This is a genuine offer. I will pay £100 to any person who can provide a convincing reason why Denis MacShane’s expense fiddling, involving his creating false invoices, was not a criminal offence. Your argument does not have to be unanswerable – merely respectable. Up to three prizes will be given, for the three first and not essentially the same convincing arguments.
This competition specifically is open to employees of the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service; we would love to know their reasoning. It baffles me. I confess I can think of no single circumstance in this case that would prevent MacShane being convicted for theft and fraud. What is the answer?
Denis MacShane is a criminal. If he wants to try his chances with a jury, the libel courts are open to him and I am here.
Craig, you will no doubt agree that you will have a more convincing answer than mine and therefore please send £100 to The Prison Phoenix Trust, which is a charity teaching yoga and meditation to prisoners.
Fooldefence – need I point out there is a subtle difference between describing MacShane as a convicted criminal, and postulating (as Craig did) the criminality of what he did? As I see it, m’lud, Mr.M. cannot be described as a criminal until he is found guilty of a crime. This is not in dispute. My client is entitled to know, however, why Mr.M. cannot face trial on a criminal charge, and that is the basis of his inquiry. Snapplepacket vs Drudgeworthy (1886) provides….etc, etc…
MacShane’s blase approach to small time fraud, when far greater rewards for his affiliations are surely coming his way, simply reveals normalised political corruption and impunity. Again.
Wanting incorruptible politicians is just banging our heads against a brick wall. Might this explain Vronsky’s headache and visions?
To “OldMark” (or perhaps Jeune Imbécile?) : what is the “take on his actions” which you infer from my post? Approval? A shrug of the shoulders? Wrong! To explain again : it is a Shakespearean tragic flaw in the man’s character which led him to throw away a political career and reputation for the sake of a few thousand pounds. I said nothing more than that.
And please, don’t get into this stupid, insular mindset of suggesting Mr MacShane’s behaviour and the reaction (or non-reaction) of the authorities is typically French; I seem to remember that quite a few UK politicians are not prosecuted – and rehabilitated after a short interval. Latest example – Mr David Laws.
I actually searched for “Snapplepacket vs Drudgeworthy (1886)”. Duh!
@Phil: You can fool some of the people some of the time, and ain’t it great when you do? Thanks for the feedback. 🙂
I saw him interviewed in French on the telly once. I think he was some sort of UK Euro-Minister at the time.
Talk about smug. And he clearly thought his French better than I did. Langue et Civilisation how are ya.
the houses of parliament prove you can fool all the people all of the time.
So parliamentary privilege means MP’s can commit crime and not be prosecuted but would that only apply if he was doing acting in the normal course of being an MP? what is the case laws on this, can the people who put him forward as an MP be sued for injury/loss or harm due to a criminal MP? also when he was making laws he would have to declare an interest since he was a criminal this would mean he was in the business of crime will legislating about crime? and angle there to be followed?. can we trawl through the law files and find if any MP’s have ever been convicted?
Found this very good website Search the Money which lists corporate and private donations to MPs and their outside remunerations. Cons only at the moment. Hope they extend to cover the other troughers.
http://www.searchthemoney.com/
You can click on a donor’s name and the total that they have donated appears.
Look at Gove, over £462k and someone called Geoffrey Cox, Torridge and W Devon £756,000k+ !! WTF.
Jerome, 3:23pm, 3.11.12:
Agreed. And another is Peter Mandelson. And another, Stephen Byers. And what about Jeremy Hunt?
He was a Straw protégé as Europe Minister.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Europe
Denis MacShane Labour 28 October 2002 – 11 May 2005
Another WTF! His record has been deleted from TheyWorkForYou unless I am going blind.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/?o=p
how about doing an e-petition
“we demand the criminal prosecution of the 100% guilty Dennis McShane after a lawful and fair trial that he be stripped naked and hand =cuffed and left in the bbc car park”
something along those lines.
Jeremy Hunt got promotion! Incredible arrogance. Nowadays, they only resign, you see, when not doing so would expose the core mechanics of war and power and so, the lesser trope of a ‘scandal’ serves to obscure the greater, systemic political pathology. It is the mechanics of the hard state.
Oh, they also resign if they openly insult a policeman and remind people that there is a thing called social class in this country and that it is actually still the main structural inequality. And so, in a bizarre and convenient Swiftian inversion, the police become class warriors in the UK.
The law (like taxation) is only for small people; for big people there are merely suggestions.
This has been pointed out ad nauseam, but nothing changes.
I can’t claim the prize so, instead, I propose a toast to a man who had the right idea. Guy Fawkes.
Suhayl ‘…..the police become class warriors in the UK.’
Back to Thatcher’s Army at Orgreave. Do you remember the Scottish Yank she got in to mastermind the breaking of the NUM?
Sir Ian McGregor.
http://citizenactionmonitor.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/counterpower-by-tim-gee-pt-9-how-thatcher-destroyed-britains-national-union-of-mineworkers/
Within that link there is a sentence that says
‘BBC edited a film to make it look like strikers had attacked police when, in fact, just the opposite was true. Six years later, the BBC finally offered a weak apology for its duplicity.’
Nothing changes.
[Mod/Jon: removed whole post. Using “Jewish” as an explanation for criminal behaviour in the political classes, or as an explanation for getting away with it, is not permitted here.]
Why Denis MacShane should not be prosecuted.
Under the criminal law, in common law jurisdictions, there is an established code of ethics in charging and punishing those who are at the lower end of the criminal spectrum. Even those at the upper end of serious crime are still likely to be punished – but there are provisos:-
1. No punishment for some who clearly are scoundrels and/or dishonest but are within a special category. One can readily note the “banksters” and “fraudsters” who escaped any criminal sanctions for their transgressions in the City and on Wall Street. These are “special criminals”.
2. There is an age limit for criminal responsibility – but unfortunately Denis MacShane is a bit past it and can’t rely on this defence.
3. High Office does confer certain privileges – and – this, I believe, serves Denis well in this case.
4. The crime may also be so lowly for MacShane’s high office that it simply does not merit the serious attention of the Crown Prosecution Service. Consider for a moment – nineteen false claims; yes – nineteen fake invoices; not one or two – nineteen – and all he was able to cheat was a mere 12,900 pounds. Derisive and stupid and his conduct should not be rewarded with official and serious attention of criminal charges. He submitted an invoice twice for computer charges amounting to five thousand nine hundred and sixty eight pounds. Did someone say stupid? Only eight computers – come on Denis – a hundred would have been more in keeping for a man of your stature.
5. I could submit that the client was negligent nineteen times over.
6. And – evidence submitted to parliament is not admissible in court. But now that the report is published there should not be this barrier, so we have some work to do on this case.
Truth is that this is not a hard case to prove and really, from a lawyer’s point of view, is open and shut:-
The law reads as follows:-
Section 17 of the Theft Act 1968:-
“False accounting.
(1)Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,—
(a) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or
(b) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
(2) For purposes of this section a person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or who omits or concurs in omitting a material particular from an account or other document, is to be treated as falsifying the account or document”
A. There is the wrongful act ( i.e. “actus reus”) of having taken the 12,900 pounds.
B. He used a nom de plume, so clearly he wanted to conceal something and in so doing it is absolutely evident that he was hiding conduct that he actually knew to be dishonest and did falsify. This comprises the mens rea – the next of the two elements to secure a criminal conviction.
C. A conviction should easily be obtained on the known evidence. If a person acts knowingly and with fraudulent conduct, so as it disguise the benefit of fake invoices – is he guilty? Is the Pope Catholic?
But – you still have to prove it.
Denis – we could still fall back on 3, 4 and 5 above as defences – couldn’t we? Don’t forget, the ol’ boys network and a solid sense of entitlement. Stiff upper lip – ol’ chap.
Craig – where is my hundred quid?
P.S. Ichancho has the right idea:-
” The law (like taxation) is only for small people; for big people there are
merely suggestions.
This has been pointed out ad nauseam, but nothing changes.”
But – I still want the prize Craig.
TheyWorkForYou still has MacShane’s report page live here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/denis_macshane/rotherham
The speedy removal of dismissed MP from the Index seems at clear odds with the sites purpose.
Craig, I wished you were more generous. 100 quid gets you nowhere nowadays. The question is easy to answer. That creep is a friend of israel. As everyone in the UK seems to be a friend of Israel in these days (those who are not yet are on the way of becoming friends) we and they are all great friends or “amici dei amici” and one does not do certain things to friends.
Please let me know that I won the great prize as soon as possible. Otherwise, I will have a sleepless night.
Ah, I found MacShane’s page through archive.org , but they have another search form on their index – “Search by name (including former MPs)”
– so no need to wonder who TheyWorkForYou works for 🙂
Thanks ThatCrab. That explains it. I looked through the list and he was not included.
Debbie Abrahams Lab Oldham East and Saddleworth
Dennis Skinner Lab Bolsover
Derek Twigg Lab Halton
/..
Suhayl, yes, again! Social mobility, my foot.
O/T completely, and somewhat belatedly -to Guano, Suhayl, (?)Mark,(?)Uzbek and non-vegetarians everywhere…
http://i79.servimg.com/u/f79/12/99/87/07/eid1010.jpg
Or Kurban Bayram, if you prefer…
“U.S. Elections: Will the Dead Vote and Voting Machines be Hacked?”
“He who casts a vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything.”
-Joseph Stalin”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/03/u-s-elections-will-dead-vote-voting-machines-hacked/
Nice to help you, to help you, nice Mary.
And the Eid… I want to join in, after discovering Komodo’s greeting card, a belated ‘happy Eid’. But it occurs to me that an occasions purpose might not simply mean to ‘be happy’. Like, Happy Birthday, happy Holidays etc. “Many Contrivations!” But I dont know the lingo so Happy Eid it is.
His response would be that he is part of the state within the state where the law doesn’t apply. The law is there to contain the plebs particularly when they rise up i.e. six months for stealing a £3.50 case of bottled water
I think we wish ‘Eid Mubarak’ to our Muslim friends if we are not too late.
http://www.ramadantimetable.co.uk/
I fear there is a misconstruction of D. MacShane’s contempt to plebeians (derivative plebiscite) shown through his submission of the infantile invoices; as his “flawed character”, or his “lack of imagination”. Alas his obvious and almost blatant attempt in false accounting is part of the “freude” or bravado that is born of his certainty that his obvious fraud will be going unpunished, and he will not stand to account for his almost amateurish attempt in defrauding the tax payers funds. This fact has held true, because despite the public knowledge of the fraud, D. MacShane has not faced any consequences for his fraudulent conduct and by the looks of it is not likely to do so either.
The Bush/Blair era, will surely be remembered as the golden age of the fraudsters, cheats and liars, whence the discriminatory application of law became to be the normal course of conduct of the state affairs, and lies, and bribes as normal currency and stock in trade of the power elite to be applied copiously without any fear of reprisals.