Member Since: 14 Dec 2008
Location: up that tree
Posts: 4866
MP expenses
sorry if this has already been discussed or is being avoided,, BUT,
I've been trying to figure out for a few hours and not reached an answer, so thought i'd ask,
How does the speaker of the house of commons being hung out to dry make all of what has come out over the last few weeks ok?
I mean, does him resigning mean that none of the mp's have done anything wrong? or does it make up for it in someway?
I really am struggling with this one.....
20th May 2009 11:37 am
robsmith
Member Since: 02 Sep 2007
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 2392
The Speaker is meant to have a guiding role in controlling the order of MPs. As such should be active in making sure that they not only obey the rules of debate within the house, but also the rules of conduct outside the house. Some MPs have decided that his ability to control the latter is somewhat less than that expected of the role.Rob Smith
Silver rools OK
He should never have been appointed, and as someone whose department is meant to keep a rein on expenses, has been asleep at the wheel.
I consider his departure a good start. I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.
20th May 2009 12:47 pm
SN
Member Since: 03 Jan 2006
Location: Romiley
Posts: 13710
The Speaker fought tooth and nail to STOP details of MP's expenses being made publicSteve N | 21MY Defender | 08MY Discovery 3 (history) | 06MY Discovery 3 (ancient history)
20th May 2009 1:01 pm
ad15
Member Since: 14 Dec 2008
Location: up that tree
Posts: 4866
the bit that bugs me is that they are trying make a scapegoat of someone to take the heat of themselves, hopefully this wont go away that quickly,
they should be investigated by the police if you ask me,,, bunch of thieving btards...
20th May 2009 1:04 pm
Bodsy Site Sponsor
Member Since: 06 Nov 2006
Location: In the Clubhouse
Posts: 21361
I wonder if a company could get away with those levels of expenses tax free....? I think not!
They should have the same levels of tax free benefits as everyone else in the land.Bodsys Brake Bible
Clock/ SNOTM /3Flash / 4x4Info /BT Update /Service Reset/Error Codes / Gearbox Reset See It Here
20th May 2009 1:06 pm
ad15
Member Since: 14 Dec 2008
Location: up that tree
Posts: 4866
here here....as they say...
20th May 2009 1:30 pm
nobbyclark
Member Since: 03 May 2005
Location: Perth, Scotland
Posts: 1268
Martin has been thrown to the lions to try and stop us thinking about the transgressions that have been leaking out for the past month or so: free porn, bath plugs, flat-screen tellies, designer sofas, moat cleaning, 3 swimming pools fixed (at least), a tennis court maintained, iPods, overpayment of mortgage interest, claiming back of stamp duty and massive profiteering from selling taxpayer-purchased homes (£320k for one Tory MP allegedly). To name but a few examples...
I think the worst offence has been the so-called "flipping" between primary and secondary home, simply to get what is in reality your own home furnished and decorated for free. That rule is plain ridiculous.
Put it this way, when you spend money on expenses, you claim it back. If you stay in a hotel, eat a meal or take a flight, you pay for it and get the exact same amount returned. If you buy something for the office, company or project, it then becomes the property of the company that pays for it, not the individual that makes the claim. If you sell that expensed item, you should have to reimburse the company for the loss and pay the taxman for the capital gain.
Then there are the two jokers in the Lords who offered to change potential legislation in exchange for a cash bung: bribery and corruption, in anyone's book.
But anyway, leaving the ermine-wearers aside, Martin tried to prevent MPs expenses from being published and also resisted changes to the rules. Also, when the receipts were leaked, Martin's initial reaction was to find the mole, rather than clean up the system. That is why he's gone. Hopefully he will not be the last.No longer a D3 owner but still subscribed to multiple threads!
20th May 2009 3:46 pm
ad15
Member Since: 14 Dec 2008
Location: up that tree
Posts: 4866
thanks nobby, the mole bit all makes sense now,
if anyone else claimed £££ 's for a mortgage that didnt exist then it's be fraud and the old bill would be called, in any normal job i suspect you'd get the sack at least...
fire em all and start from scratch.
20th May 2009 3:49 pm
Martin Site Admin and Owner
Member Since: 06 Nov 2004
Location: Hook Norton
Posts: 18457
Nobby, I'll have you know I did no such things.
20th May 2009 4:04 pm
ad15
Member Since: 14 Dec 2008
Location: up that tree
Posts: 4866
20th May 2009 4:37 pm
nobbyclark
Member Since: 03 May 2005
Location: Perth, Scotland
Posts: 1268
Sorry... just got it.No longer a D3 owner but still subscribed to multiple threads!
20th May 2009 5:00 pm
PeanutBob
Member Since: 24 Oct 2006
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 669
I thought when Douglas Hogg clained £2000 for cleaning out his moat, it was listed as site funds??
20th May 2009 11:09 pm
ad15
Member Since: 14 Dec 2008
Location: up that tree
Posts: 4866
FFS.. who has a "MOAT" these days anyway....
posh toff w ker!!!!!
of course if anyone on here has a "moat" then that's ok, they're brilliant and i want one too
21st May 2009 9:09 am
nobbyclark
Member Since: 03 May 2005
Location: Perth, Scotland
Posts: 1268
I've got a stream (or burn, with about 12 R's, as they say up here), running through the southern side of my garden. But it has a bridge over it, not a drawbridge. And I've never claimed expenses or a tax rebate for cleaning it. I suppose I could try, now that a precedent has been set...No longer a D3 owner but still subscribed to multiple threads!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
ker!!!!!
