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...

[***super_nova***]

Interview with Slipper yesterday:

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3867906.htm

[grandmoon]

This was/is Peter's punishment for stopping Tony from forcing an early election.

[catsnknots]

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. 

He asked a man to charge one trip around wineries as four different trips around suburbs (no location) of Canberra. 

As for those events that Tony Abbott claimed for. The question I ask is would this event be done even though he was not in the political position he was in? Chances are no... if he were just Joe Bloggs he would probably not travel to these locations and do what he did. 

If you have even experienced an event like one that a pollie attends in the capacity of a visiting MP then you would understand. To have a politician attend one of your events is a huge deal for any organiser. These are big names that draw other entrants. It usually means more turnover for your charity event. It also means more people come out and see the person participating. 

Along with the adulation politicians get they also get a lot of abuse along the way... they do not just do things because they enjoy them.. they do them as part of their jobs. 

Labor MP's claim to visit Union meetings and Union get togethers and people seem to think that that is all ok. The difference is that they seem to have an obvious tie yet in reality they are just back slapping to get the particular union on side to help keep them in power. In comparison the Coalition MP's visit everone else that is not in a union at the functions that they go to. 

If Tony cant visit a charity event and claim then Shorten can't visit union delegations and claim. 

[monman12]

SN I think CM has the situtation explained perfectly.

[izabsmiling]

---

@monman12 wrote:

SN I think CM has the situtation explained perfectly.

---

This is all Allegedly. 

[izabsmiling]

Catmad wrote :

 It usually means more turnover for your charity event. It also means more people come out and see the person participating. 

it's not our charity event

[izabsmiling]

The problem arises ... when there is a belief that one person has a right to a good or service that someone else will pay for. It is this sense of entitlement that afflicts not only individuals but also entire societies. And governments are to blame for portraying taxpayer's money as something removed from the labour of another person.

Joe Hockey, London 2012

[lakeland27]

---

@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.

[just_me_karen]

The whole Slipper saga reeks of the same liberal corruptions evidenced in the Pauline Hanson affair. It's a disgrace.