The persistent citing of members of politicians' families as complexly and deeply involved in the inapproriate use of allowances and expense claims raises the question of their behaviour, regardless of the insistence by the politicians that no illegal act has been committed and that all is technically within the rules.
While politicians may indeed be acting repellently but legally, is this so of their families, friends and clients?
"Whether the acquisition of an indefeasible title to property is capable of amounting to an appropriation of property belonging to another for the purposes of section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968." was answered in the affirmative by the Lords of Appeal, as a comment on an earlier post (about politicians' use of allowances, and the involvement of their family members and friends), knowledgeably noted, referring to Hinks.
To accept money or other payments when there is no proper or legal claim is, of itself, a criminal act. Why are all those who have done this not being investigated and prosecuted?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
As you correctly pointed out to Elby in the last post, certain types will always have aspirations of one-upmanship, whether they are qualified or not.
In other circles, this type is referred to as chav. Parliament is now getting too full of has-beens in a freefall of grasping profligacy.
I wish more people looked at your site, there are of course other commenters like Dizzy, who get it right, but this subject should go much further than Scroblene Turrets!
Scroblene Turrets is a very fine destination, S, and The honour of corresponding with the grandson of the man who built lots of Welwyn Garden! He did more to make happier lives than any do-gooding, self-satisfied, troughing New Labour politician.
Scroblene: I am sure lots of folk visit - I do daily, not only for the erudite content, but also the matchless elegance of the style; but I rarely comment, preferring to keep most of my thoughts to myself!
Nonetheless, I agree with you that HG's writings deserve a much wider audience, but how that is to be achieved is beyond me. I frequently refer my email correspondents here for a good and thought-provoking read.
HG: Can you perhaps provide an idea of your visitor numbers (so beloved by Messrs Fawkes and Dale!)?
You are sadly mistaken if you think that such practices are confined to politicians. I'm afraid that they are rife in the public sector - there are an awful lot of businessmen who have become very adept at charging all manner of expenses incurred by their wife and children to their employees and who are more than lavish in their own expense claims. I'm afraid that the argument that the politicians crime is worse because they are stealing from the everyone/public doesn't hold much water either - aren't the businessmen and women stealing from the shareholders in their company and aren't they entitled to legal protection as well. In addition, there is an awful lot of benefits received which go untaxed because they are not reported to the Revenue - and the less said about the wholesale shifting of income to wives who perform no work whatsoever, just to get a tax benefit, is probably to the better.
I have seen a lot of the financial side of the corporate world and I'm afraid that there is not much honesty around. Thelevel of dishonesty which I see tends to be related to the level of opportunity rather than any national or other characteristics.
I suspect that the reason why the Police don't get involved with the families of politicians - is because the thieving family members will just claim that they were taking from the politicians accounts - and thefts from husbands and wives don't count.
It's just a piece of paper, Nomad, where a particular take on events that reflects a particular life experience is set down.
Thank you for joining in, common ground is good to stand on, particularly when there is such determined construction of false ground and premises.
Hair-shirted puritanism is not my style, but stealing from Mr HG's allowances (and, I can safely say, he doing so from mine), would be just that - stealing, and we are not thieves.
You imply the total collapse of upbringing, HSP, and I cannot agree with you. Properly brought-up people don't steal. People who steal are contemptible. It's nothing to do with social class.
And that it is widespread is no reason not to prosecute when evidence of it is thrust in our faces.
That woman - the Speaker's wife - (and her cleaner) took taxis to the tune of £4000, and lies were told about the circumstances, which suggests there was impropriety in this use of the Speaker's allowances.
We cannot ring fence everything. We must be in a culture that has minimal levels of decent behaviour.
And I resent greatly that the woman has conducted herself in a way that has drawn contempt upon her class, when it should be her upbringing that is questioned and, if that was correct, her personal conduct and values.
Thankyou Hats; you're very kind!
Nomad thinks the same too, so that's nearly a quorum!
HSPuritan - understand your point, but you really mean the private sector I assume.
The difference is that nobody has (by law) to buy shares in a firm (unless they're involved in an equity pension etc.,), so any company which seems to spend a lot on booze and trade badly, will eventually get caught out.
You however have to fund the politicos, BBC etc who are profligate in their expenditure, as that is the law. You try and hold back a Poll Tax bill, or stop paying HMRC!
I agree about dishonesty as well, but how many times have you picked up a 5p coin (stealing by finding...)? I do!
The point about business being caught doing a bit of fiddling, is that they eventually self-regulate and move on - and they also have to provide receipts - unlike MPs and their sorry families.
You're dead right about opportunity though, business provides the space for politicians to waste time and money, and they both do it surprisingly well!
I'm afraid I see little difference between "stealing" and "thieving" - the former is really a slightly politer form for the latter. Both are wrong and who it is from doesn't really matter unless they consent.
I wish I could share Scoblene's view about the effectiveness of the private sector (right this time hopefully) in exerting self discipline - but it just isn't so. The standard regarding what it is acceptable for senior executives to take from their shareholders (and employees and customers - who all pay as well) is on an ever upward spiral in the UK - if you don't believe me just look at the growth of the corporate hospitality sector and just read a few remuneration committee reports.
Not sure about stealing by finding - but I did return a flash mobile phone that I found the other week - and the bottle of wine that I received in return tasted much better than its vintage.
'...who it is from doesn't really matter unless they consent..
Hairy, it is the consent to the stealing that makes it, first, both a matter for those who consent and those who steal, and second - though first for its utter offensiveness - that the consenting is done on our behalf, by our representatives, whether in public or private life, for it is our taxes, or profits, that are being stolen.
Post a Comment