Yet another ex-MP bites the dust?.

  spuds 12:26 23 Dec 2013

I wonder how much this is or could cost the British taxpayer, and more so, when will and where will it all end?.

click here

  Aitchbee 16:33 23 Dec 2013

How much will it cost the British taxpayer?

Well, let's do the maths - 100 days [in prison] times £100 per day [upkeep costs] divided by 30 million British taxpayers comes to about 0.00003p.

Sounds like a bargain.

  Aitchbee 16:41 23 Dec 2013

When will it all end?

That's a much trickier question.

  spuds 16:49 23 Dec 2013


Hope you don't use the same calculations working out your betting returns :O)

  Aitchbee 17:09 23 Dec 2013

spuds - if I was 'banged-up' for 3 months ... I would save a fortune on lost bookie bets ... hee hee.

  Forum Editor 19:07 23 Dec 2013

"when will and where will it all end?."

It won't. Corruption in public office has been going on for centuries, and often on a far bigger scale than this.

It's time people stopped foaming at the mouth every time a human failing is publicised, and started getting a sense of perspective. MPs - like all of us - are human beings, and from time to time their failings will come to light. I am sure there are doctors,dentists,solicitors, police officers, accountants, and people in positions of trust all over the land who regularly cross the line. They get caught out, and are dealt with, usually without it getting into the papers.

MPs are a high-profile bunch, so their peccadilloes make juicy grist for the red-top mill.

  rdave13 20:28 23 Dec 2013

'Minor fault or sin' when £13,000 is ' bogus expense claims'. To me it is fraud especially with a highly educated person involved and can't even claim ignorance. He's a thief and should serve his term of imprisonment fully although I do sympathise with his family troubles and losses. We all know he won't serve anywhere near the full term but at least I can't be sued calling him a thief.

  wee eddie 20:38 23 Dec 2013

Interestingly he did not steal the money, which the Judge said in his summing up, was the reason for the short sentence.

Apparently, he was due the money, for expenses that he had incurred in carrying out his Parliamentary Duties, but the sentence was for the fraudulent way that he had gone about claiming them.

  spuds 20:41 23 Dec 2013

Just been reading today about a health service manager whose yearly salary was £35.000, who committed fraud to the tune of £43.548 over an 18 month period from the NHS. No previous convictions and unblemished previous record, he's just got 18 months for his crime.

  spuds 20:53 23 Dec 2013

wee eddie - the police abandoned the case at one stage, and then re-opened it on fresh evidence. So in all eventualities he might have got away with the offences all together?.

If the report is correct, he didn't appear to be to worried when the sentence was passed?.

  rdave13 20:59 23 Dec 2013

What is the difference between using a ' fraudulent way' to claim money and thieving? Whether or not the money was 'due' should have no baring on the way the money was 'got'. As I previously said, he's educated and should know right from wrong and he took the wrong way and was found out and found guilty. He's a thief and will, no doubt, run a shorter spate in prison because of his social status. If it had been me I'd have got a lot longer and even being let out for 'good behaviour' would still be longer than the sentence imposed on Mr MacShane.

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

Elsewhere on IDG sites

HTC U12 Plus review: Hands-on

Best Android emulators for Mac

Comment utiliser l’Apple Store Éducation ?