The Saga Continues – MPs Expenses, the Report and Prosecution

The MPs expenses saga may be nearing conclusion with the Crown Prosecution Services announcing three Labour members and a Tory peer will face criminal charges.

Elliot Morley, Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Lord Hanningfield could face up to seven years in prison under the Theft Act.

Labour peer Lord Clark has escaped any further action with evidence being insufficient to bring any further charges.

Many people reading into the claims they made may think these seem like some of the more minor offences which have come to light since The Daily Telegraph first broke the story last spring.

Livingston MP Jim Devine has been the most vocal about this saying he is bewildered as to why he has been singled out after claiming £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationary.

Lord Hanningfield, who resigned as leader of Essex County Council in the aftermath of this announcement, allegedly abused the over night allowance granted to him as a member of the House of Lords.

Mr Chaytor, MP for Bury North, seems to be similarly small fry with £1,950 for IT services and £18,000 in rent.

Scunthorpe representative Mr Morley does seem more along the lines the public may have expected using £30,000 of tax payer’s money on mortgage interest repayments.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said prosecutors had decided there was sufficient evidence and it was "in the public interest to charge the individuals concerned".

Devine, Morley and Chaytor released a joint statement saying “We totally refute any charges that we have committed an offence and we will defend our position robustly.”

The public certainly wanted some kind of criminal action in the aftermath of a scandal which threatened to destroy all faith in politics, however if an example was going to be made four relatively minor backbench MPs are hardly going to cut-it.

The announcement from the CPS came on the heels of Sir Thomas Legg’s report into the ‘deeply flawed’ expenses system.

Members of the general public will be disappointed, although not entirely shocked given the revelations in the last year, that the report cost £1.16 million while asking MPs to repay around £1.25 million.

Hardly what you would call a massive net gain for a country trying to cut costs. He must have gone to the expensive coffee place.

Stevenage Labour MP Barbara Follet was the hardest hit by the Legg Report having to repay £42,000 in erroneous claims.

She claimed over £34,000 for security patrols around her home in London and nearly £3,000 for home insurance. It is not your imagination, either those two numbers do not make any sense or she is being massively over quoted for he contents insurance.

Either way she clearly does not have what it takes to cut it in professional politics.

The Legg report laid out new examples of dishonest claims and also gave details of those exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Many have however criticised the former civil servants report claiming the arithmetic was questionable, his logic flawed and for devising the controversial retrospective repayments.

All three party leaders were asked to pay back money with the Prime Minister out in front with nearly £14,000 in cleaning bills.

If Brown, Cameron or Clegg had been singled out for criminal action this story would have been exciting but surely nobody honestly thought they would be dragged through this with such an imminent election.

Of cause this will at least hold the headlines for a little longer. Home Secretary Alan Johnson has already gone on record saying the four accused should face a trial and has tried to dissuade them for invoking parliamentary privilege to dodge any embarrassing revelations.

It is also likely a fifth person will face charges. Labour peer Baroness Uddin may find herself in front of a judge accused of wrongfully claiming £189,000 for her second home. At least this has the sexiness of a six digit number.

The public are getting tired of this story now and with many being forced to pay back money announcements of not seeking re-election will almost certainly come thick and fast.

Almost as certain is that none of the accused will face the maximum sentence which could be handed down to them and will most likely end up with a fine or suspended sentence.

All will of cause not stand at the next election and it has been announced will not collect their parachute payments for leaving the commons. One can only breathe a sigh of relief over that decision.

Is reform needed, yes, but surely it should be the public who decide who claimed wrongly at the ballot boxes come the next general election.

The whole point of democracy is the people have the power to change the system. We do not need expensive and radiucal overhaul of the expenses system simply a full disclosure once a year.

Every local newspaper would cover their own MP or MPs and every national would trawl through the numbers looking for outrageous claims or high profile members of the government or shadow cabinet.

Then the perpetrators would be judged by the people they represent who could decide if their claims were valid and voting them out if they were not.

Of cause it is not as simple as this but it is the best place to start to claw back some of the honour for the mother of all parliaments.

Chemical Ali and the Capital Punishment Question

The Bible says an eye for an eye (Leviticus 24; 19) and surely when it come to a crime such as genocide this theological argument is never more poignant.

On January 25 Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, was hung to for fill his four death sentences for genocide and crime against humanity.

To be more specific for his part in the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja in 1988.

His execution was a quieter affair than that of his cousin Saddam Hussein in 2006 which led to the infamous video shot on a mobile phone.

However despite the undoubted evil of the Iraqi regime of the late 1980s is it right for the UK, a country which long ago abolished the capital punishment, to act so complicit in the killing of a foreign official?

Sunnis in Iraq see these executions not so much as a punishment but as retribution or even revenge for the previous establishment.

Of cause in the aftermath of World War Two we were essential in setting up the war crimes trials in both Nuremburg and Japan.

Many Nazis committed suicide rather than face the consequences and nobody had mobile phones to create martyred images on a camera phone.

It is hard to argue against people, Jews and Kurds especially, who gain some sense of retribution from seeing their persecutors meet a similar demise to their relatives in the same way it brings satisfaction to the families of murder victims in certain parts of America.

There were many however who, in a strange way, were pleased to see the compassion extended to the Lockerbie Bomber which he had not extended to his victims.

Allowing a terminally ill man to die with his family could be seen as the responsibility of any first world country lat alone what he has done to that country.

Again it is not difficult however to see why the decision has become so controversial.

It could be a strange blessing that successful suicide bombers never get to face the death penalty, although as jihadists is not death their ultimate goal.

With this in mind is the death penalty really a punishment at all for Muslim extremists?

Is not the whole reason for having capital punishment in the first place for it to act as a deterrent?

Statistics show murders in America are actually more common in states which have the death penalty suggesting the deterrent argument is ridiculous.

Again however I would ask you to argue against the satisfaction the victims family gets from seeing their demise.

With Muslim extremists it goes full circle yet again to a point where death is their ultimate goal.

Executing the failed bombers of 7/7, Glasgow or Detroit on Christmas Day surely is doing their job for them.

In this case why hang Saddam and Chemical Ali. Does this solve anything and as Muslims doing what they saw as gods work does this not hasten an end which they see as favourable.

Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic may both yet see the full force of the law extended to The Hague, but again this will not bring back the countless numbers killed in Sarajevo and Srebrenica.

Is not a lifetime behind bars a more apt punishment after the decadent lifestyle they enjoyed whilst others starved and were slaughtered?

Capital punishment is a thorny issue and we should all be thankful this latest execution did not end in the debacle seen in 2006.

Maybe however the West should look at its own morals before passing such judgements on the Muslim world.

The Balance Between Security And Protest

Security around world leaders has always been a major issue and in the age of global terrorism it is even more important.

America claims the Secret Service who protect the President are the best trained armed guards in the world.

Hardly surprising when you consider there have been assassination attempts, of varying degrees of success and common sense, on every president since Richard Nixon.

So it must have come as a shock to a major European nation when its Prime Minister was hospitalised after being struck by a model of a cathedral.

Silvio Berlusconi is far from popular in Italy and has been the butt of more than the occasional joke abroad.

But when you resort to propelling tourist souvenirs do you not relinquish the high ground?

At both the G20 in London and in Copenhagen there were reports of vandalism by young people dressed in black wearing gas masks.

Anyone who was in London in April this year will tell you of the stark contrast between those there trying to make a genuine point and those clearly there to make trouble.

Of cause these are not the only events this year which have got us thinking about what means we use to attain our ends.

When two British soldiers were killed outside Massareene barracks in Northern Ireland in March it did more to cement anti-nationalist sentiment than the Good Friday Agreement.

The people of Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, united for the first time in nearly a century determined not to go back to the days of road blocks, peace walls and car bombs.

But what about world leaders?

Recently at a state dinner in honour of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the White House two people gatecrashed, and despite not even being invited met President Obama.

When Obama was running for President there were fears he would become a target for assassination attempts from white supremacists.

In fact a plot to kill him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver was foiled before he even accepted the nomination.

This in turn has let him open to political satirists.
One comedian pointed out one of the reasons people were so behind a black president is because you knew someone would try and kill him.

Then of cause there is the now legendary joke of the problems the Secret Service were having protecting Obama because every time they shouted ‘get down’ he started dancing.

Of cause the gatecrashers, like the man who dressed up as bin Laden for Prince William’s 21st birthday, meant no harm, and it seems in most cases the attacker was mentally unstable.

The man who threw the porcelain model at Berlusconi had apparently suffered from a mental unbalance, and Chester Plummer attempted to kill President Ford by walking across the White House lawn and hitting him with a three foot length of metal piping is clearly lacking some creative cunning.

And now allegedly mentally unbalanced women are jumping the barriers at midnight mass to attack the Holy Father. Admittedly the Pope wields less power than in the days of Machiavelli but several of the substantial security presence looked stunned and casually made their way back to attend to this global religious figurehead.

It is true the public need to be given their chance to voice personal displeasures with our leaders. But surely in this era of global threats and Patriot Actesque laws this should not be happening, and why do we still so often resort to violence.

Maybe this is the time which will produce the next Dr King or Ghandi?

What Can We Expect From Copenhagen?

It is finally here. The most eagerly anticipated week of the year since the G20 in London is finally upon us. Also this week the Copenhagen Climate Conference got underway.

Regardless if you are a tree hugging liberal or cynical conservative the results of this week could have far reaching implications across the world.

But is a deal likely or even desirable?

Obviously if you are a firm believer in global warming you will see a deal as essential in much the same way a sceptic will tell you this week is a waste of time and money.

However to reach a deal a lot of divisions need to be bridged and Berlinesque walls demolished.

Unfortunately for those expecting a deal each country has entirely different expectations.

The third world needs a push in the right direction to avoid basing their entire economic future on oil.

Developing economies such as India and Brazil need to be able to expand further without compromising the future of the planet.

Meanwhile the developed world, most notably America, seems unwilling to give up the lifestyle they have carved out for themselves in the last century, although bizarrely it is they who seem to be pushing most for the global deal.

Some might say it is a bit hypocritical for nations of car drivers to tell nations of bicycle riders they need to reduce their carbon footprint.

Unfortunately some see the developing economies as the most troubling environmentally.

India, Brazil and China are producing higher carbon emissions the more their economies grow for obvious reasons and seem unwilling to relinquish this for even more obvious reasons.

However for the poorer countries to avoid falling into this trap they need foreign investment, which is not forthcoming without them making commitments first.

But should the developing world be the ones to make the first vital move?

America produces far more than its fair share of carbon and is the spiritual home of the most inefficient gas-guzzling vehicles known to mankind.

It was George W Bush who refused to sign up to Kyoto and avoid setting any kind of emissions standards. Can anyone imagine what this world would be like now if Al Gore had been declared the winner in Florida?

It is clear every country is going to have to make sacrifices if a deal is to be reached.

The developing world, most notably the rising economies will have to make assurances they will learn from the mistakes the developed world has made and look for a low carbon way to grow.

The developed world meanwhile must look for ways to make substantial changes to show the rest of the world it can be done.

Of cause none of this is likely to happen without the financial backing of the developed world, none of whom have any money to give out at the moment.

Then we come to the most obvious problem that not all people believe in it.

According to recent poll in the UK nearly 50% of people we dubious about the mankind’s effect on global warming.

The hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia have caused a huge rift in the environmental groups and have galvanised the sceptics.

On top of this some attending the conference flat out oppose a deal being made.

BNP leader Nick Griffin, who is representing the EU at Copenhagen, has called climate change a myth and has called green taxes a money grab.

Despite whatever personal feeling you might have towards his politics he is certainly not the man people want to see representing the EU at a celebrity golf match let alone something important.

However at least he is turning up. President Barack Obama will not attend until the last days of the summit, with many saying an American commitment is the only thing that matters.

To compound all of this there is the problem of the oil producing countries.

Most oil rich countries have their entire wealth tied up in petroleum

Most oil rich countries have huge stakes in the national oil producer.

These countries who would be seen as ‘rogue nations’ if it was not for oil can now see a bleaker future on the horizon.

If it was possible to see beyond the scientific doubts of climate change the barriers still look imposing.

The developing world will not commit until America has set emissions standards and is helping them financially to secure a greener future, and the developed world will not commit or fund until they have the assurances of the developing countries.

And then you still come round to this problem of scepticism over Climate Change itself.

Is a deal desirable? On the face of it yes, although as long as there are sceptics people will find this debatable.

Can a deal be reached? On the face of it no.