Couldn’t Make This Up: UK MPs vote to grant themselves anonymity if accused of expenses fraud, sexual harassment, and the rest
MPs give themselves anonymity if accused of sexual harassment or fraud
Within minutes of the vote, a list of politician under investigation is taken offline
Case of Labour MP Keith Vaz involving cocaine and male escorts disappears
Now, politicians might not be named even if they are judged to be guilty
MPs have voted to grant themselves anonymity if accused of sexual harassment or expenses fraud.
Minutes after the decision, a list of politicians under investigation vanished from Parliament’s website.
One of the deleted cases was that of Labour’s Keith Vaz, who is accused of bringing the House of Commons into disrepute by buying cocaine for male escorts.
Seventy-nine MPs voted against an amendment that would have ensured that the names of suspects in expenses cases would be published. The 22 who supported it accused their colleagues of a cover-up.
The vote was over a motion to bring in a new code of conduct aimed at preventing a repeat of the sexual harassment scandal that shook Westminster last year. The code increases the punishments for abusing staff, volunteers or members of the public.
But the vote means that MPs being probed for misconduct of any nature will not now be identified. They will remain anonymous while being investigated – and might not be named even if they are judged guilty.
Until now the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had publicly identified MPs who are under suspicion, providing a summary of the allegations against them.
The watchdog looks into politicians who are accused of using information for financial gain, having a conflict of interest or generally damaging the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons.
The new code of conduct states: ‘Members’ behaviour is subject to levels of scrutiny unusual for staff.
Comments from the article:
“And these lot dare to criticise President Trump? They are some of the most corrupt politicians in history.”
“Maybe the DM can publish a list of the MPs who voted for this cover up so their constituents know who they are in time for the next election.
These cowboys vote themselves pay rises, subsidised food and alcohol, travel and office expenses, often fiddled or in breach of parliamentary rules like the odd undeclared subsidised foreign holiday
They work less weeks in the year than teachers, randomly have fridays off and spend hours whilst in the chamber gassing off about unimportant rubbish in favour of this solidarity movement or that issue in some remote country which should have nothing to do with us.
They waste time asking brown nose questions and sit back smirking in their never ending quest to score petty purile political points and when an important issue affecting our country turns up they are time limited because they have to get out by 5.30 or 7 pm. On top of that they are now off on nearly Two months holiday!!! You couldnt make it up!!”
Don’t forget the other recent ruling concerning privacy laws regarding Cliff Richard, who allegedly had links with Elm Guesthouse.
“Mark Stephens, head of media law at the law firm Howard Kennedy, represents Weinstein’s former assistant Zelda Perkins.
He told MailOnline: ‘If Harvey Weinstein had been able to hide his misdeeds behind the cloak of privacy then, I believe from my experience of working with Zelda Perkins, that many, many women would not have come forward.’
He said that reporting of police investigations was equally as important in less high-profile cases, such as when allegations of paedophilia are made against scout leaders or teachers.
Mr Stephens added: ‘I know Sir Cliff has said he would rather 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person suffer but it is in the public interest that 10 guilty people are caught, even if we have to inconvenience one innocent person.’ ” [emphasis mine]