MPs' Expenses - AGAIN

[Vagabond]

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/mps-expenses

 

A petition to stop attempted secrecy over MPs being investigated for expenses misdemeanors.

 

I have just signed it - anyone want to join me ?

Edited October 30, 2014 by Vagabond

[John S]

Signed with pleasure

[The Flying Tench]

I'll pass on that one. Of course it should be made public if a misdemeanor is found, but when they are just being looked at - people can be found guilty by the press. I'm happy to wait for the result of the investigation.

[Now there's a right un.]

Innocent until proven guilty. I believe disclosure should only be completed if guilt is proven, even for MP's.

[chesters1]

The slightest minuscule error should result in lengthy jail terms for those that rule our lives ,after all they are happy to have the power to look at your finances and going by todays standard it seems most people can pay to look at ours but them very reluctant to have their shady deals looked at.

I think all finances of those in power over anything should be transparent down to the last penny and the press encouraged to look into every avenue possible to get the scum into jail

Edited October 30, 2014 by chesters1

[Vagabond]

I'll pass on that one. Of course it should be made public if a misdemeanor is found, but when they are just being looked at - people can be found guilty by the press. I'm happy to wait for the result of the investigation.

If you or I are suspected of some misdemeanor, the press can freely report we are "helping the police with their enquiries". Why should MPs be treated any differently ?

 

As for "found guilty by the press" that is a completely different issue. Wotnobivvy's point is a good one - innocent until proved guilty. Any press comment that could result in an issue being prejudged should be heavily penalised as contempt of court, with ever-increasing fines for re-offenders until either they learnt better manners, or the magnitude of the fines put their newspapers out of business. As a corollary, (and the same should apply to banks) both the company and the individuals concerned should be punished.

[chesters1]

I doubt the courts nor police believe in innocent until proved guilty otherwise the idea of an"alibi" wouldnt be needed ,you prove your innocence in this case rather than vice versa

 

Nowadays guilt can be proved on an opinion so proving innocence a essential part of modern court practices

 

I do agree though names of suspects remain unknown, to many reputations can be ruined by malice or bad policing and media frenzy

Once the persons guilt is established then the names can be revealed ,the nonsense people will come forward if its out in the open is shown when several offences are TIC ,many court cases will get far heavier sentencing as the guilty person will already have prior findings of guilt showing its not a one off or chance offence

Rather than someone getting few years for many offences simply wait until they are released from prison then get them sent back in with a heavier sentence and so on ,should get the penalty a serial offender should get in reality

 

I also believe we should have professional jurors rather than off the street ones ,if someone could only be used once in their entire lives for a jury then they wont have a clue how clever lawyers are at distorting the truth to their side of the story and a judges sunning up wouldnt in many cases change the minds of the easily manipulated juror ,a proffesional jury hopefully will see through all the spiel and get the right outcome for the defendant

Edited October 30, 2014 by chesters1