Not our noble Lords, as well?

  newman35 07:51 25 Jan 2009

click here

Will this bring new calls for reforming the peerage again?

  wiz-king 08:04 25 Jan 2009

It's all these non-hereditary peers. No years of training on how not to get caught. - Getting as bad as the Commons.

  newman35 10:30 25 Jan 2009

According to the 'Peeress' on TV this morning, if they were to be found guilty, their punishment would be to be 'named & shamed' in the House!
It seems they cannot be thrown out or anything drastic like that......

  johndrew 11:15 25 Jan 2009

If proved, could this be another example of `greed` often referred to in these forums?

Surely it is time not simply to name and shame such people but to bring them before the Law and punish them for what they truly are.

I long for the days when the Sunday papers were full of the exploits of politicians of other countries being found to have been the subjects of such bribery, whilst our own were above reproach - or were they?

  Monoux 12:32 25 Jan 2009

From the article
"He acknowledged discussing a fee of £30,000 with the undercover reporters but said: "I am not aware of having offered to do anything for these people that was outside the rules."

What was the £30k for then ? and yet another claim coming up of not understanding rules I suspect, from someone who helps make the rules.

  Forum Editor 12:41 25 Jan 2009

taking place.

In the first instance there has been no investigation into these allegations, so let's not race ahead with the naming and shaming.

Secondly, there's nothing to stop a member of the House of Lords acting as a consultant to a commercial organisation with regard to advising on how legislation might affect a business. The Lords are not salaried, and may quite legally accept such fees.

If it is proven that a member of the house accepted, or agreed to accept a sum of money in return for influencing the legislative process then it's a very serious matter - corruption is the word to use then.

Meanwhile I suggest we wait for some more detailed information to emerge before gathering into a lynch mob.

  spuds 12:57 25 Jan 2009

The Lords might not be salaried, but do they not obtain 'appearance' money and other allowances-perks.

Our local councillor's are also constantly making statements about not being paid or on a salary, and no doubt this is the same elsewhere. Yet in the same breath, they seem to forget that (in my area) they have fixed allowances of £10.000 plus, the leader of the council £53.000 and perks (going up in April). I believe in some London Borough's the 'allowances are in excess of the figures mentioned. In the old days, it was called 'out of pocket expenses'.

  newman35 12:58 25 Jan 2009

Andrew Marr asked the peeress, if a Lord accepted cash for an amendment and then got another peer to put it, would that be OK, and she replied "Technically, yes".
Lords Rules, don't you just love 'em.

  oresome 14:56 25 Jan 2009

A recipe for corruption really.

On the one hand, people with influence who like to live the high life, but don't get well remunerated and on the other, people with money who would like to buy influence.

Not that I am suggesting any such thing here as I've not even read the story. Just a general observation on human behaviour.

  oresome 17:31 26 Jan 2009

click here

Lord Taylor of Blackburn speaking to reporters.

  Monoux 17:40 26 Jan 2009

oresome-- I wonder why I am not surprised at the revelations on your clip. Looks like corruption was right word after all

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

See the work of famous artists playing with toys

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment faire une capture d’écran sur un Mac ?