MPs' expenses: Shahid Malik unable to produce receipts or rental agreement

mattheman said:
Come on this is fraud, no contract etc... if this were anyone else you'd be sent to court fined etc.... were is the justice.
Click to expand...

It's not fraud unless you can prove it with evidence that would stand up in court, he has very carefully and cleverly lost this vital evidence so he is guilty of nothing as it cannot be proved. Just because you think he's guilty and the circumstantial evidence supports this it does not mean he is.

Doesn't stop him being a scum bag but it does mean he keeps his job.
 
Don't suppose anyone bothered to actually read the report, linked in the main article..
 
a1ex2001 said:
It's not fraud unless you can prove it with evidence that would stand up in court, he has very carefully and cleverly lost this vital evidence so he is guilty of nothing as it cannot be proved. Just because you think he's guilty and the circumstantial evidence supports this it does not mean he is.

Doesn't stop him being a scum bag but it does mean he keeps his job.
Click to expand...

But he paid a property company the money so customs should look into the books of that property company. Then again he didnt have a contract that in itself is fraud.
 
Rich_L said:
Don't suppose anyone bothered to actually read the report, linked in the main article..
Click to expand...

It's 60 pages long! :eek:

Some of it reads like a scene from Yes, Minister:


10. Sir Philip put to Mr Malik that in some contexts, it might be implied that by making cash payments and not obtaining a receipt, tax might be being avoided. Mr Malik said this thought had not occurred to him. He regarded [name of the manager of the property company] as straight and honest and had no reason to doubt his motivation. As far as he was concerned, he was just being helpful to [name of the manager of the property company].

Mr Malik said that [name of the manager of the property company] was a straight religious chap, that their commercial relationship was tried and tested over 4 years and that he had no reason to doubt him.


11. Sir Philip asked Mr Malik whether in retrospect, he would have done anything differently. Mr Malik said that he would certainly not have claimed for the television system or the massage chair which had been commented on in the press, though both had been justified.

He felt that he had been “poorly served” in relation to the advice provided him by the Fees Office, who had given insufficiently clear guidance. He would ensure that in future his financial arrangements could never be questioned. He believed he had not done anything wrong and that the whole issue had been a “wake-up call for everyone”. He did not understand why he had been picked on by the Daily Telegraph.
​
 
So we've got (yet another) minister who is either too dumb to be trusted with responsibility, or a lying thieving scrote?

"Honest guv I didn't think twice about paying the guy large sums in cash" isn't an excuse that would hold up in many jobs when claiming for expenses, and the tax man can get positively unfriendly if the average person loses receipts that could be important in tax terms.
 
mattheman said:
Then again he didnt have a contract that in itself is fraud.
Click to expand...

Come again? How is not having a contract an act of Fraud? Why would customs look into a companies books? They might be more interested in import and export business ;)

I'm not trying to defend this guy, but you can't just go throwing unproven acusations around. The system is rubbish and they took advantage, this makes them scum bags but it doesn't make them criminals.
 
Report said:
Mr Malik said that he would certainly not have claimed for the television system or the massage chair which had been commented on in the press, though both had been justified.
Click to expand...

Excuse my ignorance here but how could he justify either of these? Surely neither are a requirement to fullfill his job as an MP? (This is a genuine question as I am completely :confused: by it)
 
oweneades said:
Excuse my ignorance here but how could he justify either of these? Surely neither are a requirement to fullfill his job as an MP? (This is a genuine question as I am completely :confused: by it)
Click to expand...

Because I believe at the time of the claims MP's were allowed to claim for the furnishing of there second homes which was all he was doing. The expenses system was rubish and the politicians took advantage they were wrong they have been caught and the system is hopefully going to be sorted. If you have an issue with anything your MP has claimed for contact them for an explanation and then if necessary vote for someone else at the next election.

I wish we could ditch the mass hysteria over the fine details of some very very minor abuse of public money which we can do nothing about and focus on the serious abuse of public trust which come the next election we the poeple have the power to fix.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Come again? How is not having a contract an act of Fraud? Why would customs look into a companies books? They might be more interested in import and export business ;)

I'm not trying to defend this guy, but you can't just go throwing unproven acusations around. The system is rubbish and they took advantage, this makes them scum bags but it doesn't make them criminals.
Click to expand...

Becaue one he shouldnt have been paid, no contract no receipt should have been thrown out, no payment of tax another, if this happened too you or me well the full force if the law would be applied.

HM Revenue & Customs both the same thing really.
 
mattheman said:
Becaue one he shouldnt have been paid, no contract no receipt should have been thrown out, no payment of tax another, if this happened too you or me well the full force if the law would be applied.

HM Revenue & Customs both the same thing really.
Click to expand...

thats not the Government expenses rule though, there is no requirment for a reciept and that can hardly be blamed on him, he didn't decide wether or not it should be paid he just asked for it the decision was in the hands of the fees office. There is no implication that he hasn't paid tax, someone has implied that maybe the letting agent hasn't paid tax. That again that is not his problem he was just paying the rent in a mutually acceptable fashion he is not responsible for the landlords tax bill.

The full force of the law has been applied he hasn't broken any so they can't do anything, live with it and move on. He is morally corrupt but that is not a crime, move to his constituency and vote him out of a job if it's such a big deal to you.

HM Revenue & Customs maybe under the same unbrella but they still perform very different operations and I think it more likely that this is a Revenue area.
 
I blame the idiot who made the expenses system rather than the MP's who claimed from it. If i was an mp and everyone was claiming I would probably just think it was normal and claim too. (Although not for stupid little things)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom