Yeah, what's the point in convicting burglars who only stole a small car, or the contents of someone's house.
The court and prison costs will outweigh the value of the theft.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:47, archived)

good point,
why not spend that money convicting rapists and the like instead?
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:54, archived)

But all they've stolen is innocence,
and people give that away willingly all the time.
Seriously though, I don't think it's an either/or. You have to convict for a crime even if it's a net loss for that particular case.
Otherwise, there's be no deterrant and the costs from other people committing the same crime will soon outweigh the savings.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:57, archived)

theft is hardly up there with assault
if there's no threat of physical harm why even bother to prosecute?
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:01, archived)

Because if someone stole my stuff, I'd say it's deserving of punishment.
Are you happy to have your things taken?
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:03, archived)

did you miss the bit that said "when it was entirely within the expenses and allowances rules and regulations"?
i.e. no criminal offence or breach of regulations
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:56, archived)

I think the point of investigation is to find out whether it's within the rules or not.
Noone's going to investigate something that's clearly fine, except possibly David Cameron because it makes him look good.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:58, archived)

but surely noone will know whether it is fine or not without investigating it?
I'm all for dismissing trivial things based on face value, clearly!
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:07, archived)

I'm not saying they should investigate every last claim,
I'm saying they should investigate the non-trivial ones that appear dodgy. I think some of the most clear cut ones are MPs who own properties in London but decide to move onto a new one and get the mortgage interest paid for.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:12, archived)

quite right!
i'm glad we agree! *shakes hands over the internet*
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:24, archived)

Splendid

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:27, archived)