I'm angry and disappointed with this....

Bloody muslims...send her back:p

Seriously though why hasnt she been charged with anything??...just because shes som poxy baroness doesnt mean she can get away with her scamming of expenses.
 
Why are people asking why?

It quite clearly says: "Prosecutors decided that broad definition of a peer’s “main residence" meant that there was not a realistic prospect of a conviction".

So the problem, therefore, AS ALWAYS, is with the rule makers.
 
It's not her fault the rules are so badly written that she can't be prosecuted.

It is however her fault that she is to dishonest to hold her hands up and say that she has done wrong, refund the money and step down from the lords.
 
This seems to be the norm these days whenever there is some investigation of public figures to be done.

1. Make a big ho ha about the whole thing.
2. Take said person to court to answer for their actions.
3. Finish proceeding, tell the person that what they did was pretty criminal and dishonest and down right bad...... But there is nowt we can do under the law.
4. Hope that these dishonest scumbags do have a conscience deep down and will at some point in their lives, do the right thing and own up.
5. Go home safe in the knowledge that the country is run by dishonest, stealing idiots that seem to have little to no shame.
 
meghatronic said:
So the problem, therefore, AS ALWAYS, is with the rule makers.
Click to expand...

Interesting really. If I joined a company where almost every person was playing the rules to their advantage, safe in the knowledge that everybody was doing it without being called on it - I know it would be incredibly tempting to do the same.

It's sort of hard luck on them all for being caught - it was like the last secret of 'the ruling class'.

Shame she can't be punished as the rules were too vague - but - her reputation is now mud and I doubt she'll last too long in her post.

It is progress :)
 
meghatronic said:
It quite clearly says: "Prosecutors decided that broad definition of a peer’s “main residence" meant that there was not a realistic prospect of a conviction".
Click to expand...

Vague or not vague, if I was on the jury I'd still say she was guilty.
 
rypt said:
Vague or not vague, if I was on the jury I'd still say she was guilty.
Click to expand...

No you'd be informed by the judge to find her innocent. If you still found her guilty you'd be up for contempt of court.

Wierd I know, but the judge at any point can say 'This is not a strong enough case to find anyone guilty, jury, I instruct you to find innocent'

!!
 
britboy4321 said:
Wierd I know, but the judge at any point can say 'This is not a strong enough case to find anyone guilty, jury, I instruct you to find innocent'

!!
Click to expand...
Mainly because, in theory at least, Judges are professionals who study and know the law, and juries are purportedly a random selection of the accused peers, and don't have an intricate knowledge of the law, just an implied impartiality. Therefore the Judge applies the restrictions of the law, which by definition a member of the jury should not.
 
Spawn said:
Bloody muslims...send her back:p
Click to expand...

Hold Up!

Whats her being a Muslim got to do with it!!!!

There were a lot of other people that did the same thing as well. Granted i dont agree with what she did and she should be forced to pay it back but that comment is abit wrong i think..... Its the System, and it needs to be rewritten completley!!!,
 
Oh come on, there's no race connotations here at all. They just couldn't prosecute as there isn't actually a rule they could find that she had broken.

In future I hope 'main' residences are those that either house the rest of the family all of the time, or the MP more than half of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom