Not so fast with that noose!

At times over the last few months it’s been difficult to peer through the sickly red mist that’s descended whenever I’ve read something about the incredible cupidity of our troughing MPs.

Wank films, duck houses, moat-cleaning, plasma TVs, etc, etc – we’ve been steadily bombarded with details of these and many other items that we, the taxpayers, have paid for.

Now, it seems to be payback time, although when you hear about someone like Jacqui Smith you begin to wonder how seriously widespread public anger and unrest are being taken.

So does Sir Thomas Legg who heads up the team auditing MPs’ expenses claims and clawing back overpayments and the like.

Well done, Sir Thomas!

But is it?

Playing devil’s advocate here, is this statement from Legg really how we want rules and regulations – not to mention laws – applied in a just and fair society?

…Sir Thomas said that he could find nothing in the existing rules setting out the maximum allowable for other large expenses, including cleaning and gardening. Therefore, he believed that limits must be imposed retrospectively.

“Some limits must be regarded as having been in place to prevent disproportionate and unnecessary expenditure from the public purse,” he said.

What do we stand to gain from more – retrospective payments obtained from rewritten and reinterpreted regulations to satisfy a public hunger for revenge or a total revamping of the conditions under which MPs represent the people who vote them into their jobs?

Yes, they took the piss – and I’ve been as vociferous as most people in my condemnation of their greed and corruption – but do we really want to employ a mechanism whereby people can be retrospectively held to account for their misdemeanours after the rules have been changed?

I sure as fuck don’t.

Punish the cunts to the fullest extent of the law and claw back every fucking red cent from the felching shitweasels but then press for Parliament for legislation to ensure full accountability of MPs in all aspects of their job.

It’s the only way to avoid this happening again a few years down the line – if our rewritten laws will allow us to do anything about it by then…

The alternative just opens up possibilities that hardly bear thinking about.

Yesterday’s Trafigura/Carter Ruck/Guardian debacle showed how the application of laws can be hidden from scrutiny – do we really want our laws to be arbitrarily changed as well?