Why was Slipper charged?

[***super_nova***]

Under the Minchin protocol, when questions are raised about the propriety of an expenses claim, Finance does not refer the matter to police if the MP concerned pays the money back.  Slipper offered to pay.  So why the double standard?  Charge them all or let Slipper go.

http://nofibs.com.au/2013/10/08/will-media-finance-afp-handle-evidence-pm-cheat/

if questions are raised about the propriety of an expenses claim, as they were for the book promotion expenses, Finance does not refer the matter to police if the MP concerned pays the money back. So when questions were raised about Slipper’s winery tour, he offered to repay. - See more at: http://nofibs.com.au/2013/10/08/will-media-finance-afp-handle-evidence-pm-cheat/#sthash.Pn9Jh7hP.29v...

When the AFP charged Peter Slipper, I broke the story that he had been treated differently than other MPs. Under the Minchin Protocol, if questions are raised about the propriety of an expenses claim, as they were for the book promotion expenses, Finance does not refer the matter to police if the MP concerned pays the money back. So when questions were raised about Slipper’s winery tour, he offered to repay. - See more at: http://nofibs.com.au/2013/10/08/will-media-finance-afp-handle-evidence-pm-cheat/#sthash.Pn9Jh7hP.29v...

When the AFP charged Peter Slipper, I broke the story that he had been treated differently than other MPs. Under the Minchin Protocol, if questions are raised about the propriety of an expenses claim, as they were for the book promotion expenses, Finance does not refer the matter to police if the MP concerned pays the money back. So when questions were raised about Slipper’s winery tour, he offered to repay. - See more at: http://nofibs.com.au/2013/10/08/will-media-finance-afp-handle-evidence-pm-cheat/#sthash.Pn9Jh7hP.29v...

[catsnknots]

LL... we all have a different opinion on the situation.... hence the discussion. 

[izabsmiling]

and add in Joe's words (said in 2012..under different Government) about the

Government being to blame for misuse of tax payers money.

[izabsmiling]

Catmad, LL was the person who actually acknowledged the different opinions 

LL wrote:to your satisfaction maybe. to others the difference is less clear.

[catsnknots]

oh.. and for the record... I think the whole situation needs to be looked at.... 

I like the idea that they all get a set amount to spend no questions asked... each person is going to think that one claim in more justified than the other... me for example think that all monies claimed for Union related visits is wrong... I have my reasons for that belief but others will think completely differently. 

Slipper may in fact think that taking a person around a winery was part of his job.. it may have been... if he did not have to justify it he may not have asked the taxi driver to make fake claims to cover his tracks. He could have just used the money allocated and be done with it. 

A politician is away from his or her family for very long periods of time.... it requires you to be "friendly" with people you may not like, it means you need to socialise with people you don't like because they are part of your party... It may mean you need to make choices you don't like because you need to play the party lines... For all the good there is a lot of bad that comes with it. 

I do not begrudge them one cent of their pay or their entitlements so long as they are honest about what they do and do not participate in things like what happened with the NSW Labor party and the mining leases... 

[izabsmiling]

Catmad wrote:I like the idea that they all get a set amount to spend no questions asked

kind of like the Schoolkids payment  ?

[i-once-was-bump]

Slipper has been accused of deception with the dockets in that he asked a driver to book out a trip to the wineries as 4 different trips to different suburbs in order to hide the fact that he went on a wineries tour with a friend using government money.

Whereas all other pollies have stated what they used the money for but the question with them is should they have made the claim, all a very grey area and I don't think either side can gloat about the poor behaviour of the "otherside", both sides of the house are as guilty as each other.

[kennedia_nigricans]

that is not a just a rat that one requires the pied piper.

[i-once-was-bump]

---

@kennedia_nigricans wrote:

that is not a just a rat that one requires the pied piper.

---

Huh?

[kennedia_nigricans]

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@monman12 wrote:

SN I think CM has the situtation explained perfectly.

---

to your satisfaction maybe. to others the difference is less clear. taxpayers money is taxpayers money. Abbott made 'deceptive' claims excessive claims. he's been treated differently for political advantage and gain, and of course there is the question of Why the Federal police were only willing to act in this case, which brings the spectre of who influenced and encouraged this ? from opposition ?

i suggest you clear that nose, because if you cannot smell a rat it isn't functioning as it should.

---

i replied to that post

[lakeland27]

---

@kennedia_nigricans wrote:

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@monman12 wrote:

SN I think CM has the situtation explained perfectly.

---

to your satisfaction maybe. to others the difference is less clear. taxpayers money is taxpayers money. Abbott made 'deceptive' claims excessive claims. he's been treated differently for political advantage and gain, and of course there is the question of Why the Federal police were only willing to act in this case, which brings the spectre of who influenced and encouraged this ? from opposition ?

i suggest you clear that nose, because if you cannot smell a rat it isn't functioning as it should.

---

i replied to that post

---

i'm thrilled, but i missed it.