Agent Orange Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 I was watching the tv this morning and caught an interview in which Lord Taylor was explaining why he should be allowed to retake his seat in the House of Lords. Basically, for those who don't know who this guy is, he was jailed for 12 months for fraudulently claiming £11,000 in expenses. He has since been released from prison and has now been told that he has been suspended from the House of Lords. Now, I might be suffering from some weird attack of self righteousness here, but he's a criminal and therefore should be kicked out of the Lords. I know he has been suspended, but surely that's not good enough. As for Lord Taylor, he should have fallen on his sword and stepped down once he was convicted. See story below: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/13/lord-taylor-of-warwick-return-to-lords_n_1091214.html Other opinions welcome.
truman Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Is anyone with a criminal record legally not allowed to be a Lord?
Lucifer Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Will he be on Job Seekers allowance at the moment. ?. Probably he wants to get back into the Lords for some income fiddledidee.
Agent Orange Posted November 14, 2011 Author Posted November 14, 2011 Is anyone with a criminal record legally not allowed to be a Lord? Not sure. It would awfully wrong if convicted Lords were allowed to keep their peerage.
WeX Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Personally I wouldn't want this guy back, but do we not consider those who have paid for their crimes to be allowed back into society/work etc?
truman Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Not sure. It would awfully wrong if convicted Lords were allowed to keep their peerage. Even hereditary ones?
HeadingNorth Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Is anyone with a criminal record legally not allowed to be a Lord? There is no such rule; that's why Lord Archer retained his title. Lord Taylor, though, has in effect defrauded Parliament, which is quite a different matter.
Balpin Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 The Lords in the first place all gained their places by mayhem and violence. When William took this country, he made his supporters and fellow warriors the Lords of the land. The pathetic tricks they get up to these days are drops in the ocean compared to the robbery their forebears did.
Twiglet Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 There is no such rule; that's why Lord Archer retained his title. Lord Taylor, though, has in effect defrauded Parliament, which is quite a different matter. I'd absolutely agree. If anyone else committed fraud within their workplace, they'd be sacked from that job for gross misconduct. His crime was directly related to his position in the House of Lords, so he shouldn't be allowed to reclaim his seat.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.