- This topic has 84 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I must admit I have a problem with this one.
On the one hand what the MP’s have been allowed to claim for is nothing short of a disgrace. I even heard one MP on the radio yesterday saying he had previously claimed for a new razor!!!
Now whatever the rights (if there were any) or wrongs (plenty) of the old expenses system it was the "approved" (albeit self approved) system that was in place.
To retrospectively apply new criteria sets a dangerous precedent.
OK we may have little or no sympathy with the MP’s who have abused the system to feather their own nests, or line their moats as the case may be.
However does it not set a dangerous precedent?
What is there to stop an unscrupulous employer deciding to retrospectively decided their expenses policy was going to have limits, even though the time the claim was made the expenses were legitimate within the framework of the system then in place?
How would we feel if our employers decided to claw back what we had previously claimed within the rules?
Yes I know it is very hard, indeed nigh on impossible. to feel sympathy for the MP’s and they have bought it upon themselves, but trying to look at it dispassionately I am uneasy with the precedent it sets.
Please do not think I am condoning what the MP’s have claimed – far from it – my concern is simply with precedent that could be set and abused.
.. I think it’s quite funny, it’s working a bit like the Betfair premium tax.
Good enough for ’em I say ..
Pay up yer greedy barstewards !!
Just when you think our MP’s could not stoop any lower – we now have to witness the three charged MP’s trying to squirm out of facing up to the accusations by claiming Parliamentary Privilege.
Just who the hell do they think they are?
I cannot think of adequate words to express how angry I am at this attempt not to face up to their responsibilities.
In one way it beggars belief but on the other hand it, sadly, does not surprise me that they try to pull a stunt like this.
I really hope they do face justice and if convicted the only “expenses” they will be claiming will be their prison wages – in reality I suspect they will end up with a “sympathetic” spineless judge who will give them a slap on the wrists.
I echo your sentiments entirely Paul.
An interesting point made in the Ian Dale blog as well:-…Gordon Brown has uttered many weasel words about the expenses scandal. We can expect a few more soon.
Someone might like to ask him this question. Why is the Labour Party’s official solicitor, Gerald Shamash, providing the three disgraced Labour MPs (Messers Chaytor, Devine and Morley) with legal advice? Is the Labour Party paying for it?In one way it beggars belief but on the other hand it, sadly, does not surprise me that they try to pull a stunt like this.
That’s it in a nutshell – unbelievable but not surprising
All the news elicited from me was a shrug of the shoulders, shake of the head and resigned exhalation of breath
Sell turnout at the next election would be my advice to the spread betting fraternity
come the revolution
up against the wallI won’t even start to feel satisfied until Jacqui Smith repays the full £110,000+ she scammed off the taxpayer
But if she’s banged up in Holloway for fraud, my faith might be restored
Boring…so last year
to anyone still seething about this repeat a hundred times:
I AM UNIMPORTANT, THEY DON’T CARE WHAT I THINK.
Parliamentary privilege is part of the checks and balances, to ensure that none of the Executive, Legislature or Judiciary become dominant or subservient to the others, and helps create a situation where we don’t slide into a dictatorship.
Any change to parliamentary privilege has to be carefully crafted, so that it isn’t the thin edge of the wedge.
From
Guido Fawkes
blog:-
The Taxpayers’ Alliance has calculated that the three Labour MPs charged with theft from the taxpayers; Jim Devine, David Chaytor and Elliot Morley, will share between them a pay-off totalling £151,552 come election day. They will also get generous gold-plated pensions.
Nice work if you can get it.
What I am saying is that you can’t have a blanket removal of parliamentary privilege.
The more one reads of the sleazy, underhand goings-on of our political class, the more one enjoys anything that rocks their boat – even a hung parliament.
Take this from today’s Sunday Telegraph :-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7696484/MPs-accused-of-Wikipedia-expenses-cover-up.htmlBoth Conservative and Labour MPs come out badly from this article. What’s really annoying is that Chris Grayling (Con) who is earmarked for high office under a Conservative government, is a pretty big taxpayer-funded rip-off merchant. Cameron shouldn’t entertain having such a shyster as an MP, let alone a cabinet minister. Cameron and Brown talked tough when all this first came out, but the reality is, if the wrongdoer was close to the party leadership, they were above punishment.
Congratulations though to the Telegraph newspapers, not just for exposing this scandal in the first place, but for keeping on with it and uncovering behaviour like this. Maybe even Dave Jay might give them credit for this!
Marble, Chris Grayling is no better or no worse than the rest of them. What it does show or at least make one wonder (in respect to Grayling) is:-
a) Does a man who would extract taxpayers money in such a way have the integrity and judgement that one ought to have to hold a high position in Her Majesty’s Government?
b) If the answer to a) is "no" or even "maybe not", should David Cameron have him on his team? And what does it say about Cameron’s judgement/morals/scruples/integrity that he’s prepared to turn a blind-eye to the misbehaviour of one of his inner circle whilst spouting on TV and elsewhere that such behaviour is unacceptable?(A charge that can just as easily be levelled against Brown for his hard-talk yet soft action/inaction re. some in his party who were less than innocent.)
Maybe I’m just old fashioned and/or naive in believing that MPs should have integrity and judgement.Well marble, Grayling may well be a jolly nice chap and a good politician (whatever that entails) and indeed, all the charges laid against him may be totally false and deserved removing from Wikipedia. However venality and wrongdoing are not just the preserve of the incompetent or ill-mannered. Many a personable chap has turned out to be a rogue, cove, mountebank, cut-purse and ne’er-do-well.
The
Telegraph
piece states:-
In June and July 2009, Mr Grayling’s entry on the website was changed five times by a user with a parliamentary Internet Protocol (IP) address.
An assertion that he used taxpayers’ money to renovate a flat in London despite owning three properties within the M25 and living less than 25 miles from Parliament was deleted from the website, even though it had been supported by references to Telegraph news reports.PS This article is not, as one might think from just reading our comments on here, an attack solely on Grayling, but on a dollop of others too (including many a Labour MP)who’ve expunged dodgy dealings from their Wikipedia entries. Grayling though, as one imminently destined for high-office deserves scrutiny as does Cameron’s judgement. No MP no matter how high they’ve risen or close to the top they are (even if they’re jolly nice folk) should be above public scrutiny for their actions where fraud/dishonesty are concerned.
.. it certainly is a good piece of work.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be associated with someone who was a greedy, rule bending thief, never mind about giving them a job .. it says quite a lot about the gap between what an ordinary person thinks what’s immoral and what a politician thinks is immoral.
I don’t view the expenses issue as especially depressing.
I think it’s great we’ve finally found up what these people are up to, though it would have been nice to see more of them voted out.
Good question Andrew and I can inform that yes me and my colleagues at work (six of us) held a meeting two weeks ago where we decided the following course of action:
# To claim in full the approx 15% of our salary paid by a well known charity (prior to this none of us had claimed it).
# To claim in full the £7.00 daily lunch allowance we are entitled to (prior to this none of us had claimed it).
# To claim in full the £24.00 dinner allowance we are entitled to if working later than 7pm (prior to this none of us had claimed it).
# To claim in full our 47p per mile car allowance (prior to this we would claim this occasionally but plenty of journeys were done without claiming it).None of us are actually pleased about taking this course of action but there you go – [expletive] em that’s my view from now on.
Just been working on my accounts and as a result of the above have claimed £12,660 in taxpayer/charity expenses over the last year.
Between all of us that’s approx 72,000 which is something like 16 average taxpaying TRF’ers paying our ex’ses
Thank you very much
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100223407/for-some-meps-the-right-to-sign-on-and-sod-off-is-worth-fighting-for/
It’s footage of 2 MEPs turning up for work AT 6PM and then leaving almost straight away. By signing in, they get 300 euros expenses! Don’t have to do f. all, just sign in and then bugg@r off; money (your money) for old rope don’t you think?
Are they embarressed? are they ashamed? What do you think?
I hope the BBC (which receives funding from the EU – yes, did you know that?) shows this clip, but somehow I doubt it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.