Friday 11 September 2015

"One law for the rich. . ." - yet another example.

Yesterday the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority decided not to pursue 26 existing and former MPs for failing to settle their expences debts because the sums involved were all less than £500 so it wasn't worth the bother.

In 2011, following the London Riots resulting from the shooting by the police of Mark Duggan, a woman who was not involved in the riots was sentenced to five months' imprisonment for receiving a stolen pair of shorts.  I can't find confirmation, but I seem to remember that a boy was also prosecuted for stealing a bottle of water.

See previous post for another example of the different ways we treat the rich and powerful, and those at the bottom of the pile.  It is no wonder that so many people are alienated from the political process when we are so obviously not " all in it together."


  1. You might be forgiven for thinking that we were back in the 19th century with disproportionate penalties for minor crimes. Not quite there yet since we have not hung anyone for stealing sixpence worth of goods but I'm sure Grayling's reform have that there somewhere in them.

  2. I cannot understand why "they" ie the establishment, as defined by, say, Owen Jones,think they can continue to get away with it without provoking yet further disillusionment, which could easily, and maybe justifiably, result in more riots.