Jail for David Cheater!

[ducati]

Sorry, just thought I would beat the Sun to the headline :lol:

[gleeber]

Aye he cheated right enough but he wasnt the only one. He was more stupid than the others. He actually forged a couple of tnenancy agreements and thats why he got done. The others just filled in expenses forms in good faith. :lol:
They interviewed his mate who's the MP in the neighbouring constituancy and although he didnt condone his behaviour in any way he suggested David Chaytor would have been a prime candidate for community service and he wouldnt cost the taxpayer the thousands it'll cost them when he's in jail.
I wonder what Ken Clark would say about that?

[ducati]

Yes, I saw the same interview. I think the judge would have been lynched if he hadn't jailed him.

[Tubthumper]

18 months. Some folk get less than that for GBH!

[gleeber]

Yes, I saw the same interview. I think the judge would have been lynched if he hadn't jailed him.
The judge should'nt be swayed by public opinion. Considering the Home secretaries remarks about criminal reform the judge was in a perfect position to use the option. If the judges idea of public opinion sent him to jail what kind of justice is that?

[ducati]

Well...not getting lynched [lol]

[spaceddaisy]

Isn't it a little ironic that after stealing from the tax payer he's now being kept at tax payer's expense....

[gleeber]

Well...not getting lynched [lol]
And here's me getting all serious an'all.

[John Little]

Why should he be jailed when bankers get away with more or less the same thing?

[gleeber]

Why should he be jailed when bankers get away with more or less the same thing?

I suppose it's seen as the ultimate punishment to resrict us of our freedom. The expenses scandal got under everyones skin. In one way he got what he deserved but it was a chance missed to debate the issue of criminal reform.

[.D.]

He manipulated his position of power, the court has made an example of him because of that. Even though he's received an 18month sectence, it's looking like he'll be out within a 4.5-6month period.

[Aaldtimer]

Plain and simple he's a thief, and he's where he belongs to be, in prison.
To hear him described by his friends as a man of integrity is laughable!
He is a broken man...aw, shame...he is repentant...aye, at being caught...no sympathy whatsoever from this taxpayer.[disgust]

[John Little]

Right. So a bloke who uses his position to falsify his expenses claims and peculates from the public purse to the tune of £20,000 belongs in jail. Let's ignore those whose job it is to check those claims.....

Now.

If a bloke works for a company that is 90% owned by the government with billions of pounds of public money which is still owed, and does the same, does he go to jail?

That is to say that if the bloke uses his position in that company to claim that what he does deserves a bonus of say £1,000,000- then takes it from this company that still has not paid the taxpayer back, is this not also peculation?

And if we send one man to jail for peculation, should we not also send the other?

[ducati]

Not sure were you are going with this John, although I can almost see the foaming
mouth:lol:. Should we arrest and prosicute all the bankers?

[John Little]

My question is really asking that if peculation of public funds is a jail-worthy crime in one area why is it acceptable in another?

[ducati]

When I google peculation 5 bank adverts came up :eek:

Embezzeling public or indeed anyones money is a crime.

Bankers get bonuses based on performance (so do lots of other people). The banks that are performing well are paying bonuses. I don't see the connection?

[John Little]

The connection lies in the unquestioned assumption in the banking community that it is acceptable practice to set up a system, seemingly unaccountable, where it is acceptable to channel large sums of money which rightfully belongs in the public purse into their own pockets.

It seems to me that where the government is powerless to do anything about it, and where the practice continues, that nothing less than a massive system of embezzlement has been set up.

Claims that million pound bonuses have been 'earned' for doing one's job are used to justify the sweeping of cash into the snouts of people who have done no more than their job.

To send David Chater to jail for embezzling a mere £20,000 of public money whilst tolerating 'bankers' embezzling money from banks that we own is rank hypocrisy.

That's not called banking in my mind - it's called 'swindling'.

And yes - in a fair society, if Chater is given 18 months then imho some of these brazen crooks should be getting far more.

I completely fail to see why I should pay higher taxes and higher petrol prices while this goes on.

Chater is as white as snow compared to someone in a government owned bank who calmly walks off with a cool million 'bonus'. The whole thing is corrupt.

[ducati]

Then the law should be changed to make recieving bonuses a crime. If the banks in the UK stopped paying bonuses (and lots of other industries, as well as the public sector) then the UK would be put on a very uncompetetive footing.

[John Little]

I agree - the giving of 'bonuses' should be a crime. It would be more honest to give them greasy fivers in a brown envelope- because that is what is really going on.

And yes - the country is uncompetitive. It need not be. If thatcher had not gutted our manufacturing base instead of modernising it then we would be more competitive. But in degrading the manufacturing sector in which most of the population made its living, and concentrating instead on the financial sector she set up a system whereby the gap between haves and have not was always going to widen.

A healthy society needs a balance in manufacturing, commerce and finance which we do not have.

I'm very pleased to see that Cameron is pushing investment in manufacturing like crazy. I'm also pleased to see that Lord Baker is setting up 70 technical schools to train kids in things like engineering, electrics etc by the end of this government's term. The new conservatives do not seem to think like the old.


If you read Samuel Pepy's diary you see a society where corruption was ingrained into its fabric and the taking of bribes was routine. Pepys himself took pride in the fact that he only took bribes where it did the King some good. I see absolutely no difference between the corruption of 17th century politics and modern banking.

And to keep the thread on track - I repeat- Chater may indeed be a crook but there are far bigger crooks putting your taxes up and living high on the hog whilst thumbing their noses at you and me.

[ducati]

I agree with much of what you say.

The world changes however, a country has to compete with the world for resources, jobs, it's share of markets.

We cannot stand still, or indead go backwards.

We have a whole new breed to think about now. The green, environmentally friendly industries. They don't take a dump without first getting a subsidy or grant :mad:

[bagpuss]

But shouldn't we have jailed every single one of the MPs of all parties who fiddled their expenses?

Tommy Sheridan and David Chater have both gone the way of Jonathon Aitken (who found God while in jail and trained for the clergy) and Lord Archer. Look out for the publication of prison diaries in the next year or so

[Garnet]

Having read all postings on this thread I have to agree with most comments and I also agree that 'Bankers' should not be 'paid' bonuses for doing the work they're hired for while paying off front line staff and giving their jobs to other countries. The excuse used to keep these 'bankers' on big money and bonuses is 'we need to attract the best' ....well...the best what!!!
So far they're the best at helpng themselves to our money, meanwhile the present government is cutting benefits for the most vulnerable people in our society, instead of the fakers there as well, and Jeffrey Archer should be stripped of his title...Lord...my behind.