Prosecuted for criminal damage ... to hamburgers.

It seems that when Stephen Morgan's hamburgers failed to arrive with the rest of his food delivery he did something that has led to a criminal prosecution for :-

criminal damages to hamburgers, worth £5

Stephen will be appearing in Swansea Magistrates Court on 10th October.

Mrs Rigby can't imagine the CPS pursuing a prosecution that is neither in the public interest nor value for money, so presumably the case will either cost less than £5 or assaulting hamburgers is a dangerous pastime. Otherwise it would be a waste of taxpayer's money - right?

Mrs Rigby had a quick rummage through the depths of the internet to see if anybody had been taken to court, and been given a criminal record for something that cost even less. Here you go ...

Court case over 90p Oyster Card bus fare to cost £10,000

Mrs R is delighted by this ongoing vigilance, rapid intervention, charge and appropriate punishment of lawbreakers. She's pleased to know that anybody who breaks the rules or tries to get a free ride will be prosecuted - no matter how little the sum involved. After all, the Rigby family pay their way, so why shouldn't anybody else.

Ah, it doesn't always work that way.

Following Sir Thomas Legg's decision that Jacqui Smith," ... wrongly classified her main family home in Reddich as her second home ..." she is not to face prosecution. Her punishment was to stand up in Parliament and say, "Sorry!" and then go home with a clear conscience, and without a stain on her character. There will be no criminal record for Jacqui Smith for taking around £117k of taxpayers' money, and she's not being forced to pay it back - yet. (Mr Brown might change his mind because Dave C ordered Tories to repay any over-claims or face the sack.)

All this is nice for her and her family, and they won't face penury. No doubt it's something of a relief too, because it would be awfully unpleasant and very demeaning for an MP to be questioned by the Police, have their DNA harvested, and face criminal prosecution. Ah, but it happened to Damian Green, and Jeffrey Archer was sent to prison in 2001, after he was found guilty of perjury and perverting the course of justice (that's 'telling lies under oath', and 'fabricating or disposing of evidence') - such a terrible thing that prison was the best place for him.

But wait!

It doesn't always work out like that, because although Lord Ahmed killed somebody when he was using his mobile phone whilst driving his car he didn't go to prison. Harriet Harman is said to have driven away after hitting a parked car whilst using her mobile phone, but she might get away with a slapped wrist. A certain Mr Blair is known to have shredded all sorts of documents before he left Downing Street, I wonder why?

Mrs Rigby wouldn't mind betting that Stephen Morgan would be delighted to be able to say sorry, or be sure of getting away with a slapped wrist for assaulting a hamburger, but the Police and the CPS won't let him.

Mrs Rigby believes that it shouldn't matter what political party anybody belongs to, or who their friends are, especially if they've broken the rules and used somebody else's money as if it's their own.
Because of this she thinks it IS in the public interest to at least attempt to recover the money misappropriated and treated as personal spending money by Jacqui Smith and other MPs of all political colours.

We are, as even Gordon Brown himself says, "... facing difficult times ..." and the country's broke. The country's so broke that we're selling bits of it off to the highest bidder.

Wouldn't you think that these MPs would be proud to 'do their bit' for their country? They expect the rest of us to, and to use a phrase oft quoted by a well-known supermarket, "Every little helps!"

Whilst nobody was looking

They sneaked this through when nobody was looking. They probably hoped nobody would notice because we're all so worried about MPs expenses, but thankfully some newspapers are on the ball.

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary who lives in her sister's spare bedroom instead of the apartment the State provides, has pushed through legislation giving HM Revenue and Customs officials the right to look at the information that will be held on the ID database, when it's rolled out.

Here's an extract from the Mail

The Home Office says the ID card scheme will make life easier for both businesses and their customers. Companies will be charged around 60p a time to check details held on the giant 'big brother' database.

Every time a check is made against the ID card, it will be logged on the National Identity Register - and the details made available to the taxman.

Officials hope for up to 770million 'verifications' each year.

The data includes addresses, any second homes and National Insurance numbers.

Firms will be told that using the scheme will cut millions from their annual fraud bills and save them hefty fines for employing illegal immigrants.

Officials believe it will be cheaper for companies to confirm identity through the database than by using current methods such as bills and driving licences. The Home Office said businesses would need a person's consent to check information about them.

Official documents reveal that some 44,000 organisations could be 'accredited' to carry out verification checks.

They range from Whitehall departments, banks and financial institutions to mobile phone and video rental shops.

It comes after Jacqui Smith's announcement earlier this month that members of the public will be expected to have their fingerprints taken at the Post Office or in high street shops and pharmacies when they sign up for a card or passport.

At present, the right to take fingerprints is largely restricted to the police.

A similar report is in the Telegraph.

Mrs R thinks this is all a bit much. When they first proposed the ID card scheme it was meant to be all about protecting us from terrorists - but we saw through that idea. Then they said it would help slow down illegal immigration. Now they want us to believe it will help track down tax fraud.

Mrs R notes that within this report is a bit of an implied threat, if businesses don't sign up to using the scheme, and demand this particular form of ID from people then ... well, we'll have to wait and see what the penalties might be.

Mrs R doesn't object one little bit to the principal of an ID card, she's seen people from other European countries using little plastic cards instead of passports.

Mrs R knows that people in other countries don't understand what all the fuss is about. She knows they don't realise that in Britain the ID card is planned to be an added extra. An extra on top of a photo driving license, on top of a passport, and something that gives no benefit to the individual other than containing - on a small piece of loseable and stealable plastic, and on one single hackable, copiable, sellable, database - every single scrap of their personal information, including details of their most intimate biological make up, something Mrs Rigby will never have the right to see, but which as yet unknown "others" will have access too - all for a "small fee".

All the "spinning", all the lies, all the changes in the story, have not yet convinced Mrs R that this is not an intrusive, overbearing and potentially illegal in terms of human rights, plan for the state to oversee every single aspect of the Mrs Rigby's life, and possibly find legal fault.

So, Mrs Rigby offers a challenge to the Home Secretary. She wants the Home Secretary to tell her of one, just one, personal benefit from this data gathering exercise.

Mrs R suspects that it her only "benefit" will be that she will not be breaking some, as yet unmade, law that requires her to carry this particular bit of plastic on her person every waking moment.