Dear All
It seems that the Labour Party is not happy about not being above the law.
To that end, three Labour MPs, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine have all hired the same legal experts to assert that the 1689 Bill of Rights protects them from prosecution.
What is of interest is that Steel & Shamash, the Labour party’s solicitors are representing them.
Coincidence, I think not.
The 1689 Bill of Rights is being asserted that the House of Commons rule book on expenses is “privileged” and cannot be subject to scrutiny by the courts.
In other words, they want the right to claim that their “frauds” although not legal have legal protection because they used the House of Commons rule book to commit crime.
It’s a legal trick to escape justice putting MPs above the law.
It is however certainly not natural justice.
Two Labour MPs, Elliot Morley and David Chaytor are under investigation by the Metropolitan police over allegations that they received taxpayers’ money for non-existent mortgages on second homes.
Criminal fraud!
Rather makes a mockery of justice when the court can be circumvented even before the state gets a chance to present a case before a jury of their peers.
This legal manoeuvre is very clever and raises the prospect of the case against the MPs being thrown out or continually bogged down in legal argument.
This will help to minimise the damage to the Labour Party with a General Election in full flow.
So, the matter appears to be, does the House of Commons rule book permit fraud by members?
Article nine of the 1689 Bill of Rights states;
“Proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court.”
I would opine that the book was written in good faith and not as a tool for criminality, I would therefore suggest that Morley and Chaytor should not be protected by parliamentary privilege.
The Devine case regarding receipts is a different matter requiring further investigation by Police; they need prove where the receipts came from in order to establish a basis for prosecution.
Can the Police establish where the money went given that Devine allegedly paid cash?
I think not, the Devine case doesn’t in my opinion offer a reasonable chance of success in a Court of Law.
Morley and Chaytor do.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
It seems that the Labour Party is not happy about not being above the law.
To that end, three Labour MPs, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine have all hired the same legal experts to assert that the 1689 Bill of Rights protects them from prosecution.
What is of interest is that Steel & Shamash, the Labour party’s solicitors are representing them.
Coincidence, I think not.
The 1689 Bill of Rights is being asserted that the House of Commons rule book on expenses is “privileged” and cannot be subject to scrutiny by the courts.
In other words, they want the right to claim that their “frauds” although not legal have legal protection because they used the House of Commons rule book to commit crime.
It’s a legal trick to escape justice putting MPs above the law.
It is however certainly not natural justice.
Two Labour MPs, Elliot Morley and David Chaytor are under investigation by the Metropolitan police over allegations that they received taxpayers’ money for non-existent mortgages on second homes.
Criminal fraud!
Rather makes a mockery of justice when the court can be circumvented even before the state gets a chance to present a case before a jury of their peers.
This legal manoeuvre is very clever and raises the prospect of the case against the MPs being thrown out or continually bogged down in legal argument.
This will help to minimise the damage to the Labour Party with a General Election in full flow.
So, the matter appears to be, does the House of Commons rule book permit fraud by members?
Article nine of the 1689 Bill of Rights states;
“Proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court.”
I would opine that the book was written in good faith and not as a tool for criminality, I would therefore suggest that Morley and Chaytor should not be protected by parliamentary privilege.
The Devine case regarding receipts is a different matter requiring further investigation by Police; they need prove where the receipts came from in order to establish a basis for prosecution.
Can the Police establish where the money went given that Devine allegedly paid cash?
I think not, the Devine case doesn’t in my opinion offer a reasonable chance of success in a Court of Law.
Morley and Chaytor do.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
1 comment:
http://www.thisisscunthorpe.co.uk/news/Morley-m-guilty-offence/article-1671163-detail/article.html
Tuesday, January 05, 2010, 06:30SCUNTHORPE MP Elliot Morley has said he is not guilty of any offence but said he is not immune from prosecution over his expenses.
Press reports over the weekend suggested lawyers working for three Labour MPs, including Mr Morley, were working to see if free speech law Parliamentary Privilege could protect MPs accused over their expenses.
But the Scunthorpe MP, who is stepping down at the next election after he claimed £16,800 for a mortgage already paid off on his Winterton home, said reports about Parliamentary Privilege in The Sunday Times had drawn the wrong conclusions.
He said: "It does not have all the facts. MPs do not have immunity and nor should they.
"The issue here is the correct procedure as to how a case on expenses is made and who has the responsibility.
snipped
Post a Comment