In not understanding why Maria Miller is not facing criminal charges?

[NutcrackerFairy]

Apparently 80% of voters believe that MM should be thrown out of the Cabinet and forced to give up her Commons seat as punishment for making false expenses claims [according to a recent poll].

Now if a person in receipt of benefits had fraudulently obtained £45,000 of tax payers money I think they would be facing some sort of criminal proceedings as well as being forced to pay back all that is owed and possibly also being fined. Admittedly they may only be required to pay back a nominal sum per week if on particularly low income but the principle is the same.

And if this was someone else in 'normal' employment who had been caught fiddling their expenses [sometimes by a heck of a lot less than £45,000] they would most likely be escorted off the premises, out of a job and possibly facing criminal charges.

So why is Maria Miller let off the hook, only being asked to pay back a fraction of what she obtained fraudulently, keeping her job and not been charged with fraud?

And why the hell is she able to apparently legitimately claim her mortgage interest anyway? On a property she owns, where her parents live and where she is set to make a tidy £1.2 million pound profit [apparently]. Why the fuck are the taxpayers being asked to fund rich MPs second homes? Why can't they stay in a hotel [like other employees who have to travel for work] and claim the cost of this to expenses?

Is it just the tip of the iceberg as per fraud and MPs expenses? Is MM being protected so not too many questions are asked of other MPs and their expenses claims?

I just think it is gobsmacking and infuriating to see what the ruling classes are up to with tax payers money when massive cuts to services and benefits are taking place.

If there is no money in the pot for these then there is no money for MPs to be claiming their mortgage interest surely

These people make me so mad.

They get a second home paid for by the tax payer.
They sell it and pocket thousands of pounds profit which IMO should go back to the tax payer.

I don't even think they should have a second home TBH.
I would like to see MPs accommodated in halls of residence. They all have an office in Westminster where they can work/see people.
There are many rooms in Westminster where they can have meetings/entertain people if necessary.
They have a very long recess when they can go back to their family home.
People in the forces or on oil rigs or on contracts abroad have to spend time away from their families. I can't see what the difference is TBH.

These are the same people who penalise the disabled for needing an extra bedroom to store specialist equipment.

I posted that before I had read the rest of the thread.
I see other posters have said similar.

I think there should be a criminal investigation. And all her finances should be gone through with a fine toothcomb by external auditors.

I liked Deborah Orr's article in the Sat Guardian - "I don't know why it is that no one from Basingstoke is fit to represent Basingstoke"!

What's most shocking / objectionable is not necessarily the 'fiddling' (I accept the notion that this was widespread and accepted as 'the way things worked' at the time) but the breathtaking level of arrogance shown by MM subsequently, including her lack of real apology, and her office's attempts to browbeat the people looking into the case.

kahula im itching for it

Euro MPs make a fortune by walking into parliament and claiming their pay for the day then walking straight out again.

We are STILL waiting for the accounts to be audited for the EU parliament. How many years is it now?

Any other organisation that did not audit its accounts annually would be in serious trouble.

YANBU. The hypocrisy is sick-making and further proof, if it were needed, that the government is at best hopelessly out of touch or, more likely, of its breathtaking arrogance and contempt.

Funnily enough, someone high up at my mums workplace has just been sacked (rightly so!) for fiddling expenses!! Why should he be fired and not her when they have done the exact same thing? IMO, she is worse because he was stealing from a large multinational company where she was stealing from a whole country of people!

YADNBU. She has stolen £45,000 of public money. But because she has said sorry & paid it back everything is OK .

Errmm, no, no it isn't OK. If I fraudulently obtained £45,000 of public money would I let off for saying sorry? No, of course I wouldn't, I'd be in prison.

Makes me angry it does .

She hasn't stolen £45,000 of public money and paid it back Santas... she stole £45,000 of public money and paid back £5,000 of it.

Bloody disgrace.

Imagine if a burglar got caught and said 'oh oops, sorry. I'll give back 10% of what i stole, that's okay isn't it?'

This seriously makes me sick to my stomach. And to try and intimidate the telegraph journalists- this woman should be absolutely hung out to dry.

There are very few things that really make me speechless with rage, but this does.

YANBU

It's disgusting behaviour and the reaction suggesting it's either acceptable or 'an oversight' demonstrates just how fraud and dishonesty in politics is accept as the norm

Nutcracker - I agree with you. I was putting her actions into context, not trying to excuse them. These people treat the electorate with contempt, pretending they are paid so much, while grabbing much more "under the table" through the expenses system. Many of them have 2nd jobs too. And some of them use their position to give a little job to their spouse or son or daughter.

The fact that she takes an ambiguous expense policy (and WTF do they have such an ambiguous expense policy? Oh, because the fox is guarding the henhouse - that's why) and interprets it to her advantage means she's less than scrupulous.

Yes. Cameron and his cronies are very good at getting every penny they can for themselves out of any situation. "Because they're worth it". I wonder how many bedrooms they have?

On the general MPs expenses thing, for years MPs salaries have risen more slowly than average earnings despite popular belief to the contrary. Time after time independent commissions have reported that MPs should be paid substantially more but the press has always agitated against this. As a result the leaders of the major parties always told MPs to accept a relatively small rise but compensated for this by increasing expense allowances, leading to a culture in which it MPs were expected to claim as much as possible. Even now, with an independent body appointed to determine MPs pay, we have the newspapers agitating against the rise proposed and party leaders saying it was wrong so MPs once again get a smaller rise than IPSA say they should.

Regarding the Maria Miller case, my understanding is that the reason she has only paid back £5,800 rather than £45,000 is a disagreement between the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Commons Committee for Standards (which has the final say) over interpretation of the rules. The Commissioner was of the view that she was only able to claim expenses for interest payments on the original mortgage she took out in 1996 whereas the Committee took the view that she could claim interest payments on the mortgage as it stood in 2005 when she entered Parliament (by which time it had been added to several times). I have no idea who is right but I note that the difference appears to be around how strictly the rules should be interpreted, with the Commissioner apparently attaching great significance to a 2005 change in the rules from "mortgages, and legal and other costs" to "mortgages, legal and other costs".

People seem very keen on criminal charges for MPs. My own view is that criminal charges are only appropriate where there has been clear criminal behaviour. Where the rules are unclear (having read the relevant section I believe that is definitely the case here) and there are differing views as to how they should be interpreted a criminal prosecution is unlikely to succeed.

Notwithstanding all of that I think Miller is going to be forced out.

Wasn;t just the Tories exploiting th expenses stuff though so shamefully Dinosaurs. Was across the board.

I think she should go.

How has whether they are paid enough been brought into this discussion, though? Has MM said something to this effect?

Cameron and his cronies are very good at getting every penny they can for themselves out of any situation

Cameron's total expenses claims for 2013/14 were £7,235.02, by far the lowest figure for any of the leaders of the major parties.

I only mentioned the level of pay because some posters were having a go generally about expenses. It explains a lot if we remember that for a very long time MPs were being told, in effect, "you can't have a pay rise but we'll put your expenses up and we won't look too carefully at what you claim".

I see an obvious problem with a policy that allows someone reclaim an expense that they can make either big or small, whatever they wish.

prh47bridge yes but I think I've seen the MP pay being mentioned elsewhere. Which led me to believe that maybe MM had the temerity to use this as a defense.

Ah, I see. No, I haven't seen any suggestion she has used that as a defence. That would be a very silly thing to do, to say the least.

Of course she should go! If she had an ounce of integrity she would offer her resignation.

She fiddled her expenses and in any other workplace she would be out or at least pay the lot back not the tiny amount she has been compelled to.

Her arrogance and the meanness of her so called apology and the intimidation and arrogance of her office trying to silence the press is a bloody disgrace.

prh - he's not stupid enough to overclaim on publicly published expenses while he is prime minister, obviously. That would be political suicide at the moment.