>> I've a lot of sympathy for this guy. OK, he was convicted of misappropriation of
>> funds, or something similar, but he gained no fiscal advantage.
>> He was decorating his office and rather than claim expenses one way, he claimed them
>> another. He could have legitimately claimed those expenses, but he went the wrong way about
>> it.
The offence of which he was convicted was was not misappropriation. He was charged under the Parliamentary Standards Act, one of the measures put in place after the expenses scandal. It may have been an accounting device to split the money between budgets or an attempt to conceal how the money, albeit a legitimate spend, was used. Or both of those things.
If it had been simply an accounting device I suspect there were means to divide the bill between different accounting codes. We could certainly do that in the Quango, for example to apportion an expense between the main body and it's Scottish Committee.
The amount spent is broadly equal to what a constituent would have earned for 100 hours at the then prevailing minimum wage.
He could have got some landscape pictures for a tenth of that.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 22 Jun 19 at 10:34
|
Chris Davies forced out new
Chris Davies forced out new
