Money For Old Rope
The Daily Mail - in the following report - provides an apt demonstration of why the law is sometimes such an ass.
The good news is that while Baroness Uddin may have escaped charges in the courts - the House of Lords is apparently launching its own inquiry into her mind-boggling expenses.
Let's hope they throw the book at her - because all that public money down the drain for no good reason - is a complete disgrace.
"Labour peer Baroness Uddin ESCAPES charges over £100,000 expenses thanks to loophole in Lords' rules"
"A Labour peer who pocketed around £100,000 in overnight allowances despite living just four miles from Parliament will not face criminal charges, it was announced today.
Baroness Uddin allegedly said her main home was an empty flat in Maidstone, Kent, so that she could claim the £174-a-night allowance offered to peers who have to stay in London. The set-up meant she could claim nearly £30,000 a year towards the cost of staying at her other address, a three-storey house in Wapping, east London.
Scotland Yard launched a probe after neighbours in Maidstone claimed she was never there but today prosecutors said they could not bring charges because of an extraordinary loophhole in House of Lords' rules.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was a 'very real difficulty' in interpreting the definition of 'only or main' home for peers.
Under House of Lords rules, the accommodation allowance is available to any peer 'whose main residence is outside greater London and who maintains a residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the House'.
Crucially, they do not define 'main residence' but Clerk of Parliaments Michael Pownall decided last year that peers could register it 'as they see fit'. Then, in February, it emerged this included a property they visit as little as once a month.
The move, condemned as a 'cosy stitch-up' at the time, effectively scuppered any chance of a prosecution against various peers who have pocketed expenses on long-established homes in London by saying their main home is elsewhere.
Mr Starmer said today: 'On that interpretation, in any criminal proceedings, it would almost inevitably be necessary for the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard, that any peer in question had not even visited the address they deemed their "only or main" residence once a month.
'That presents a very real difficulty and we considered whether it would be open to the Crown Prosecution Service to advance a different definition of "only or main residence" in any criminal proceedings. However, after careful consideration, we concluded that such a course would not be open to us.'
Neighbours and utility firms used by Lady Uddin were quizzed but prosecutors decided they could not prove she had visited the house less than once a month.
Mr Starmer said: 'After careful scrutiny of all of the available evidence, we have decided that, in applying the definition of "only or main residence" adopted by the House committee, there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Baroness Uddin and we have today advised the Metropolitan Police to take no further action."
The good news is that while Baroness Uddin may have escaped charges in the courts - the House of Lords is apparently launching its own inquiry into her mind-boggling expenses.
Let's hope they throw the book at her - because all that public money down the drain for no good reason - is a complete disgrace.
"Labour peer Baroness Uddin ESCAPES charges over £100,000 expenses thanks to loophole in Lords' rules"
"A Labour peer who pocketed around £100,000 in overnight allowances despite living just four miles from Parliament will not face criminal charges, it was announced today.
Baroness Uddin allegedly said her main home was an empty flat in Maidstone, Kent, so that she could claim the £174-a-night allowance offered to peers who have to stay in London. The set-up meant she could claim nearly £30,000 a year towards the cost of staying at her other address, a three-storey house in Wapping, east London.
Scotland Yard launched a probe after neighbours in Maidstone claimed she was never there but today prosecutors said they could not bring charges because of an extraordinary loophhole in House of Lords' rules.
Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there was a 'very real difficulty' in interpreting the definition of 'only or main' home for peers.
Under House of Lords rules, the accommodation allowance is available to any peer 'whose main residence is outside greater London and who maintains a residence in London for the purpose of attending sittings of the House'.
Crucially, they do not define 'main residence' but Clerk of Parliaments Michael Pownall decided last year that peers could register it 'as they see fit'. Then, in February, it emerged this included a property they visit as little as once a month.
The move, condemned as a 'cosy stitch-up' at the time, effectively scuppered any chance of a prosecution against various peers who have pocketed expenses on long-established homes in London by saying their main home is elsewhere.
Mr Starmer said today: 'On that interpretation, in any criminal proceedings, it would almost inevitably be necessary for the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard, that any peer in question had not even visited the address they deemed their "only or main" residence once a month.
'That presents a very real difficulty and we considered whether it would be open to the Crown Prosecution Service to advance a different definition of "only or main residence" in any criminal proceedings. However, after careful consideration, we concluded that such a course would not be open to us.'
Neighbours and utility firms used by Lady Uddin were quizzed but prosecutors decided they could not prove she had visited the house less than once a month.
Mr Starmer said: 'After careful scrutiny of all of the available evidence, we have decided that, in applying the definition of "only or main residence" adopted by the House committee, there is insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Baroness Uddin and we have today advised the Metropolitan Police to take no further action."
