat clearing, helipads, no MP's double claiming where partnered, no gardening for 600 + politicians homes. You would have an in-house restaurant, a concierge and a really really good security system, parking, internet, office facilities and rooms come with Plasma TV and plugs and lighbulbs and you can ensure the whole exercise is "not for profit" and monitor and evaluate who is checking in and who is checking out concerning workload and ensure that all expenses are recorded in the hotel record and the cost forecasted and budgetted for on a reasonable premis to the taxpayer. You could even have a dog kennelled. All second homes would be historical. Grace and Favour appartments you could lease or sell them on, no longer necessary.
The reason - you are elected to serve the people, not yourselves.
Lastly, please remember that those engaged in the Welfare Reforms agenda from the core jobless categories: lone parents, homeless, disabled, mentally disabled, ex-prisoners, alcohol and substance abusers, NEET - not in education, employment or training (young people), AGED 50+, and any others which I cannot recall on this list for the moment - may be "volunteering" in the Third Sector to fill gaps in their CV's, pick up skills or assist recovery and receive no "non-financial benefit", nor increase in their benefits other than the yearly increase whether engaging because they meet the engagement criteria for welfare reforms or who have voluntarily engaged in the welfare reforms. Working for no benefit other than altruism or work reforms as a volunteer grates with MPs abusing the system. The suggestion that politicians caught up in this political mess they created are similar or same to benefit abusers is offensive, not least because a benefit abuser would be prosecuted.
Moreover, it appears that a lot of effort goes into investigating and prosecuting lower-economic societal echelons, who may cause criminal damages on a micro scale, but similar/same qualities appear "attractive" at the upper-economic societal echelons and are not being prosecuted to jail-time or at all. "Fred the Shred" caused £26 billion of damage to the RBS (or in his other guise "pin-strip hoodie"). There is a material difference: upper-economic societal echelons are allegedly "educated" (to degree level ? ponsi scheme - no one did that module!) and also "trained" (professional qualification) - so there really is no excuse. Concerning abusing MPs on the list that may be sent to me - some will be lawyers, accountants, doctors, academics, bankers with resultant degree certification and practising certificate - the professional bodies need to take their right to practise off them as a material issue concerning evidence where they are not "beyond reproach" or can be prosecuted for "misconduct in public office" - their professions may like to issue writ or certainly be a member of the panel of scrutiny and evaluation.
Beyond reproach MUST mean BEYOND REPROACH. Democracy MUST mean Democracy. I am hoping that the widespread abuse of the expenses system has not been a form of bribery - the reason I am suggesting the issue of bribery IS BECAUSE THERE IS AND HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION POLITICS! I am also aware of what is being covered up in society - Alternative Dispute Resolution (Mediation). There is probably a Directive on Mediation due for harmonisation in the UK and Europe - Arlene McCarthy MEP's undemocratic processing of the Consultation Paper re the Directive on Mediation which interviewed 2 out of 27 published responses and refused to interview me on request where I was proposing the "Competition Model" over the "coercive regime model" implemented via the Woolf Reforms in England & Wales via the Access to Justice Act 1999: CPR Rule 26 and then interviewed 5 experts SHE calls expert (but I don't) managed to get passed by the European Parliament and is being harmonised in Scotland and Europe - it could also be scrapped and Arlene McCarthy MEP and her team investigated for "misconduct in public office" by reason of an undemocratic consultation process which results in the undermining of the rule of law, enables compromise of rights and the possibility of having no rights at all. Society is not safe and just - as is abundently clear - is designed, engineered, concerted and deliberate not inadvertent.
The Queen had the power to deal with the Speaker and appears not to have done so, or effectively, or at all. The Prime Minister appears to see the need to deal via the House of Commons. The House of Commons appear to lack power to make people "accountable and responsible", restore democracy or arrange prosecution or even constituency elections - but they will having abused the system agree to reform it! NOT DEMOCRACY THEN. Where is our power and transparency, let alone trust and confidence.
I was listening to Bob Marley & the Wailers this evening - I thought "Exodus" for those on the abusers list and Punky Reggae Party for those who have not abused might be appropriate in the House of Commons at the moment. John Wick - Well done. Mr Speaker we do not have any credibility at all and the price to loose any we did have appears to be £100,000.
posted by Lesley McDade at 1:33 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home