catgate Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Setting aside any matter of rosette colour, several question have arisen, in my mind, over the matter of cash for peerages.In as much as the old bill have decided to investigate a criminal matter, and are happy for it to be known that they are doing it, suggests to me that they feel they are on fairly solid ground. That being so, any person being elected, as a result of the campaigns funded by money obtained illegally, is benefiting from the result of crime, and is thus an accessesory before or after or during or something.This would lead to the assumption that a great number of MPs currently have their feet in the trough through crime, and should, at the very least, be disencumbered. Those who participated actively in the crimes need incarcerating after being disencumbered (or even cucumbered) (as do the peers so created)This would also lead to the assumption that any legislation enacted by those MPs in this parliament can not stand, because it has been enacted by criminals, and should be repealled.This must be retrospective as far back as can be proven...back beyond Maggie and the Harolds etc.I am not sure how the law would view a war started by an illegally elected leader of a party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andsome Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 Nice in theory, but the problems of proving anything going back even a few years are insurmountable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r4may Posted April 19, 2006 Report Share Posted April 19, 2006 If Only B) B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.