Printable View
Nobody is saying they are the same thing. They are saying that they are both unacceptable (but to different degrees). But those who have fraudulently claimed expenses to which they were not entitled have no place commenting upon the morality of others.
you could go as far as saying "let he is without sin cast the first stone".Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveBentley
if you have ever done 31mph in a 30 zone, you have broken the law, so should have no place commenting on the morality of others. nobody is perfect, so unless you are waiting for some sort of divine intervention to guide you, we have to listen to someone. there might be police officers who have done things wrong in their lives but it doesn't mean you stand there and say "i WILL loot this shop, you aren't innocent"
Of course it impacts on people. It is real money and if they are pocketing it, there is less of it for legitimate causes - your mothers cancer operation or technology for your school. Funny, when I was at school they taught me that stealing 1/2p (yes, we had them in those days) was as bad as stealing £100. Guess they don't teach that at Eaton and Winchester. But all that is actually beside the point. These people are in a position of very special responsibility - a position of trust. If a schoolteacher has a relationship with a pupil over the age of consent, they will find that their world collapses when they are found out. They are in a position of trust and have a professional responsibility not to abuse that trust. They will be immediately suspended and then be out of a job, followed rapidly by being out of teaching forever. MP's are in a similar position when it comes to looking after revenue from OUR taxes - money that belongs to US. Apparently though they want to be paid more (because people in 'similar' positions (not sure how they work that one out)) are paid more. Yet when they are caught with their hands in the till, they slink away and ... well, some of them are now working as ministers and some just cry out from the backbenches about how those involved in riots should be harshley treated by the law - just like they weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disease
None of this is saying that those that involved themselves in rioting, criminal damage, assault or theft are any better than they are - they are scum. But they are ordinary people, many of whom probably got a bit carried away and just didn't think things through - none of which makes it any better. BUT, to see people who cynically abused their positions of trust call for these people to be more harshly treated by the law (than say an everyday burglar) and to be made an example of - well, I suppose it's just adding hypocrisy to their list of many vomit inducing characteristics.
One of those involved got 6 months custodial for stealing a bottle of water. For those that say that fiddling expenses is a 'world of difference' - how do they think that compares to stealing £20,000 of taxpayers money? Some of those guilty of the latter are now standing up revelling in the media coverage they are getting, preening themselves in front of the cameras while they demand the former are removed from society. They need to learn to lead by example first.