Independent Live podcast: Is Politics in Crisis?
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Independent Live, our series of free debates featuring commentators from The Independent, returned in Brighton for a debate on the state of politics in the UK.
With a panel which sees Independent journalists Steve Richards, Johann Hari and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown joined by columnist and former Tory MP Michael Brown and broadcaster and author Simon Fanshawe, the debate is available to listen to and download as a podcast below.
Part One
Part Two
Right-click here and click "Save target/link as..." to download part one
Right-click here and click "Save target/link as..." to download part two
For more Independent Live podcasts click here (requires iTunes)
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
To my untutored eye the text of the Act could have been written to deal with the less that totally honest claims by MPs;
The following text from the Act may cover the situation;
'1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are-
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if-
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of-
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.'
The explanatory notes accompanying the Act include the following text;
Section 2: Fraud by false representation
10. Section 2 makes it an offence to commit fraud by false representation. Subsection (1)(a) makes clear that the representation must be made dishonestly. This test applies also to sections 3 and 4. The current definition of dishonesty was established in R v Ghosh [1982] Q.B.1053. That judgment sets a two-stage test. The first question is whether a defendant's behaviour would be regarded as dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people. If answered positively, the second question is whether the defendant was aware that his conduct was dishonest and would be regarded as dishonest by reasonable and honest people.
The many and various attempts by MPs to change, obscure, conceal and ignore attempts to 'flush out ' these practices must be held as evidence that those concerned were aware that there actions were dishonest and that their behaviour would be regarded by dishonest by reasonable and honest people.
I note that this case fulfills at least two, and probably more, of the 'common public interest factors' contained in Section 5.9 of the current Prosecution Manual namely:-
5.9
a) a conviction is likely to result in a significant sentence;
e) the defendant was in a position of trust;
h) there is evidence that the offence was carried out by a
group;
o) there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct;
p) the offence, although not serious in itself, is widespread
in the area where it was committed; or
q) a prosecution would have a significant positive impact
on maintaining community confidence.
People like you, ie reasonable expectations & usiing logical thought process could well bring about the end to democracy that never was & never likely to be if Labour are allowed to erode our individual rights further.
Next you'll want to know why the MP's seem to be outside the laws they pass for the rest of society, indeed not only would the rest of us had to have repaid all that was taken, repay any tax unpaid with a further fine applied, court action which would lead to further fines & possible loss of property gained by improper means & even a prison sentence.
Although to be fair they do have to stand in the Commons & apologise, so thats alright then?
And what are their partners to do for 'employment' if the new proposals take effect? Of course they should be allowed to work for their MP partner, but perhaps we could reduce the office expenses to that of the average secretarial duties with a proviso this is to be a full time job & not something one does in between travelling 1st class with said MP to check just how golden the sand may be in sunnier clime or whilst shopping at John Lewis with a list as long as a double toliet roll, or perhaps checking the depth of the moat or checking for dust in the duck house. One can see why they may have little time to carry out their duties as secretary for the nouveau riche given such busy schedules.
They think we will have forgotten by the General Election, I hope not, I really do, wouldn't it be wonderful to find 600 plus (hopefully to be reduced to 350) new independent MP's with no whip/party influence who understood they were on a very short leash, lets hope the UK electorate have the bottle to do it.
I believe that the political system is institutionally corrupt and will continue to be so for as long as it exists, however I also think you can take the words 'corrupt' or 'corruption' and replace them with the words 'human nature' in just about any sentence and that sentence will still make perfect sense.
So my question is simple how can we possibly clean up politics to make it moral and ethical when it is against human nature to do so?
The US Drugs Enforcement Agency alone has a budget of billions; our own customs force spends most of it's effort on drug traffic, anything else being an incidental bonus. Add the drugs squads in every police force and those involved via MI5 / CIA / FBI - not to mention the prisons, judges, lawyers and suchlike.
This is a big government business - which is why I think nothing will change.