nightrider Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 David Chater, MP for Bury north has just been found guilty of fiddling and is awaiting his sentence sometime in january. When Chater first became prominant in Bury he was never out of the Bury Times newspaper he was like a blue ass fly giving interviews and having his pics taken, wonder what his sentence will be? Ivan Lewis MP for Bury south has been likened to a sexual hound dog, you gotta be kidding I saw him the other week coming out of the top shop, looked more like a pussy cat to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 But you can't blame him, Malcolm; he was merely exploiting a loophole. Human nature, you see! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randonneur Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Maximum is 7 years but as he has, at last pleaded guilty (done a deal), he will only get half of that IF he is sent down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 knight of the road - 2010-12-04 12:16 PM Ivan Lewis MP for Bury south has been likened to a sexual hound dog, Lifes a bitch when you are a sexual hound dog (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 Randonneur - 2010-12-04 12:30 PM Maximum is 7 years but as he has, at last pleaded guilty (done a deal), he will only get half of that IF he is sent down. If Chater does go down, wonder which nick they will send him to, will it be one of the local nicks, Strangeways or Forest Bank both just down the road from me. Strangeways is for the hardmen and Forest Bank is for the "fick" underclass bums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 The real bl??dy problem is, if he does get sent down it will just be more of our money to keep him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porky Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 pelmetman - 2010-12-04 12:40 PM knight of the road - 2010-12-04 12:16 PM Ivan Lewis MP for Bury south has been likened to a sexual hound dog, Lifes a bitch when you are a sexual hound dog (lol) Sorry can't agree. You WANT life to be a bitch when you are a sexual hound dog, but as we all know lifes a bum (whoops don't go there anybody)(lol)(lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Yep. It's called natural injustice! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Hi, I think its about time we started charging people who get sent to jail just as we charge people who have to go into care, we could sell all there goods an chattels to pay for the care they get when they are in jail, that would be natural justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 4, 2010 Author Share Posted December 4, 2010 braunston - 2010-12-04 5:20 PM Hi, I think its about time we started charging people who get sent to jail just as we charge people who have to go into care, we could sell all there goods an chattels to pay for the care they get when they are in jail, that would be natural justice. Most of those who end up in jail dont have a pot to p*** in, jail for them is a luxury, whatever they might have is only worth throwing on the town dump, jail is the place where you can have 3 squares a day, bed, laundry done for you at no cost, great if you can hack it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 Hi, I agree that a lot of them perhaps have nothing, But the likes of the chap this thread is about and a good many others do, so why not charge them as more or less the same situation applies to those who have to go into care, A substantial number of them also have nothing, but that doesn't stop the ones that have, having to sell everything they have worked for to pay for their upkeep. I really can't see why they aren't charged in exactly the same way as anyone who needs to go into care. knight of the road - 2010-12-04 5:43 PM braunston - 2010-12-04 5:20 PM Hi, I think its about time we started charging people who get sent to jail just as we charge people who have to go into care, we could sell all there goods an chattels to pay for the care they get when they are in jail, that would be natural justice. Most of those who end up in jail dont have a pot to p*** in, jail for them is a luxury, whatever they might have is only worth throwing on the town dump, jail is the place where you can have 3 squares a day, bed, laundry done for you at no cost, great if you can hack it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smifee Posted December 4, 2010 Share Posted December 4, 2010 If they were to use the same rules as for legal aid he would be exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly58 Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Just wait and see you bet his sentance will only be 100 hrs unpaid community service diabolicle but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2010 Author Share Posted December 5, 2010 kelly58 - 2010-12-05 10:06 AM Just wait and see you bet his sentance will only be 100 hrs unpaid community service diabolicle but true. You can bet your bottom dollar that the old boys act will come into play and his punishment will be a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Hi, In principal I agree with your sentiment completely, But he really isn't a risk to society, he is in my opinion far more suitable for community service than some of the people who have committed anti social behavior type offences, and who have been given community service orders. I really don't see why WE should have to pay substantial sums of money to keep someone who has committed the crime he is guilty of in prison, as its like a double whammy we pay TWICE. He should however be made to pay it back with interest plus his community service should be in the public eye, so everyone can see his punishment. kelly58 - 2010-12-05 10:06 AM Just wait and see you bet his sentance will only be 100 hrs unpaid community service diabolicle but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2010 Author Share Posted December 5, 2010 If Chater went to jail it would perhaps serve as a warning to other MPs, but in this instance I think a substantial fine would suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Hi, I totally agree with the substantial fine, but I also think there should be a substantial numbers of hours in community service together with it, as I doubt many MP's would like to be seen doing menial work. That may help to send a warning signal to other MP's, as I don't know Chaters financial background but for some of them a fine on its own wouldn't worry them at all ? knight of the road - 2010-12-05 10:38 AM If Chater went to jail it would perhaps serve as a warning to other MPs, but in this instance I think a substantial fine would suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 5, 2010 Author Share Posted December 5, 2010 I would say a fine according to the individuals estimated wealth, whilst Chater is not a millionaire I dont think he is exactly poverty stricken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 I'm not comfortable with the tradition that the rich can buy their way out of jail. (or buy better facilities in jail) But in this case I agree a large fine would probably be more productive. Richard Branson's Barrister Father bought him out of Dover Jail, by paying a large fine, when Richard was in there for Vat Fraud. Hardly fair on those who can't afford to buy their way out of jail. Nevertheless, Richard Branson may have cost the economy less out of jail than he would have done if he had been left in jail with the other thieves. Can anybody please tell me the difference between 'False Accounting' (what Chater was charged with) and 'Theft' (what we would have been charged with) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enodreven Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Hi, I have always thought exactly the same and totally agree with you, that fines should be levied against the persons wealth rather than a fixed framework, as some of the fines you hear about are laughable when they are multi millionaires, but even half as much, would be a severe punishment for someone on minimum wage. Be very interesting to see what he does get ? knight of the road - 2010-12-05 11:06 AM I would say a fine according to the individuals estimated wealth, whilst Chater is not a millionaire I dont think he is exactly poverty stricken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 FALSE ACCOUNTING Is simply a specific form of theft. If I steal £10 from you out of your wallet that is theft. If I manipulate your accounts so that you pay me £10 when I do not deserve it, that is false accounting but it is also theft. False accounting is easily hidden if ALL parties agree to the scam. What we had here is the whole MP's expense system being corrupt. Some chose to go one further and even make up lease agreements etc so that payments for rent could be claimed on totally spurious grounds. If the Telegraph Newspaper and the moral ethics of the ex-military guy who worked in the admin dept of the House of Commons who leaked the doc's had not done what they did - we would still be none the wiser today. So False Accounting is not as simple as "simple" theft - but it is still theft. He deserves Jail and a big fine. He is a crook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 CliveH - 2010-12-05 12:00 PM FALSE ACCOUNTING Is simply a specific form of theft. If I steal £10 from you out of your wallet that is theft. If I manipulate your accounts so that you pay me £10 when I do not deserve it, that is false accounting but it is also theft. False accounting is easily hidden if ALL parties agree to the scam. What we had here is the whole MP's expense system being corrupt. Some chose to go one further and even make up lease agreements etc so that payments for rent could be claimed on totally spurious grounds. If the Telegraph Newspaper and the moral ethics of the ex-military guy who worked in the admin dept of the House of Commons who leaked the doc's had not done what they did - we would still be none the wiser today. So False Accounting is not as simple as "simple" theft - but it is still theft. He deserves Jail and a big fine. He is a crook. Ahh, That clears that up, Thank You for the reply. Yes it is remarkable that the billions of pounds we spend on things like the Police and fraud prevention agencies totally failed us, and we have to rely on individuals risking their jobs, sometimes even prison sentences, by talking to the press to bring these crooks to justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Talk about "them" and "us!" OK, so he's going to jail. But I seem to remember that previous "white collar crooks" have ended up serving their "sentence" in open prisons, coming and going virtually as they pleased, and running their businesses qutie normally. That's if they didn't contract avery rare TEMPORARY form of Alzheimers, that lasted just long enough for them to be released! And do you remember the self-righteous cries of "We're ready for our day in court! We'll prove ouirselves innocent and clear our names!" when the current crop were first charged with criminal offences? Then when it came down to it, the first thing their lawyers said was "Sorry, the courts don't have any jurisdiction over our clients - Parliamentary Privilege!" At least that got laughed out of court. Like many here in Essex, I'm now looking forward to the trial of the "Dark Lord" - aka Lord Hanningfield, former leader of Essex CC and self-appointed Lord of the Manor. Sometimes the "mighty" DO fall, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted December 6, 2010 Share Posted December 6, 2010 Tony Jones - 2010-12-06 11:15 AM Talk about "them" and "us!" OK, so he's going to jail. But I seem to remember that previous "white collar crooks" have ended up serving their "sentence" in open prisons, coming and going virtually as they pleased, and running their businesses qutie normally. That's if they didn't contract avery rare TEMPORARY form of Alzheimers, that lasted just long enough for them to be released! And do you remember the self-righteous cries of "We're ready for our day in court! We'll prove ouirselves innocent and clear our names!" when the current crop were first charged with criminal offences? Then when it came down to it, the first thing their lawyers said was "Sorry, the courts don't have any jurisdiction over our clients - Parliamentary Privilege!" At least that got laughed out of court. Like many here in Essex, I'm now looking forward to the trial of the "Dark Lord" - aka Lord Hanningfield, former leader of Essex CC and self-appointed Lord of the Manor. Sometimes the "mighty" DO fall, after all. Good points Tony - totally agree. I would add though - that it is moments like this when justice is applied that I think myself lucky that we do live in a society where you can apply justice to those in high places - even if it sometimes takes extraordinary lengths to get there. Contrast that to other more dictatorial and totalitarian regimes and for all its obvious faults - what we have is not perfect - never will be - but our system does allow for "every dog to have his day". The last election was telling - no one party had a majority. To me that indicated the electorate saying we see you all as spongers and liars regardless of party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.