www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... oices.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... oices.html

He should resign as an MP now. How can his constituents be represented by him if he's suspended? I wonder if the police will also take a look as they did with others.

The suspension is a farce.

If were anyone other than an MP they'd be prosecuted. And rightly so.

Police officers and other public services are jailed for much smaller sums incorrectly claimed. He should be. No question about that if he did misuse public money.

In fact, bring back the stocks and let these politicians face their constituents.

Surely, falsifying the back-up evidence to a claim is deliberate fraud?

Although of course levvying a punishment is not the purpose of parliament or the Labour party, suspending him is the equivalent to a private company doing the same to an individual before calling in the police, or not as the case may be.

Can't believe it - a greedy socialist!!

As opposed to a child-abusing Tory, eh Sal?

McShane WAS investigated by the Met and they decided not to take the matter furether and handed his case back to the Parliamentary Standards Committee. After today's activity, the Met have been invited to re-open the case. I sincerely hope they do and if they and the CPS decide that there is likelyhood of conviction, hope the full weight of the law is brought against him.

He may have been a Labour MP and he may also have had some personal tragedies (first wife and daughter dying) but there is absolutely no place in public office for anyone like him.

At least he did the decent thing and went right away, unlike others recently.

I think you will find that its the CPS who decided not to prosecute and not the MPS. It's not the police service's decision to make. They simply gather the facts as they are produced to them.

I fail to see why Parliamentary privilege makes any difference in this case. The simple question is did he provide false invoices? Regardless of what he has or hasn't admitted in letters. If it can be proven that the invoices are false then it's for a jury to decided. As I see it though given the invoices were from his own company that may well be difficult. It's then down to the question of did he benefit from said invoices. If he did then surely a prosecution is on the cards. The fact he has paid the money back would suggest he has benefited.

Given not one of us on here is in possession of all the facts it may well be hard for us to do anything other than speculate. I would imagine though that we will see him making an appearance "at a Central London Police station" soon.

Yes I'm fully aware of that but the CPS can only make a decision based on the evidence presented to them by the Met. Given the Met's recent previous, I'd seriously doubt there was too rigorous an enquiry

Recent previous? MPs and a Lord in prison. Prosecutions with regards News international not to mention 17 recently convicted of one child's murder. All the thousands of prosecutions every year. But hey let's get all moralistic over the "moral panics" that we see in the press.
Yes they and most prosecuting agents make mistakes but come on sweeping statements don't really add anything to a debate.

Try telling that to Doreen Lawrence, the families of Daniel Morgan & Blair Peach and numerous others who have suffered a failure of the justice system caused through the incompetence or outright corruption of the Metropolitan Police

Trawling through history will bring up all kinds of examples. It doesn't mean it can be used as an example constantly. You know in my world every lorry driver is a serial murderer all based on Peter Sutcliffe. Am I right of course I am not. It's how we move on from these events in history. I highlighted the recent 17th conviction for one black child's murder in Victoria station. Yes 17. Probably as a result of the tireless work of Doreen Lawrence. No stone left unturned and a great result but hardly a mention in the press. That's progress. Yes we all feel for Doreen and her incredible loss, but if there is any comfort at all for her it's that major lessons were learnt. That murder was in 93 in believe. 20 years ago. Whilst you can't say it won't happen again its fair to say its not likely.
Soham murders could have been avoided, Sutcliffe should have been caught sooner. History is littered with examples. It's how you learn and whilst the MPS seem to stumble from one crisis to another, 99.9% of their work is well received and carried out by honest men and women just trying to do their little bit to make life easier for the people they serve, the population of London. The press highlight the cock ups which whilst they can be big generally speaking do not affect the bread and butter of policing the capital. What the press fail to do is highlight the good.
One final example; How much praise have you seen for the Olympic operation run and controlled by the MPS?

What has being a Labour MP got to do with anything - he is a sewer dweller who would be criminally prosecuted in most commercial enterprises.

The Tories get plenty of stick on here when they get caught with their pants down - just asking for a bit of consistency.

Have we found out who the top Tory might be who was sodomising young kids bottoms in the early 80's.
Am I allowed to hazard a guess?

The name is in the public domain and can be found in 30 seconds using Google.

There is nothing here to suggest that anyone of any (perceived) political persuasion is excusing what MacShane apparently did.

Lets be careful before speculating with names on this site please.

Imagine the law suit coming rlfans way if someone made allegations that a top paedophile was a Tory.

What I find odd is that the BBC did not name the "top Tory" on Newsnight, unless they were advised it could prejudice a criminal enquiry. It is tantamount to saying they don't believe the victim(s). OK - I do take the argument that maybe they judged there was insuffient evidence to stand up in courst but why not take a chance? Based on Savile, I reckon other victims would come forward when the person was publicly named. Furthermore, the person could sue - but would he have the funds? Would he wish for all the stuff to be aired in court?