It is being proposed that when an MP is accused of something like fiddling their expenses, the investigation should be in secret. My email to the committee ...
The MPs expenses scandal in 2009 contributed to a significant erosion of trust in MPs. It does seem to me that holding investigations in secret does nothing to help address the issues of public confidence. Quite the reverse; it reinforces a sense of a closed shop and a refusal of accountability. As such it seems to lack an awareness that MPs expenses are ultimately tax-payers' money for what are meant to be public servants accountable to the electorate.
While I am sympathetic to issues of reputation should an accusation of impropriety prove to be ill founded or even malicious, it seems to me that such accusations are unlikely to have been made privately and having a degree of openness about them is likely to build public confidence and help to clear the name of the innocent. A secret process, on the other hand is likely to give rise to suspicions of a cover up and leave a question mark in the public mind about any acquittal.
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A review: One With The Father
I'm a bit of a fan of medieval mysteries especially where there are monastic and religious dimensions to them. That's what drew me t...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment