Rules..for the many, or the few ?

[Yellow Bear]

Or they could all be forced to live in specific "basic council houses" if they live outside 1 hour train journey from London and remove their housing subsidies and all travel subsidies for day to day local (less than 1 hour) travel.

[JohnfromUK]

I think part of the issue here is one of 'culture'.

My parents and grandparents belonged to that 'proud' culture who didn't ever ask for assistance or expect anything for nothing.  They would ALWAYS help others - friends, family, neighbours etc.   Others would help them when they were in need, for which they were very grateful.  They used the NHS for both doctors and dentists, but otherwise had no state aid other than state pensions (for which they had bought their 'stamps') and child allowance (which everyone got).  I cannot imagine any circumstances under which they would have tried to get 'state' aid.  To me - that was the old 'British' culture and way - with the state there as a 'safety net'.

There seems to be a culture nowadays (and it was much encouraged by Blair and Brown) of having many complex benefits and encouraging as many as possible to be on benefits.  Having people tied to and dependant on the state has always been a left wing 'thing'.  A culture of having a 'right' to subsidised housing etc. and one of 'entitlement to a lifestyle on benefits that would have been considered very 'luxurious' (multiple TVs, foreign holidays, car(s), central heating) to people in the immediate post war period.  These are now considered basic necessities. People are almost 'proud' of how much they get from the state.  

MPs have led this culture change by getting more and more people in receipt of state aid (in one of its many forms) - and being seen to grab every possible little 'allowance' and 'perk' that they can from the VERY generous allowances MPs receive.  They have also consistently awarded themselves above inflation increases whilst withholding increases in other public sector areas (NHS, Armed Forces etc.)  They have also arranged for themselves non contributory 'gold plated' pensions the equivalent of which would be VERY expensive to purchase as a normal private employee.  Overall they have set an example of greed and lack of respect for the public that is really despicable.

[besty57]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think part of the issue here is one of 'culture'.

My parents and grandparents belonged to that 'proud' culture who didn't ever ask for assistance or expect anything for nothing.  They would ALWAYS help others - friends, family, neighbours etc.   Others would help them when they were in need, for which they were very grateful.  They used the NHS for both doctors and dentists, but otherwise had no state aid other than state pensions (for which they had bought their 'stamps') and child allowance (which everyone got).  I cannot imagine any circumstances under which they would have tried to get 'state' aid.  To me - that was the old 'British' culture and way - with the state there as a 'safety net'.

There seems to be a culture nowadays (and it was much encouraged by Blair and Brown) of having many complex benefits and encouraging as many as possible to be on benefits.  Having people tied to and dependant on the state has always been a left wing 'thing'.  A culture of having a 'right' to subsidised housing etc. and one of 'entitlement to a lifestyle on benefits that would have been considered very 'luxurious' (multiple TVs, foreign holidays, car(s), central heating) to people in the immediate post war period.  These are now considered basic necessities. People are almost 'proud' of how much they get from the state.  

MPs have led this culture change by getting more and more people in receipt of state aid (in one of its many forms) - and being seen to grab every possible little 'allowance' and 'perk' that they can from the VERY generous allowances MPs receive.  They have also consistently awarded themselves above inflation increases whilst withholding increases in other public sector areas (NHS, Armed Forces etc.)  They have also arranged for themselves non contributory 'gold plated' pensions the equivalent of which would be VERY expensive to purchase as a normal private employee.  Overall they have set an example of greed and lack of respect for the public that is really despicable.

Excellent post.

[JohnfromUK]

And there's more https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46703806

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6536335/Fiona-Onasanya-vows-stay-MP-despite-GUILTY-lying-police.html

Edited December 28, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[panoma1]

She will dig in "tight as a tick" what comparable alternative source of income can she attract? How would she maintain her current privileged lifestyle.....the answer is, she couldn't!......back to the breadline methinks!

[Newbie to this]

Surely she should have also been charged with perjury as well as perverting the course of justice.

She did lie under oath after all.

[JohnfromUK]

As a qualified lawyer (assuming she really is and that wasn't a lie as well) she ought to be able to earn a good salary.

[panoma1]

22 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

As a qualified lawyer (assuming she really is and that wasn't a lie as well) she ought to be able to earn a good salary.

Can she practice with a criminal record?

[JohnfromUK]

Looking on line, I don't think you are prohibited ......... but whether any reputable practice would employ her ...........

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Well she intends to stay in parliament as an MP and to "fight injustices."

It would appear she still has not accepted that she has been convicted of a criminal offence.

Her article in the Peterborough telegraph is quite interesting;

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/opinion/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-i-will-continue-to-fight-against-injustices-1-8752541

She has not mentioned the conviction at all.

[JohnfromUK]

In many cultures, what we see as 'wrong' is quite normal and standard daily practice and not seen as wrong or unusual. 

For example corruption and bribery.  Wrong here, but in much of Africa this is how business is done and is generally 'accepted'.  Similarly what we would call 'bare faced lying' is standard practice.  I'm not being racist - it is just a different culture with a different set of values.  People who have done business in African countries will know what I mean.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

In many cultures, what we see as 'wrong' is quite normal and standard daily practice and not seen as wrong or unusual. 

For example corruption and bribery.  Wrong here, but in much of Africa this is how business is done and is generally 'accepted'.  Similarly what we would call 'bare faced lying' is standard practice.  I'm not being racist - it is just a different culture with a different set of values.  People who have done business in African countries will know what I mean.

You may well be absolutely correct, BUT we are in the United Kingdom and these people, whether they originated here or else where should abide by our way of doing things. Not introduce their own corrupt ways.

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

we are in the United Kingdom and these people, whether they originated here or else where should abide by our way of doing things. Not introduce their own corrupt ways.

100% agree

[old man]

15 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think part of the issue here is one of 'culture'.

My parents and grandparents belonged to that 'proud' culture who didn't ever ask for assistance or expect anything for nothing.  They would ALWAYS help others - friends, family, neighbours etc.   Others would help them when they were in need, for which they were very grateful.  They used the NHS for both doctors and dentists, but otherwise had no state aid other than state pensions (for which they had bought their 'stamps') and child allowance (which everyone got).  I cannot imagine any circumstances under which they would have tried to get 'state' aid.  To me - that was the old 'British' culture and way - with the state there as a 'safety net'.

There seems to be a culture nowadays (and it was much encouraged by Blair and Brown) of having many complex benefits and encouraging as many as possible to be on benefits.  Having people tied to and dependant on the state has always been a left wing 'thing'.  A culture of having a 'right' to subsidised housing etc. and one of 'entitlement to a lifestyle on benefits that would have been considered very 'luxurious' (multiple TVs, foreign holidays, car(s), central heating) to people in the immediate post war period.  These are now considered basic necessities. People are almost 'proud' of how much they get from the state.  

MPs have led this culture change by getting more and more people in receipt of state aid (in one of its many forms) - and being seen to grab every possible little 'allowance' and 'perk' that they can from the VERY generous allowances MPs receive.  They have also consistently awarded themselves above inflation increases whilst withholding increases in other public sector areas (NHS, Armed Forces etc.)  They have also arranged for themselves non contributory 'gold plated' pensions the equivalent of which would be VERY expensive to purchase as a normal private employee.  Overall they have set an example of greed and lack of respect for the public that is really despicable.

👍👍👍

13 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Surely she should have also been charged with perjury as well as perverting the course of justice.

She did lie under oath after all.

That is a far too astute observation.

[Lord v]

She is clearly delusional.  

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, Lord v said:

She is clearly delusional.  

She compared herself to Jesus!

[old man]

7 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

She compared herself to Jesus!

Quite willing to observe her water walk in the channel as an emulation.

[PeterHenry]

On 28/12/2018 at 21:58, panoma1 said:

Can she practice with a criminal record?

 

On 28/12/2018 at 22:07, JohnfromUK said:

Looking on line, I don't think you are prohibited ......... but whether any reputable practice would employ her ...........

 

If she is convicted, it would be a matter for the SRA, who dont take matters of dishonesty lightly.

The idiotic thing about this is that is she had not lied about it, it would not have endangered her political or legal career,  however, by lying, she has most likely ruined both

[Gordon R]

If she gets the appropriate sentence - over 12 months imprisonment - she will no longer be an MP and should be struck off as a Solicitor.

Whilst I accept the Police / CPS went for the more serious charge, she should have attracted more points for speeding and using her phone, whilst driving.

[Good shot?]

Can’t see her sentence being what she rightly deserves but here’s hoping.

[Scully]

I know it’s the season of goodwill and all that, but I genuinely hope they throw the book at her, and it hits her square on. Everything I’ve read about her indicates she is an entirely odious person. 

[oowee]

7 hours ago, Gordon R said:

If she gets the appropriate sentence - over 12 months imprisonment - she will no longer be an MP and should be struck off as a Solicitor.

Whilst I accept the Police / CPS went for the more serious charge, she should have attracted more points for speeding and using her phone, whilst driving.

Fingers crossed.

37 minutes ago, Scully said:

I know it’s the season of goodwill and all that, but I genuinely hope they throw the book at her, and it hits her square on. Everything I’ve read about her indicates she is an entirely odious person. 

This ^^^^^^ We can only hope she gets what she deserves.

[panoma1]

What's the betting, suspended sentence, fine and community service? And/or maybe a short token custodial sentence? Not enough for her to lose her mealticket!

[Newbie to this]

4 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

What's the betting, suspended sentence, fine and community service? And/or maybe a short token custodial sentence? Not enough for her to lose her mealticket!

This would be my guess as well. I'd go with a fine and community service and them allowing her being an MP to count towards community service. 

So basically nothing!

[Gordon R]

To be honest, I think things have gone too far for a token sentence.

She has run two trials, at great expense to the taxpayers. She has never admitted her guilt, shown no remorse whatsoever, lied, cast doubt on the honesty of at least three witnesses and thrown her brother to the wolves. Not to mention speeding, using her phone whilst driving.

In addition, she is carrying on as if she has done absolutely nothing wrong. I will be interested in hearing Christine Agnew's mitigation speech. If she goes down the road of Onasanya was ill at the time or she was under pressure - it will count for nothing, as these excuses have already drawn a blank and would be treating the judge as being as stupid as Onasanya thought the juries were.