Devine (West Lothian) to face criminal charges over his expense claims.
Now let's hope a few others find themselves in the dock before too long ...
Printable View
Devine (West Lothian) to face criminal charges over his expense claims.
Now let's hope a few others find themselves in the dock before too long ...
Awww...the wee petal was fighting back the tears whilst being interviewed on BBC Scotland.
Hell ******ing mend him.
The first of many hopefully, including the infamous "duck house" and "moat" MP'S.
Three MPs (including Devine) and one peer to be prosecuted, one case under consideration........and that's yer lot. The rest are squeaky clean because they've paid it all back. The ones that are being prosecuted want to claim Parliamentary Privilege so that their case will be considered by fellow MPs - who course are squeaky clean because etc...
If you or I were caught making these sorts of claims for tax purposes we'd have to pay up to three times as much as we'd claimed to avoid prosecution. That's under laws formulated and approved by - you've guessed it - MPs.
Next election, don't vote you'll only help to create an MP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him? :grr:
Buying lots of squibs at the Caversham corner shop.:timebomb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Doddie
Surely not Jim Devine. The people of West Lothian were told just before the by-election by the completely unbiased Daily Record that he was a fine upstanding chap apart from being done for drunk driving and having a string of affairs. :greengrin
He must be having these affairs with those who are severely sight challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
:greengrin That's what I was thinking as well. Or he's got one hell of a chat!Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
Perks of the job IMO
Devine practically convicted himself last night on Channel 4 News. Makes you wonder how he was elected in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...+wrong/3527842
Oh deary me, he's no even a half decent shyster. The man's all over the place, my 6 year old can tell more convincing stories...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
hope they all get what's coming to them
Rumours the guilty, sorry allegedly guilty parties are going to hide behind the parliamentary privilige rule which means they cannot be prosecuted in a court of law. Seems to me that if they intend to invoke that privilige they are admitting guilt :agree:
After watching the interview i have one questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
He states that money can be moved from one account to another but he issued a reciept for stationary but was actually to pay someone for work as there was not enough fund in certain account to pay him..so my question is.... why wasn't the money just moved from accounts so there was enough cash in the account needed to pay the guy:confused: rather than falsifying a reciept :grr:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ZippytheHibee
From the First Report on PPQuote:
Originally Posted by Jonnyboy
Quote:
The Joint Committee concluded that corruption, a serious and insidious offence, can only be dealt with effectively by using the police and the courts. Prosecution through the courts is the only credible remedy. It is also the only credible deterrent for any briber. This will involve only a minimal encroachment upon the territory safeguarded by article 9. The Joint Committee is confident there are very few instances of corruption involving members of Parliament. The occasions when a court will be called upon to question a parliamentary proceeding will be rare.
Looks like the accused are onto a loser with their defence strategy :cool2:Quote:
Freedom from arrest in civil cases should be abolished (it has never applied in criminal cases)
The thing that gets me is that the ones who have been flipping their houses for huge gain are getting away scot free. They are the worst of the lot and nothing has been done about it
Can't believe the ones that claimed for all the trivial stuff at thousands of pounds are getting away with it as long as they promise to pay it all back.
I suspect HMRC will be having a very close look at this. They will do so privately, and in their own time. They never pass up the chance to put the boot into folk.Quote:
Originally Posted by goosano
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greentinted
:faf:
Jim - YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
Who once said that you could stick a red Labour rosette on a monkey and get him elected in Scotland?
Dos he have counsel? Is there such a thing as a defence of impenetrable stupidity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by goosano
What never seems to be mentioned by the meeja in relation to flipping is that the principle/dodge is enshrined in capital gains tax legislation and is available to everyone who owns more than one property. It's properly called electing - you can choose, purely for the purposes of avoiding capital gains tax, which of the properties you own is counted as your main home.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropsWasGod
There is obviously a serious point about public servants making windfall gains out of the public purse, but the frenzy about the actual act of flipping is unwarranted.
The difference is that the MPs get one house refurbished and paid for, then 'flip' and sell it as their PPR at a large profit because it has been improved. A few have done this several times whereas back on Planet Earth you tend to only get away with it once, and you have to pay the mortgage interest and cost of improvement yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
This is actually a good example of where the HMRC rules would apply perfectly well to MPs, but they have written up their own, much more beneficial rules. In short one law for them, another far harsher law for the rest of us.
I personally find the attitude and principle much more sickening than the daft claims for duck towers and bell houses etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
:top marks
Not involved personally, but have heard informally that on Planet Earth you generally would get away with it more than once in a four or five year period (the life of a parliament). And although you wouldn't get the mortgage interest paid, you would normally be renting out the property and benefiting that way. Not really disagreeing with you that some MPs have been well at it, just think that the core principle - of treating some property as your main home when it hasn't been your main home - seems to be perfectly acceptable in society at large but has been itself, ie without the other factors you mention, identified by the meeja as dishonest when done by politicians. Similarly it seems to be a much worse scandal when John Terry ****s someone than when Joe Bloggs ****s someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
There's obviously plenty not right about the way MPs have handled their expenses, but I reckon the soap opera treatment of the issues - "my word, MP X claimed 35pence for a soup spoon, front page news" - has been as distasteful as much of the shenanigans themselves.
The CGT rules on second properties are quite generous in certain details, but if you were renting out a property you could not claim it was your PPR except under very specific circumstances - and of course you would always be taxed on the rental income.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Generally if you have two properties, neither of which is rented out, one will fall under CGT rules. You can 'flip' if you feel it's beneficial, but if you do it more than once HMRC will start looking very closely at all your financial affairs.
As for John Terry, I'm sick of hearing about it, but looking a Wayne Bridge's ex - I would, so I can't really be scandalised if JT did.