Quote: M@islebugs "You don't think it's a legitimate enquiry of a sitting MP to find out what happened to hundreds of thousands of pounds of money donated by his constituents? Or, for that matter to act on behalf of a constituent who may have been a creditor? Far from it being irresponsible, I'd suggest it's his job to try and find out what happened.
I take your point about the document forming the basis of any potential prosecution but I find it hard to believe these documents are meant to be kept secret indefinitely. Were the DTI not to recommend prosecution what would be gained?'"
It seems to me that the relevant part of the form to be completed is 16a which asks for details of any "unfit conduct". l agree with Adey in that I don't know how much use this formal return would be to interested but not directly involved parties such as members of this forum.
As regards Gerry Sutcliffe I doubt whether 100's of thousands was donated by Bradford South constituents. However your point regarding MP's (not just Sutcliffe) acting for constituents who were creditors of the old company is germane.
Like you , I would dearly love to know the true objective story of what happened and why. I just don't know whether the "administration" route is the best way to gather that knowledge.
Oh for a David Conn type investigative journalist to uncover the truth!