Osborne Update: Met passes the buck

The Metropolitan Police cannot investigate George Osborne over the way he misused public funds to pay mortgage interest on a paddock in Cheshire – apparently there is a separate investigation already taking place.

A representative passed this information to me by telephone earlier today. She assured me that a file had been created and sent to the appropriate place (Westminster), but said: “There are separate ongoing issues that are being investigated, so it can’t be done by us. You would have to speak to your local MP.”

When I pressed her for the reason, she said “It is not within our jurisdiction to do this. There is a separate investigation ongoing with this.”

I haven’t got the faintest idea what she meant by this. Therefore I have emailed my MP and asked him to take up the matter. There is a problem with this, in that he is a Liberal Democrat and therefore part of the Coalition, of which George Osborne is a high-ranking member.

In my email, I urged my MP to do everything within his power to ensure that a proper police investigation does indeed take place into Mr Osborne’s wrongdoing (it isn’t alleged – the facts are known and it is therefore simply a matter of ensuring that a prosecution takes place and the criminal is imprisoned. Bear in mind that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, what he has done is a gross betrayal of public trust).

I added that he may find that other MPs have also been contacted by constituents who want to see justice served. By that, I mean anyone reading this, who has read my previous articles about this and taken action on them.

I also added that I am extremely interested to learn the nature of the “separate ongoing issues” mentioned by the officer of the Metropolitan Police, and urged him to find out what this means and let me know. And I asked, if this investigation is not within the jurisdiction of the Met, who is carrying it out?

I strongly urge you to do likewise.

Please note: I have been advised that my information is out of date as the fraud-related provisions of the Theft Act 1968 have been repealed and replaced by the Fraud Act 2006. Mr Osborne’s actions are therefore likely to be crimes under sections 2, 3, and 4 of the 2006 Act.

For those who want to contact their MP, as I have, but need to find the correct email address, here’s the appropriate web link:

14 thoughts on “Osborne Update: Met passes the buck

  1. Chris

    Unfortunately, my MP is a Tory, so no hope of any help as usual.
    I’ll investigate other avenues though.

    Thanks for this and previous info. :O)

  2. Chris Tandy

    My MP is Labour. I will write to him. I do so on many matters; he always replies, although with respect to him, I don’t think he is the sharpest tooth on the saw-blade…

    1. Mike Sivier

      It seems ‘Killer’ Miller was within her rights with that particular claim, though. Twisted though it may seem, it is an allowable expense, and she did stay within the limits of that expense. You and I may think a rule change is therefore required, but that won’t happen as long as Parliamentarians make the rules.

      1. Smiling Carcass

        £90,000 over the life of a five year parliament is £346 a week. How about an second home expenses cap?

        Surely expenses are paid only so that MPs can discharge their parliamentary duties; there must be a very relaxed interpretation as to what is required to ‘discharge parliamentary duties’ if we need to be paying that sort of money for them to have a second home which they own and can sell on.

      2. Mike Sivier

        I have to say the idea of a second home expenses cap for MPs is really very appealing indeed. Why shouldn’t they be subject to caps, the same as the rest of us?

      3. Smiling Carcass

        I favour either publicly owned accomodation and if they don’t like it, pay for your own- something like a tower block in commuting distance of parliament, or as I said cap the second home expense- and maybe even repay profits from the sale of a second home.The second home allowance is, after all for them to do their job, not to make money.

  3. Notwelliam

    They shouldn’t be allowed a second home, unless they pay for it out of THEIR money.

    What was it that the ConDems said? Oh yes; “if there is no work by you, you have to move to the area in which there is work available”.

    And no, we can’t have expenses. If we stay where we are, WE have to pay for everything!

    I can’t stand them, they are all theiving barstewards and get away with EVERYTHING !!!

  4. Pingback: Tory crime allegations: Why stop with Shapps? | Vox Political

  5. Stuart Warrent

    Its disgusting while he & others live fat of the taxpayer & tells us how to live, with unemployment food banks disability cuts, suicides, whole government needs investigating

Comments are closed.