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...

[kennedia_nigricans]

you missed what?

[lakeland27]

the answer. or a reply.

[kennedia_nigricans]

you said that monman can't or doesn't want to smell the rat or so and  i said that it's not just ONE rat but that we need the pied piper for that one.

clear now?

[freddie*rooster]

---

@i-once-was-bump wrote:

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.

---

That would call for all offenders to be treated equally.

[lakeland27]

yes that's clear. i was speaking of something else though.

[lakeland27]

there are heaps of these things. look at ross vasta and co 'printing' expenses etc. i dont expect them all to be charged, but slippery is probably less slippery than some more illustrious types i'd say. they should and i think will go to mediation.

[kennedia_nigricans]

if the Prime Minister of Australia ripped the taxpayer off for almost 94,000 dollarit is a different thing than an MP ripping a few thousands.

he used that money to promote himself. if he advertises himself he should pay for it himself.

[***super_nova***]

---

---

@catmad*2013 wrote:

why???

This is all Allegedly. 

Because slipper asked a person to wilfully help him commit a fraud. It was not because he felt his claim was justified... it was a way to help cover up his fraud. 

 

---

But the point is that this was reported to the police before any investigation was done.  The normal procedure is to first look into the matter, ask the claimant what was it for, and let them repay.  In any case it is just the word of the driver against Slipper. 

Why would anybody think that claim for promoting a book is not outright fraud? 

[freddie*rooster]

In any case it is just the word of the driver against Slipper.

And that would go hand in hand with the remainder of the made up Ashbygate assignation of slipper.

[monman12]

FR I think you are conveniently overlooking due process.

"the decision to issue the summons was made by the Australian Federal Police, an independent statutory office.

"The investigation and charging of any person is a matter for the law enforcement authorities - the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions,"