Wednesday, 10 November 2010

False Accounting

The news today that the three MPs accused of 'false accounting' will now be tried in a criminal court is welcome to anyone sickened by their greed. How they can deny the charge is beyond me but so be it and all three must risk substantial prison sentences if the law is upheld.

What I find puzzling is that only three are being been prosecuted. Why only three when the actual number of MPs who could be accused of 'false accounting' must run into the hundreds? Throw in the members of the Lords who have also been exposed as 'swindlers' and the numbers continue to grow.

For example the general practice of 'flipping houses' is corrupt because the perpetrators knew that they were cheating the system. Illegally claiming expenses that they were not entitled to should also surely be termed 'false accounting'. Even Gordon claiming his SKY subscriptions was dishonest because he knew that the system was not meant for that.

That is before we look at the Jacqui Smith case and the McNulty fiasco and so I return to my original question. Why only three of them when so many have apparently infringed the rules to such an extent that a charge of 'false accounting' could be appropriate?

Perhaps these are the test cases and more will follow but I won't hold my breath.

No comments: