http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-30587778 Nice to see our local PCC is not to be prosecuted over claims about his mileage expenses!!!!!!!. I worked in local government for over 23yrs and any claim for expenses which was incorrect.ie mileage claims or overtime was INSTANT DISMISSAL. Still,same old same same.One rule for the Chiefs and another for the Indians.
While I agree with you on the different rules Yarco, it seems that this guy didn't do anything wrong and I'm a strong believer in innocent until proven guilty
Ok, you know much more about this than I do, but it says quite clearly that he didn't make any illegal claims. What happened?
In November 2013, he claimed for 96-mile round trips from his home in Thornham, near Hunstanton, to police offices in Wymondham. He was not entitled to do this. He subsequently paid back more than £2,700 for his trips. Definitely guilty of false claims for expenses. I have no problem with Stephen Betts,but know of former colleagues who were sacked for far less offences.
Rules from HMRC on funded mileage state that travel between your home and your normal place of work is "commuting" mileage and is thus classed as private and not business miles. Thus it is not claimable.....
David Laws a Lib Dem MP who was a minister in the Treasury claimed over £40k in expenses that he wasn't entitled to (basically he embezzled the TAX payer) and the only punishment he got was resignation and ordered to pay it all back! What makes this worse is that he was responsible for the HMRC!!! You couldn't make it up! If it had been an ordinary Joe we would be fired and be facing criminal charges! He returned to Government after only 18 months and is still in the Government today! Nice work if you can get it. I just hope the good voters of his constituency have good memories of what he did and exact their own punishment accordingly. And they wonder why we are all heartily fed up with politicians.
I can't really argue with any of that without knowing on what grounds the police disagree with you that he was "definitely guilty"?
It's not the police but the CPS who decide on whether or not to prosecute.They maybe saw a scenario where in court they would be unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was fraudulent. In a civil action you only need to show that "On a balance of probability" it was an offence committed. Having said that the calibre of the average CPS lawyer would probably make winning a case quite unlikely. They tend to harvest the low hanging fruit.
Sn, You give me the Chivas.You are getting us all mixed up again. Is that stuff distilled in the back streets of Shanghai?
