Housing Fraud M P Cleared...

Avatar Image
Spicerack | 22:43 Sat 31st Jul 2021 | News
51 Answers


1 to 20 of 51rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Avatar Image
He's innocent too.
09:31 Sun 01st Aug 2021
Question Author
Councillor Haque must be dreading the knock on his door.
You cant just point at a brown councillor and scream
'guilty! guilty! guilty!'
well OK this is AB so you can ( and TTT does) but that does not inculpate them ( = make them guilty in law)

There is this stuff called a court case.

The court case was weak. Her defence was ' you know that form you said I filled out? I didnt, it was someone else, and Look ! that someone else has signed it. Pas moi

and the Judge said: this is very serious indeed, you may go down for a thousand years, easily as bad as stabbing a cat, so speak English at all times - damn you!

and the accused MP said - yes your majesty

[and the judge muttered o god she thinks I am a magistrate)

and then about the number of rooms in the house she LIIIIIIIEEEEED about. She said it has always had three. you can go and count them. ( which they did, three) She said she had no idea why a relation had certified four (*).

and so she was acquitted - and she cried.

(*) In a family court matter, I had " ven why did your sista aver ( =swear) the opposite last week ven?"
and honest all you can say is: you are really gonna have to go and ask her.

the facts have been changed so I can do my daily quota of insults of other Abers. Sozza must go to Church
From the thread started at the beginning of the trial…

Gromit: // The prosecution admits that while the MP did inform the council of changes to her circumstances, she did so to the wrong department. //

Sounds more like the Council cocked up. //

And that is exactly what the Jury decided.
really doesn't sound as though the prosecution should ever have been brought. Perhaps they should have counted the number of rooms first?
Tower Hamlets Council who brought this prosecution has a huge Labour majority. All but 4 councils on the 45 seat council are Labour.
So I wonder how the decision was made to prosecute a sitting Labour MP? They went into court admitting she had informed the council of her change in circumstances, so their case was undermined from day 1.
But they still went to great expense to prosecute.
* All but 4 councillors *
If she sent the notification to the wrong department, how is that the Council's error?

As the Jury won't have given the reason(s) for the verdict, how can you claim the Jury agreed the Council made a mistake?

The Jury acquitted her.
The prosecution case was that she hadn’t informed the council of her change of circumstances. The jury must have agreed with her defence, that she had, or they would have found her guilty.
Question Author
That's right, Corby. (imo)
Gromit had a 50/50 chance of predicting the outcome and just guessed right. Thinks he's Sherlock Holmes now.
If a claimant is directed to notify a change of circumstances to a specific section, giving notification to another section does not satisfy the obligation.
Does anyone know - did she pay any money back? Can't be bothered to look up the details.
She was found NOT Guilty. She didn’t commit housing fraud, and doesn’t have to pay anything back.

If you don’t agree that the jury accepted her defence, how to you explain the verdict they came to ?
Question Author
Wasn't really that kind of fraud, dave. She was innocent anyway.
It's to do with a murky world that an innocent like you should steer clear of. ;-)
If the case was based only on whether the Council had been notified, why was the case so long since the prosecution conceded the Council had been notified but to the wrong department?
Even though it wasn't her "fault" (i.e. not a fraud) she may have been overpaid the benefit and required to make restitution?
Question Author
She had several 'strings' to her defence, gromit.
Question Author
It wasn't Housing Benefit fraud, dave.
// Gromit had a 50/50 chance of predicting the outcome and just guessed right. Thinks he's Sherlock Holmes now. //

I just read the report where the council admitted that she had informed them. So it wasn’t a 50/50 guess, it was pretty obvious on day 1.

The other 50/50 guess on that thread were:
// We seem to have dishonest politicians right across the house //

// She deserves a comeuppance. //

// she'll more than likely just get a slap on the wrist !! //

Question Author
The main thrust of her defence was that her drunken abusive ex-husband made the bids and then to add insult to injury initiated the case against her.
The jury believed her.

1 to 20 of 51rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Housing Fraud M P Cleared...

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.