Westminster - “More Al Capone crime syndicate than parliamentary democracy” claim

[D***@googlemail.com]

Westminster - “More Al Capone crime syndicate than parliamentary
democracy” claim

In an operation “more Al Capone crime syndicate than parliamentary
democracy”, the Times reveals that potentially embarrassing documents
pertaining to leading politicians have been shredded – after the Times
requested them. This, in itself, is a criminal offence.

The Times reports:-

The House of Commons has shredded more than 1m documents detailing
expenses claims by MPs that were due to be revealed to the public.

The Commons authorities said last week they had destroyed all
documents for MPs up to April 2004, even though official guidelines
state that such records should be kept for six years.

Martin Bell, who was elected as an independent MP on an antisleaze
platform in 1997, said: “I think it is likely that some racketeering
by some MPs has been so outrageous that, if it was revealed, they
would be under pressure to resign.”

In the most recent year for which records are available, to April
2007, MPs claimed an average of £135,600 of expenses each, which
includes staff costs. Among the many controversial claims were those
of Tony Blair for mortgage interest payments on his constituency home,
while Margaret Beckett claimed more than £6,500 for gardening at her
constituency home.

Some of Blair’s claims, which the High Court had ruled should be made
public, were shredded after The Sunday Times requested them. It is a
criminal offence deliberately to destroy documents requested under
freedom of information laws.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/06/westminster-more-al-capone-crime-syndicate-than-parliamentary-democracy-claim/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4087705.ece

[The Boss]

Post by D***@googlemail.com
The House of Commons has shredded more than 1m documents detailing
expenses claims by MPs that were due to be revealed to the public.
The Commons authorities said last week they had destroyed all
documents for MPs up to April 2004, even though official guidelines
state that such records should be kept for six years.

Scum. Throw the lot out and start again, with potential MPs signing
contracts to behave according to what the people want.

Post by D***@googlemail.com
Some of Blair’s claims, which the High Court had ruled should be made
public, were shredded after The Sunday Times requested them. It is a
criminal offence deliberately to destroy documents requested under
freedom of information laws.

So where are the criminal prosecutions then???

[William Black]

Post by The Boss

Post by D***@googlemail.com
The House of Commons has shredded more than 1m documents detailing
expenses claims by MPs that were due to be revealed to the public.
The Commons authorities said last week they had destroyed all
documents for MPs up to April 2004, even though official guidelines
state that such records should be kept for six years.

Scum. Throw the lot out and start again, with potential MPs signing
contracts to behave according to what the people want.

The old Leveller idea that no MP should ever serve two consecutive terms has
merit...

[The Boss]

Post by William Black
The old Leveller idea that no MP should ever serve two consecutive terms
has merit...

Some shouldn't even serve one.
How about deferred payments, only get paid if you performed well? Of course,
a lot wouldn't get paid then...

[William Black]

Post by The Boss

Post by William Black
The old Leveller idea that no MP should ever serve two consecutive terms
has merit...

Some shouldn't even serve one.
How about deferred payments, only get paid if you performed well? Of
course, a lot wouldn't get paid then...

Who decides?

They introduced pay for MPs because only rich gits ever stood, ordinary
people couldn't afford it.

[Dave J.]

Post by The Boss

Post by William Black
The old Leveller idea that no MP should ever serve two consecutive terms
has merit...

IMO that would be a negative step. Nice thinking behind it but don't you
think we need representatives with wisdom and some direct experience of
the job? I'd say keep the pay lowish and inject something like my
suggestions below. That way we could conceivably rediscover idealism and
dedication. I've no problem with a group of reasonably honest people
holding power for a decade or more, provided they can think, learn and
listen. Plus, the first suggestion below (if somewhat tongue in cheek)
would nicely filter out fast-buck merchants..

Post by The Boss
Some shouldn't even serve one.
How about deferred payments, only get paid if you performed well? Of course,
a lot wouldn't get paid then...

Enough to live on, but a 'bonus' approximating to their current salary,
payable at the end? Perhaps make the amount variable, depending on annual
ballots while in office? Beautiful thought, if somewhat unlikely..


The real one to go for though, and the only way to restore my personal
faith in ministerial integrity, would be to make it a condition of service
that while working as an MP they have no external business interests
whatsoever.

You couldn't prohibit ministerial ownership of capital, but I see no
reason why it shouldn't be a condition of power that it be transfered to
straightforward bank accounts prior to assumption of the post.

Make liquidation of all personal business assets a requirement of the job.
Folk who believe in what they're doing will have no trouble with such a
condition as such things are only a distraction anyhow, and the loss of
those who don't is no more than the loss of a negative.

It would filter out anyone not singlemindedly dedicated to the job, no
more 'moonlighting' as a business director, far less potential conflict of
interest. It would make a beautiful experiment watching which ones quietly
disappear..

Seriously; unlikely to happen though they certainly are, IMHO such simple
alterations could potentially transform our firework of a civilisation
into something that just *might* evolve in a postive direction.

Dave J.

[Alan Quick]

Post by William Black

Post by The Boss

Post by D***@googlemail.com
The House of Commons has shredded more than 1m documents detailing
expenses claims by MPs that were due to be revealed to the public.
The Commons authorities said last week they had destroyed all
documents for MPs up to April 2004, even though official guidelines
state that such records should be kept for six years.

Scum. Throw the lot out and start again, with potential MPs signing
contracts to behave according to what the people want.

The old Leveller idea that no MP should ever serve two consecutive terms
has merit...

New York seems to have the same idea but the politicians are always one step
ahead.
See
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/nyregion/09term.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=login

Alan Quick

[John of Aix]

Post by William Black
The old Leveller idea that no MP should ever serve two consecutive
terms has merit...

I didn't know it was the Leveleers, so thanks for that. An excellent
idea IMO and, vis-à-vis the presidence, one of the few things I admire
about the USA

[u***@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk]

Post by D***@googlemail.com
Some of Blair’s claims, which the High Court had ruled should be made
public, were shredded after The Sunday Times requested them. It is a
criminal offence deliberately to destroy documents requested under
freedom of information laws.

What steps to prosecute have so far been taken?

ukmp