Police probe three Labour MPs for expenses fraud after it’s claimed they failed to declare thousands of pounds spent on staff to get them re-elected

Gallery

Posted on by

Police probe three Labour MPs for expenses fraud after it’s claimed they failed to declare thousands of pounds spent on staff to get them re-elected

  • South Yorkshire Police to investigate three MPs for electoral fraud
  • Sir Kevin Barron, John Healey and Sarah Champion all under spotlight
  • Miss Champion accused of using parliamentary assistant to campaign
  • Alleged Sir Barron did not declare £21,000 spent on staff for 2015 vote
  • Mr Healey probed about £30,000 expenditure not properly declared 

Police have announced that they are investigating three Labour MPs for electoral expenses fraud after they allegedly failed to declare tens of thousands of pounds spent on recruiting staff to get them re-elected.

South Yorkshire Police are investigating Sir Kevin Barron, John Healey and Sarah Champion over financial declarations made to the Electoral Commission in the run-up to the General Election last year.

Read on… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3751138/Police-probe-three-Labour-MPs-expenses-fraud-s-claimed-failed-declare-thousands-pounds-spent-staff-elected.html

22 thoughts on “Police probe three Labour MPs for expenses fraud after it’s claimed they failed to declare thousands of pounds spent on staff to get them re-elected”

    • Oh dear Sarah Alice
      If so, I take it the offences are within the one year time frame?
      Looks like Police ‘Investigation’ is the key word.
      No doubt Healey will be having knots in his tummy, Champion will be reweeting her piece of swiss roll and Barron declaring he ‘knew nowt’.
      Bet there’s more to come……….

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • By definition, any investigation would ‘involve their Agents as well’.

      However, you have gone to state that they ‘should start worrying too’.

      Of course, they would only need to start to worry if they have done something unlawful. So, we have to assume that you have or are aware of evidence that they have done something unlawful……..otherwise, of course, your statement is probably defamatory of the three named individuals.

      I presume you will want to clarify this very quickly.

      Like

      Reply ↓

        • It’s difficult to believe that someone can so misread the facts and the context but, Mr Smith, you are clearly an expert. It explains your electoral success.

          My position is really very simple.

          I think debate – based on facts, evidence and analysis – is an important part of democracy.

          By contrast, I think that democracy is ill served and undermined by un-evidenced assertions and smears and lies. I also have a particular concern when that activity goes so far that it is defamatory.

          I think you will find that, if you go back a considerable time on this site, I warned one Caven Vines about precisely the same concern for similar reasons. However, he chose to ignore my alert (and apparently similar advice from his lawyers) and……look where he is today!

          I was simply alerting Rothpol to the dangerous waters he seems to be entering.

          Like

      • The agent shares responsibility for the accuracy of the invoices and returns submitted. Both the agent and the candidate sign statutory declarations that the returns and invoices are true, accurate and comply with the appropriate legislation. Therefore any agent knowing that their candidate is the subject of a criminal investigation would obviously have cause to worry; one would expect them to be involved at some stage in the criminal investigation. A layman may assume that an illegal practice would be the responsibility of the candidate or their agent. It would seem only natural for anybody who might become involved in an election expenses investigation to be worried.

        Like

        Reply ↓

        • To Rothpol
          I am very impressed with the detail that you have given Rothpol in relation to the legal context. It looks like it could have been prepared by a lawyer?

          Like

      • No one would disagree with your statement, “I think debate – based on facts, evidence and analysis – is an important part of democracy.”
        Where I differ with you is when this statement goes on to make an implied threat, it tends to stifle free and open debate, but perhaps that was your intention?

        Like

        Reply ↓

  5. ‘get de selected?’
    You’ve got more chance to learn the Lithuanian National Anthem than see these three deselected.
    Go back a mere 2/3 years and try to understand why they were re-elected in 2015.
    Rosette. Red. Donkey. Labour.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  6. Pingback: Rotherham MPs face electoral expenses fraud probe | Rotherham Politics

  7. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 27th August | Rotherham Politics

  8. Pingback: Rotherham Labour 3 – more exes woes | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.