MPs investigated over expenses should not be named

MPs investigated over expenses should not be named - The Telegraph - Steven Swinford - 29 Sep 2014

MPs being investigated for alleged abuses of their expenses will have their names kept secret, the Commons watchdog has announced.

 

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will no longer release the names of MPs under investigation and the public will be barred from hearings.

...

Looks like our elected representatives lords and masters are at it again, personally I think in order to trust our MP's they shouldn't be hiding anything from us unless it's a matter of national security and unless they are subsidising trident with their expenses I don't see their expense claims falling into that category.

 

There's a petition here if you think MP's expenses should be public knowledge, I'm not sure if there's one for keeping them secret I didn't bother looking tbh

Signed.

 

......................

Signed also.

You have to wonder just how independent the "Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority" is,when they make decisions like this.

Who are we to question the "Right Honourables" eh?

Signed also.

You have to wonder just how independent the "Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority" is,when they make decisions like this.

Who are we to question the "Right Honourables" eh?

 

Signed also. On their website it says "Transparency is one of our most important values.". Yeh right!

 

http://parliamentarystandards.org.uk/transparency/Pages/default.aspx

Signed.

 

An employer who provides money for the reclaiming of expenses is entitled to know the details of any such claims.

 

As they are fond of telling us around election time, we are their employers.

The watchdog claimed that the move was intended to protect the MPs from the "reputational damage" they would suffer because of "public scrutiny".

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe this should apply to all citizens that are under investigation, until they are proven guilty.

Signed.................. with pleasure.

The watchdog claimed that the move was intended to protect the MPs from the "reputational damage" they would suffer because of "public scrutiny".

 

What damage?

What damage?

 

The same kind or reputational damage anyone can suffer if they are publicly accused and investigated of wrong doing. Whats good for MP's should be good for everyone and no one should be named until found guilty of wrong doing.

What damage?

 

Even if people are found not to be guilty of what they're being investigated for mud still sticks...I suppose that's what they mean..

Even if people are found not to be guilty of what they're being investigated for mud still sticks..

 

That's a no win situation. Guilty or not guilty, mud sticks? That being the case better in the open. There will always be those that consider MP's crooks, crooks or not.

 

The only reason mud sticks is because of past reputations. A climate of trust could be gained through transparency. Locked doors have the opposite effect.

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 14:25 ----------

 

The same kind or reputational damage anyone can suffer if they are publicly accused and investigated of wrong doing. Whats good for MP's should be good for everyone and no one should be named until found guilty of wrong doing.

 

It's a record of accounts not guilt trial. I have no issue personally with transparency.

Edited October 7, 2014 by ronthenekred

Even if people are found not to be guilty of what they're being investigated for mud still sticks...I suppose that's what they mean..

 

After the last expenses scandal how many MPs were actually 'found guilty,' in spite of numerous examples of MPs getting away with abuses to the tune of many thousands of pounds?

 

If we hadn't known the details of the many abuses and who had made them, the media would have claimed only a few MPs were involved and dismissed it as a minor occurance not worth bothering about.

Happily, we now know the majority of MPs were actually involved, and the extent, (and cost) of the widespread abuse. And don't forget it was the press who investigated and uncovered the scandal in the first place.

 

No wonder MPs were eager to muzzle the press

 

I don't think it's a question of mud sticking, but of the public's right to know the truth about our elected representatives.