Denis Macshane released after 6 weeks.

DURHAMJEN

You say he was 'silly' rather than criminal. Even the judge said that.

Can I remind GN's the judge also said;-

"The dishonesty was considerable and was repeated many times over a long period."

"The deception used was calculated and designed to avoid suspicion falling on your claims".

"He had no one to blame but himself".

"However chaotic your general paperwork was, there was a deliberate, oft repeated and prolonged dishonesty over a period of years involving a 'flagrant' breach of trust and consequential damage to parliament with corresponding reduced confidence in our priceless democratic system and the process by which it is implemented and we are governed".

Do you think the others were hard done by too. Labour's Elliot Morley, Jim Devine, David Chaytor, Eric Illsley and Margaret Moran, who was spared prison due to metal illness??

What about the Tories Lord Hanningfield and Lord Taylor?

To me they all got what they deserved, sadly in words only.

Thank you penguin of course I knew that.

Yes he is and her name, I think, is Vicky Price. I read she was waiting for him and they are still together.

Isn't McShane in a relationship with Chris Huhne's ex wife (whose name I have forgotten)

Thanks again When for your concise and informed post about short prison sentences. As durhamjen says, MacShane has lost so much that really mattered in his life and that will no doubt be his main punishment.
The prisons are full of folks serving short sentences, to what purpose. Fraudsters always seem to be imprisoned. In this case, I agree that some form of community service would have been more appropriate. MacShane doesn't pose a risk to the public, his offending was specific and I honestly think the cost of sending him to prison would have been better spent on CS.

The judge said that MacShane had legitimately spent the money and could have claimed it back. Therefore he did not steal it from the taxpayer. Instead he paid it back, which meant he was then £12900 out of pocket. The judge also recognised that MacShanes case was completely different from the other cases.
That's probably why he was out in 6 weeks instead of 3 months.
I feel sorry for the man.
He lost his daughter, his mother and his partner, Carol Barnes, the newsreader all within three or four years. He was hounded by the NoW and won damages from them in court.

That post was in response to POGS's - must remember to name posters when I reply...

Yes - especially as every time a sentence of, say, eight years is announced in the media for a high-profile offender, the general public collectively think 'Oh, so he'll be out in three...'

It might seem senseless POGS but I think the reasoning is to give a sanction to prison staff. If the full sentence had to be served then there would be no incentive for prisoners to behave well.

Prisons are difficult places; 75%+ have mental health problems, many have learning difficulties. By and large the population is composed of the sad, the mad and the bad. And the bad are the smallest proportion.

Whenim

No it doesn't does it.

It just seems to me everything is so 'over thought' when it comes to prison sentences.

Perhaps I am wrong in wondering why you cannot give a shorter sentence that must be adhered to rather than a longer sentence that set's you free after you have only served 25% of the sentence.

What's the point.

Until recent proposals, no intervention has been available or mandatory for such short sentences, POGS. There have been voluntary, preventative initiatives by probation services, but they were stopped by successive government because they weren't legal requirements. Sex offenders and certain very high risk offenders who need multi-agency management in the community are the exception.

The government is privatising and breaking up sections of offender management that has been covered by probation, and bringing in supervision of short sentences. It's not gone though its final stages yet. It's all a bit of a dog's dinner, and it will cost the tax payer a fortune to bring in private supervision of those revolving door petty and lower risk offenders who keep going in and out of prison. When it's finalised, supervision of short prison sentence offenders doing work in their community may happen - a bureaucratic nightmare, as breaching such conditions means taking someone who didn't do his fortnight or month's work filling in potholes or picking litter back to a clogged up court. Doesn't sound too hopeful, does it?

I would like to ask this, if I may.

If he has served 6 weeks of a 6 month sentence and some GN's feel he should have been given community service, why should he not have to do exactly that, community service for the remaining 4 months of his sentence.??

I am well aware that this happens but I am asking is it right and why not give a shorter sentence and expect somebody to do it's full term. Instead we piddle about with sentencing terms and watch the likes of child murderers getting out halfway through the sentence.

Durhamjen

I don't follow your reasoning at all. He fraudulently stole money from the tax payer. I will resist commenting on your statement about politicians I do not like, it's not worth getting into an argument over nothin

I'd be very surprised if anyone who has, or has had, a business can say that they have never put something through the books which was for personal use because they had bought something else for the business and did not have a receipt for it. Not for that amount, obviously.
He put through 19 receipts for over 12 thousand pounds total, I think, because it was all to do with European travel.
A lot of MPs got away with doing far worse because they paid it back.

I may not be without sin, durhamjen, but I've never resorted to fraud!

The claims were false because he invented them to try to recoup expenses money he could have reclaimed genuinely. He set up a fictitious company and signed claims in a false name. They went through at first, but suspicion was aroused with the expenses scandal so they were checked again, then he tried to pervert the course of justice instead of holding his hands up.

Were the claims fraudulent or the claims genuine but the receipts fraudulent?
I do recall the judge saying the money was not for personal gain

Let he who is without sin....

Sounds criminal to me!

That's right - it was the fraudulent claims under false names and an attempt to pervert justice that did for him.

From what I remember, he paid it back,but what he had done wrong was invent receipts for money that he could have claimed if he'd had the real receipts.
What he did was silly rather than criminal. Even the judge accepted that.

I do think it would have been better justice for him to have served community service in his constituancy and to face his constituants face to face I too believe there was a report that he paid back the monies but not too sure about that.

Wasn't the money paid back a while ago?

Good point Charleygirl but somehow I doubt that he has to.

Does he have to pay back the money he has stolen or is that lost forever?