MPs and Legal Aid

It was revealed yesterday that David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine would receive public money in the form of Legal Aid to defend their court cases for defrauding the public purse in the MP's Expenses Scandal.


You're probably thinking, hold on, that can't be right? These MPs are accused of defrauding the taxpayer, not just 'fiddling' their expenses 'within the rules' as many others had done. No, they stand accused of criminal fraud. It will not have escaped your attention that as MPs, they are not exactly on the breadline. And wasn't Legal Aid introduced to help ordinary people on low incomes to get the proper defence, and therefore a fair trial? 


There was much hand wringing by MPs and others during the expenses scandal, but what is it about these three Labour MPs who will not even stand in the dock, or recognise the authority of the court, but still want the taxpayer to fund their court proceedings? Have they learned nothing? Do they still take us all for mugs? What part of "We don't trust you" do they not get? 


The expenses scandal caused many to lose a lot of faith in our politicians, but these three have pushed our lack of faith into another dimension. They are ensuring the death of trust in politics. Having served their constituents in the past, and now not having a job because of their own doing, they have turned out to be bitter and twisted wee men. These men are daft, but not stupid, so yes, I think they know full well, what they are doing! Trust and faith in our politicians will take a long time to recover, if they ever do. In the meantime the ordinary man in the street has to work out who is the 'least misleading'! It's not a matter now of figuring out who is telling the truth. Those days may be gone forever!!

Conservative Schools Minister Michael Gove against Creationism

Michael Gove Conservative MP, shadow minister for schools said on the Andrew Marr Show, 14 Feb 2010, that 'we cannot allow creationist schools' in our society. He said it was 'at odds with all the known science'! I take it he is now a scientist, and that he has polled all scientists, and he knows more than them? In fact he puts this view in the same conversation, and almost the same breath as being against Muslim fundamentalism.


I always thought politicians were politicians. Not scientists, and not religious leaders either. Should they not speak having taken in the expert's views in their fields? I take it he has read Dawkins and shares his beliefs on evolution. But has he read other creationist contemporaries views like Anthony Flew? How about CS Lewis? And what about Colson and Keller? I think Gove is picking and choosing his sources, and forming conclusions with little care.


Scientists DO believe in creation. It is wrong to say that 'ALL the known science' is against it. It is NOT, and to say so shows a blatant disregard for the Christian base of our country. Scientists are divided on the subject. They do not speak with one voice. I smell danger ahead. Science is a fine way of examining 'physical things' but cannot be used in matters of faith, beliefs, emotions, feelings, love. You know the kind of real stuff that we are all made of. We spend most of our day in relationships of one kind or another, and these relationships and emotions cannot be dissected or explained by science!


I am alarmed at the offhand dismissal of the creationist view, when evolution is still a THEORY! This view is expressed by a potential next Schools Minister after the next General Election. Christians, be afraid, be very afraid!  

Parliamentary Priviledge... eh??

I am not the only one to have been paying more than a passing interest in the shenanigans of our elected Parliamentarians, you know those clever people who pass those complicated laws, and are our guardians of peace, law and order! It seems that 3 MPs and a Lord, no less, will be brought to court and justice for fraud. Fiddling expenses! 


If a really dodgy person wants to be found 'not guilty' then he or she gets the best lawyer, not to find them innocent, but to make sure they cannot be proven to be guilty. There is a difference. A nice wee loophole is just the ticket, and the 'best' criminal lawyers will find one if they look hard enough. The result is that the 'baddie' is found without a case to answer, or the case is dropped due to a 'technicality of the law'... yes that loophole again!


It seems our 'good' MPs, now found out in their expense fraud, and knowing that criminal charges will follow, don't act in honesty and say 'sorry gov, it's a fair cop, I'll come quietly', and face the penalty like a big boy. No, they look for a loophole, and this 'Parliamentary Priviledge' is it! Apparently this law was introduced a long time ago (when MPs were honourable) to allow them to always get access to the Parliament building, and also to allow them to say what they wanted in chamber, without libel laws being brought against them. It wasn't brought in to protect MPs against the law of fraud, but that's exactly what they are asking their lawyers to pursue.


Now, if a criminal gets off on a technicality, we all know what has happened. He got off scot free, perhaps even without a trial, but we all know he is guilty. Otherwise why look for a loophole? It's the same with these MP criminals. They did the crime, but don't want to do the time, and know that the evidence is overwhelming against them... so they look for a loophole. 


I hope the 'loophole' is tested in court, and found not to apply in their cases, and as a result of wasting taxpayers money, and police time, they all go down for the maximum period which I believe is 7 years. Mind you with time off for good behaviour, and all the other stuff the lawyers will do on their behalf, they won't even get their socks off on the first night, and will be released before they have their first prison shower in the morning anyway. Oh well, such is our legal system. Fair? You decide!