UK: MP expenses, prosecutions?

[Joker]

MPs are hunting for the mole, using the public purse in order to bring a civil case against him.

The police, you know the experts, looked into it and decided it was not worth the hassle, not in the public interest etc, yet MPs know best.

Do you reckon if he is found he should be punished? or are MPs just being spiteful?

Personally what he did was for the greater good, it exposed a flawed system, i am not too fussed with whether his motives were honourable or motivated solely by money, the end result is the same.

[Jaden]

Considering the MP's have done stuff which ordinary people have ended up in trouble for and have had councils and agencies come after them over, yet have got off scot free, i think it's taking the piss to then go after the guy who blew the whistle on them.

[Títmouse]

Depends if what this mole did. If it is illegal then it should be treated as no more serious because it's MPs than if it was midgets.

[Joker]

Oh yes it should be treated differently. For the greater good is a defence. If someone breaks the official secrets act which is illegal in order to leak to the press of a government cover up than its unjust to punish him.

leaking expenses of the midget federation has no effect on the public, the abuse of the publics purse is in the public interest, and he should be defended.

[Wensleydale]

The MPs in question are seeking a civil case, so why the mention of prosecutions?

If found, they should lose their job at any rate.

[Joker]

I was going to add more about prosecuting MPs but couldn't be assed.

[irishamerican]

you know its funny, normally i figure out what things stand for in governments but i could nrver figure out what MP stood for, besides military police in the US but im pretty sure thats not the case here lol

[FlyingKiwi]

Member of Parliament.

[Jack.]

I'm divided by this. No, they shouldn't be claiming for stuff like cleaning duck houses when there on £140,000 a year. But I don't think they have done anything "illegal".

[Joker]

I'm divided by this. No, they shouldn't be claiming for stuff like cleaning duck houses when there on £140,000 a year. But I don't think they have done anything "illegal".

Thread interpretation FAIL.

[irishamerican]

Member of Parliament.

now i feel really stupid for not realising that , thanks

[The Mysoginator]

According to the government's own website the definition of whistleblowing is "making a disclosure in the public interest" which this definately was. According to that same page the emplyer can not victimise them which would rule out a civil case. I can't see how the government can possibly claim that releasing the claims wasn't in the public interest.

[Joker]

According to the government's own website the definition of whistleblowing is "making a disclosure in the public interest" which this definately was. According to that same page the emplyer can not victimise them which would rule out a civil case. I can't see how the government can possibly claim that releasing the claims wasn't in the public interest.

Exactly.

The new speaker has stopped the search as soon as he was 'notified' that it was going on.

Should never be started in the first place, £100ks wasted they rekon.

[The Mysoginator]

Should never be started in the first place, £100ks wasted they rekon.

fucks sake...

It would appear that the government confused "public interest" with "self serving."

[Jaden]

It would appear that the government confused "public interest" with "self serving."

In otherwords, the government have done what they do best.

The sad thing is, even when the general election finally happens, i doubt the tories will be much better. =/