AIBU not to resign

[ElBurroSinNombre]

I have done something naughty at work, that unfortunately got found out about and now some of my colleagues are saying I should resign. My boss is being fairly lukewarm about me and I actually feel rather exposed. Last week I made a heart felt apology to all of my colleagues at a meeting which I thought would be the end of the matter. But now I have found out that someone has started an online petition demanding that I resign;

www.change.org/petitions/maria-miller-mp-resign-as-basingstoke-mp-and-culture-secretary#

What shall I do?

See, your mistake was not doing something naughty enough. If only you'd embezzled millions instead of a measly few k they'd respect you more.

Done to death, sorry

Just want the petition to be publicised - thats all

I think you should resign. The fact you say it was 'unfortunate' that you were found out really suggests a total lack of insight on your part into the seriousness of what you did. You also say you did 'something naughty' whereas what you really did was steal my money, and that of other tax payers. This is not a little 'naughty.' In my tax-payer-funded work if I stole money I would be sacked for gross professional misconduct. I would not be given the option to retire. I would also likely face criminal investigation.

I suspect you know where the bodies are buried however, or your boss would have kicked you into touch already. If you are determined to stay you should try reminding your boss and your colleagues that you have all had your hands in the biscuit tin and you have the photos to prove it.

Fair enough, I agree, and sorry for my snippy tone :)

Hope you signed it loopy! Really hoping it goes viral and puts more pressure on - it is so wrong - this is one way that we can bite back.

I don't think she should resign. I think she should be dishonourably sacked and have a full criminal investigation. I don't think she should be allowed to work in this area again. What she's done is well out of order, like it says in the petition, people in other walks of life would be sacked in a heartbeat.

When a claimant is suspected of being overpaid. They have their money stopped and dragged by their proverbials into the nearest jobcentre for a fraud interview. The outcome of that interview determines whether they push forward with the CPS to prosecute you or give you a slap on the wrist and tell you not to do it again. Rightly so with it being taxpayers money and all. Seeing as it was taxpayers money she embezzled I don't see why she should be let off lightly. There are people serving time in prison for a lot less than what Maria miller has done.

Not just some of your colleagues, but also many of the owners, who money you pocketed, think you should be sacked.

You will be alright though OP. Remember your hubby is a Lawyer. You'll wing it.

I don't think any of us know enough of the facts to comment or draw too many conclusions. I suspect there is a lot most of us don't know and I also think it's a bit offensive as a lawyer's wife to tell another woman she'll be alright because hubby is a lawyer.

She has over claimed her expenses by at least 40,000 - that is known and is in the public domain. She was then let off paying back the full amount she had 'mistakenly' claimed by a panel of her peers. She also made a half hearted, sarcastic apology for her error. So we do know some of the facts - and to me that is enough for me to draw a conclusion.

Sacked would be better. And I assume we get a by-election?

I meant to sign the petition, will do it later.

NearTheWindymill Sun 06-Apr-14 19:46:37
I don't think any of us know enough of the facts

Come back when you've read it

Page 71 and 73 are quite informative.

Nearthewindymill As a Lawyer myself. You can be as offended as you like. :)

And the point is moot anyway. I know we don't know who is who on MN but I'm going to throw my hat into the ring here and say you're probably not a cabinet minister who has the highest standards to upheld. Nor have you embezzled thousands out of the Taxpayers pot. .

Indeed PigletJohn quite informative. By no means conclusively informative and difficult to form conclusions about in isolation. There are anothe 107 pages to read and I have only managed to wade through 67 so far.

I can't see anything so far that indicates a purposeful intention to misclaim. I can see a picture emerging of someone who cared enough for her family to take them in when the chips were down. I wonder what the opportunity cost of not doing that might have been?

Smacks of a witch-hunt over minor matters of procedure to me. All rather sad when one thinks of how much has probably been put into the system compared to what has been taken out. Presumably Mrs Miller could have earned far more and had much reduced expenditure had she not become an MP.

And I most certainly am not a cabinet minister

It's lovely to see your sympathy.

When I read the Telegraph article a few days ago. The comment the SpAd made to them threw me. I immediately thought it was an odd thing to say/threaten. "I'll just flag that up for you to think about". If that's not a subtle warning I don't know what is. I'm glad the telegraph are pushing this. Ministers shouldn't get to behave like this. Near how ever lovely the gesture. The parent thing is against the rules I believe. The reason the Journo hack 'doorstepped her dad' is I was told because she had genuine belief that it was miller who lived there. I cant link off the phone but I think it was Mcnulty or someone who got into trouble for letting his parents live in his second home a few years ago.

NearTheWindymill,
But she is an MP and the scrutiny of her behaviour and 'low' pay goes with the territory. That point is as fatuous as me saying that if I had been a banker I would have earned more money than I do now.
As has been pointed out by pixie, there is also proof that her aid tried to use the threat of Leveson to silence the Telegraph. If she is innocent in all of this as you would have it, why resort to this unethical bullying?

But having now read most of the 107 pages the report makes it clear that the parents weren't living in the second home because there was a second home but because they had lived with their daughter and her family for more than a decade before she became an MP. It reads as though this was an extended family unit; that the London home having taken advice through the proper channels was designated as the second home. The report also says that regardless of which home was designated as which the claims would have been unchanged. I have now read about 80 pages of the report and to me it sounds like hair splitting officiousness in response to the initial complaint which has been proven as unfounded.

I think it's all rather sad - not least because I think Miller has been a pretty good cabinet minister compared to many others.

If she has committed a crime then it's aligning herself too closely with Cameron. That's what won't have made her friends in the longer term.

Setting aside the issue of her parents. What was her reason for remortgaging it and claiming more than it was worth then? All paid for by the taxpayer.

That isn't a very well phrased question for a lawyer Misspixie. It's all set out in the 107 page report to which PigletJohn has linked.

What are you asking though? Are you saying why did she remortgage her London home? That is set out in the report very clearly.