What is ransomware and how do I protect my PC from WannaCry?
If the facts are as suggested this man used public money to fund his accommodation whilst making money by letting his main home.
Is being investigated by the police over his expenses claims, the BBC understands.
No file on the Leyton and Wanstead MP had been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
I am confused!
What happens next?
of thinking that because there's a Police investigation it will automatically result in a prosecution, but that's by no means certain.
As fourm member points out, the Police may still be evidence gathering, and they can investigate all they like, but if the CPS doesn't think it would be in the Public interest to bring a prosecution it won't happen. That might be because there's no evidence of criminal intent, or it might be that the evidence presented in the Police file isn't considered safe enough to stand a reasonable chance of securing a conviction - like lots of state services the CPS has to consider the cost to the public purse of a trial when it makes judgements about prosecutions.
We must be the sickliest Nation in the World because whenever anyone gets accused of a serious crime, they always have a sick wife/husband/child/father/mother/brother/sister/budgie/dog/hippocrocorhinocerpig.
"the evidence presented in the Police file isn't considered safe enough to stand a reasonable chance of securing a conviction "
Unfortunately the CPS are, whether justifiably or not, target orientated, and tend to be a bit obsessive about their "bowling average".
That's why the police, all too often, don't take action, because they know that a lot of effort will simply be binned by the CPS.
The decision to prosecute should be handed back to the police. It is perhaps better that some low life (and some honest citizens) go to court and are found not guilty, than the low life is not even cautioned.
What makes people sick is the fact that we would be in court for fiddling benefits, public money, but these greedy pigs get away with it.
"like lots of state services the CPS has to consider the cost to the public purse of a trial when it makes judgements about prosecutions."
So by this chap helping himself to £60k unjustifiably he might avoid sanction because there is not enough left to prosecute him and if the MPs hadn't filtered so much in their direction disguised as expenses there would be more left to mount prosecutions.
If you want to argue in favour of a greater number of prosecutions at least try to come up with something that makes sense.
Handing the police total discretion with regard to prosecutions and the courts would be jammed solid with lost causes. The whole point of the CPS is that it weighs the evidence gathered by the police and decides whether or not a prosecution is likely to succeed, and whether it is in the public interest for it to proceed.
The CPS actually works with the police as investigations continue, and will offer advice as to the likelihood of a successful prosecution. The idea is that public money isn't wasted on cases that stand little or no chance of success.
Saying that "It is perhaps better that some low life (and some honest citizens) go to court and are found not guilty, than the low life is not even cautioned." is ridiculous - how could that kind of policy possibly be in the public interest?
I'm simply saying that it seemed to work better before the advent of the CPS, when the decision to prosecute was, if not entirely in the hands of the police, at least much more under their influence.
Perhaps I have worded it badly, but ridiculous or not, the system in place before the CPS took over worked fairly well for 100 years or so,
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.