Accountable and Responsible = Beyond Reproach - drop responsible and add transparency why the change?
The Scotsman: "Expenses fraud MPs face up to a year in jail" article by Gerry Peev 24 June 2009 (click here)
"The Scotsman" has notified that Jack Straw MP is processing reforms concerning the 200+ MPs caught up in the expenses scandal on the premis of "accountable and transparent". What appears to have been dispensed with is the word "responsible" something we are clearly lacking in our NOT democracy where we have to put up our hands to a "failure of intelligence".
It has been the case that politicians hold public office on a "beyond reproach" basis which has been deemed by society to mean "accountable and responsible".
Why is "responsibility" no longer deemed necessary to hold public office, but transparency is - is this a genuine "improvement"/change or is this a watering down of all readily apparent watered down/compromised standards of reasonableness in society in the 21st Century.
*I note from the article in the Scotsman that there is to be an "unlimited fine" later represented to be upto £5,000 or 12 months in prison.
On the issue of those MP's stated to be put forward to the post of Speaker, John Bercow MP has allegedly abused his expenses and of those proposed to stand all but one are represented as not having abused their expenses. However, I question 4 of those who have allegedly abused, on the premis that I do not consider, for example Anne Widdecombe's expense claims for monitoring her public profile to be an abuse: but a necessary expense which is readily done by the corporate world (Brunswick etc), viz-a-viz a need to know what is being published in order to ensure rectification to maintain integrity and credibility, which also goes to the need for professionals who are "educated and trained" and therefore cannot evade or avoid knowledge to safeguard their reputations. I therefore find I need to question the alleged abuses of expenses concerning Ms Widdecombe and 3 others on the nominations to Speaker list as detailed in The Scotsman. I also consider I need to question John Bercow MP's selection and appointment where it is clearly represented he has abused his expenses (*and would it be the case that he could be processed under reforms for upto £5000 fine (but not pay back £6.500+) or 12 months in prison). There is apparent EVASION and AVOIDANCE as a reform measure: that is not "transparent".
The penalty for misconduct in public office so far as I am aware is life sentence deemed to mean 16 years. Moreover, if the issue is fraud, then the Proceeds of Crime Act apply which means recovering whatsoever is possible from the crime itself.
What I am concerned at is that the reforms are failing to deal with laws that already exist whilst rushing to create more laws - New Labour has already put 3000 criminal laws on the statute resulting in prison overcrowding to 80,000 in the UK. There is enough law at present to capture the criminals in our society, what is necessary is that it is now applied to 200 MPs and the Crown Prosecution Service cannot say they do not have sufficient or enough evidence to do so - misconduct in public office is the offence that society deems is applicable to those who abuse their power when in public office - ensure that this law applies : there is no need to reform the system.
The issue is serious because our hands are up concerning our admittance of a "failure of intelligence" : I am not inclusive in that failure, hence my blog. The failure of intelligence sofar as I am concerned is "inherent" within the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet, they do know what the issues are, who are involved and why, they appear not to wish to rectify the situation and if the issue is to be reformed to "TRANSPARENCY" when are they going to see it!
To hit the point home: David Cameron and his wife know what is involved in looking after a disabled child ... there are 179 soldiers killed re Iraq, many on peacekeeping duties, there are many more maimed and severely so. Their families and relatives are handed a life sentence, as politicians you are responsible for our current demise in society it is not acceptable that you appear to consider you can create laws by way of a reform agenda, rather than apply that which already exists, and moreover that macro criminality does not apply to you, but micro criminality does, by way of reform. By all means add the word "transparency" to "accountable and responsible", as a reform measure, but you are elected to serve the people and not yourselves : where is Jack Straw MP serving the people and not yourselves when there are sufficient criminal laws already such that none more are even necessary.
Moreover, many of the 200 will also hold professional appointments : being arrested and charged for misconduct in public office would ensure your practising certificates would be revoked.
What is necessary is that the "transparency" removes John Bercow MP from the position of speaker (as an affront to intelligence) - there were some 400-500 MPs who have not abused their expenses who should have come forward for selection/nomination. There needs to be a re-run for the role of speaker and "Transparency" is as good a heading as any.
Concerning the 200 MPs who have alleged abuse and who have also handed back sums of money - in law when the cheque is cashed, there are legal consequences ... : but it should also have meant that constituency elections were automatically put in place. It is not the time for a general election nor should any MP consider they can cling on to ensure receipt of pensions, bonuses etc. The issue is DEMOCRACY. Our Global profile. Our failure of intelligence and our ability to rectify it under the current reform proposals. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Justice is done and seen to be done. Equality. Diversity. Social Inclusion. Anti-poverty - you created these policies and they don't apply to you to!
In a largely Christian society, which accepts equality before the law, fairness, impartiality and justice - why would you not be prepared to submit to the current judicial system! Unfortunately, prior to Christianity - the Greeks came up with the concept of "Cause" and "Effect" concerning Democracy! Nichomachean Ethics applies.
"The Scotsman" has notified that Jack Straw MP is processing reforms concerning the 200+ MPs caught up in the expenses scandal on the premis of "accountable and transparent". What appears to have been dispensed with is the word "responsible" something we are clearly lacking in our NOT democracy where we have to put up our hands to a "failure of intelligence".
It has been the case that politicians hold public office on a "beyond reproach" basis which has been deemed by society to mean "accountable and responsible".
Why is "responsibility" no longer deemed necessary to hold public office, but transparency is - is this a genuine "improvement"/change or is this a watering down of all readily apparent watered down/compromised standards of reasonableness in society in the 21st Century.
*I note from the article in the Scotsman that there is to be an "unlimited fine" later represented to be upto £5,000 or 12 months in prison.
On the issue of those MP's stated to be put forward to the post of Speaker, John Bercow MP has allegedly abused his expenses and of those proposed to stand all but one are represented as not having abused their expenses. However, I question 4 of those who have allegedly abused, on the premis that I do not consider, for example Anne Widdecombe's expense claims for monitoring her public profile to be an abuse: but a necessary expense which is readily done by the corporate world (Brunswick etc), viz-a-viz a need to know what is being published in order to ensure rectification to maintain integrity and credibility, which also goes to the need for professionals who are "educated and trained" and therefore cannot evade or avoid knowledge to safeguard their reputations. I therefore find I need to question the alleged abuses of expenses concerning Ms Widdecombe and 3 others on the nominations to Speaker list as detailed in The Scotsman. I also consider I need to question John Bercow MP's selection and appointment where it is clearly represented he has abused his expenses (*and would it be the case that he could be processed under reforms for upto £5000 fine (but not pay back £6.500+) or 12 months in prison). There is apparent EVASION and AVOIDANCE as a reform measure: that is not "transparent".
The penalty for misconduct in public office so far as I am aware is life sentence deemed to mean 16 years. Moreover, if the issue is fraud, then the Proceeds of Crime Act apply which means recovering whatsoever is possible from the crime itself.
What I am concerned at is that the reforms are failing to deal with laws that already exist whilst rushing to create more laws - New Labour has already put 3000 criminal laws on the statute resulting in prison overcrowding to 80,000 in the UK. There is enough law at present to capture the criminals in our society, what is necessary is that it is now applied to 200 MPs and the Crown Prosecution Service cannot say they do not have sufficient or enough evidence to do so - misconduct in public office is the offence that society deems is applicable to those who abuse their power when in public office - ensure that this law applies : there is no need to reform the system.
The issue is serious because our hands are up concerning our admittance of a "failure of intelligence" : I am not inclusive in that failure, hence my blog. The failure of intelligence sofar as I am concerned is "inherent" within the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet, they do know what the issues are, who are involved and why, they appear not to wish to rectify the situation and if the issue is to be reformed to "TRANSPARENCY" when are they going to see it!
To hit the point home: David Cameron and his wife know what is involved in looking after a disabled child ... there are 179 soldiers killed re Iraq, many on peacekeeping duties, there are many more maimed and severely so. Their families and relatives are handed a life sentence, as politicians you are responsible for our current demise in society it is not acceptable that you appear to consider you can create laws by way of a reform agenda, rather than apply that which already exists, and moreover that macro criminality does not apply to you, but micro criminality does, by way of reform. By all means add the word "transparency" to "accountable and responsible", as a reform measure, but you are elected to serve the people and not yourselves : where is Jack Straw MP serving the people and not yourselves when there are sufficient criminal laws already such that none more are even necessary.
Moreover, many of the 200 will also hold professional appointments : being arrested and charged for misconduct in public office would ensure your practising certificates would be revoked.
What is necessary is that the "transparency" removes John Bercow MP from the position of speaker (as an affront to intelligence) - there were some 400-500 MPs who have not abused their expenses who should have come forward for selection/nomination. There needs to be a re-run for the role of speaker and "Transparency" is as good a heading as any.
Concerning the 200 MPs who have alleged abuse and who have also handed back sums of money - in law when the cheque is cashed, there are legal consequences ... : but it should also have meant that constituency elections were automatically put in place. It is not the time for a general election nor should any MP consider they can cling on to ensure receipt of pensions, bonuses etc. The issue is DEMOCRACY. Our Global profile. Our failure of intelligence and our ability to rectify it under the current reform proposals. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Justice is done and seen to be done. Equality. Diversity. Social Inclusion. Anti-poverty - you created these policies and they don't apply to you to!
In a largely Christian society, which accepts equality before the law, fairness, impartiality and justice - why would you not be prepared to submit to the current judicial system! Unfortunately, prior to Christianity - the Greeks came up with the concept of "Cause" and "Effect" concerning Democracy! Nichomachean Ethics applies.
posted by Lesley McDade at 1:27 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home