Saturday, 13 March 2010

No jail for Uddin, but she's still thieving scum

Kier Starmer's unusually lengthy statement yesterday made clear that the DPP would not be pursuing a prosecution against Uddin because she was innocent, but because the CPS had the ground pulled from under their feet by Lords officials fearful of a cull of their less honest members.

They still don't get it. Insulated in their fantasy Palace from the reality of public anger, they will pretend that Uddin is 'noble' rather than the chiselling, crooked, ignoble guttershite she is.


The whole deeply corrupt business of life peerages should now be put under the microscope. Allowing the sleazy and corrupt political class to nominate their loathsomly bent mates for honours was never going to produce anything but dishonour. It's time we cleared out this filth.

8 comments:

Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

agree with every word - this woman is a disgrace, and so are those who sought to derail her prosecution

English Pensioner said...

The CPS have to meet their targets, and budget, and for this reason they only prosecute in cheap cases where they feel that they have a high probability of getting a conviction.
For this reason, Murder charges are frequently downgraded to manslaughter, GBH to ABH, and ABH to mere assault. It also keeps the prison population down.
Things were far better when the police prosecuted, taking their own legal advice where necessary; this was of course too expensive, so we now employ civil servants in the CPS which costs far more and the police/public get poorer service.

john miller said...

Udin and the Keens admit their thievery.

The Keens' defence was that they did not intend to make a lot of money by, err, claiming a lot of money.

Udin's defence was that a boarded up house was her main home and her second home was a council property which she was not entitled to reside in.

Should you or I gaily confess to the State (in this case HMRC) that we had cheated them out of tax due, would we be asked to pay between 0% (Udin) or 1% (Keens) of it?

No. The absolute minimum for self confessed fraud is 200% plus interest. If you tell lies in your defence (as the Keens and Udin did) then, like Lester Piggott and Ken Dodd, you go to jail.

Spot the difference.

john miller said...

Having read the Director of Public Prosecutions lamenting that he was unable to prosecute because the Lords changed the rules last year, I am tempted to ask whether the rule was made retrospective?

Perhaps Mr Starmer is so used to his employers making up retrospective legislation that he assumed this to be the case. But that is not true. So feel free to ask the Police to press charges for the claims prior to the rule change, Mr Starmer. You know you want to...

My Thoughts My Country said...

Of all the cases in the expenses scandal I thought she would be definately in court.

She claimed for an empty flat when she actually lived 4 miles from Westminster for crying out loud.

Autonomous Mind said...

The political class have rigged themselves a nice little skimming operation. The qualifying criteria makes a mockery of the real purpose of a second home allowance. But we should do as we are told, shut up, and let them carry on troughing ay our expense. We are owned.

Budgie said...

This parliament is rotten right through. There should be dozens of MPs and Lords in jail, and hundreds sacked. That should have forced an election.

But the rottenness is not just politicians skimming, it is also that they handed away the people's sovereignty to a foreign power and deliberately brought in immigrants with the intention of destroying our culture.

Demetrius said...

There is one splendid irony in this whole business about the flat in Maidstone. It is just off a road called Wat Tyler Way.