MP's snouts in the trough again..whats the answer

[0000]

That's not cool.

[Murph7355]

Disgraceful.

They should live by the same rules as everyone else on everything. Make the laws and the legislation, live by it.

[Du1point8]

Murph7355 said:

Disgraceful.

They should live by the same rules as everyone else on everything. Make the laws and the legislation, live by it.

Whats the full ruling? Is it just the families or everyone? I don't anything other than order order.

If you are an MP you are happy for the banks to keep harassing your mother everytime she does something financial to make sure you are on the straight an narrow, then fine.

If not then the Banks will simply kick them out like they did with all the embassies in the world... most notably HSBC after USA st storm.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-23...

[Jasandjules]

BlackLabel said:

Osborne exempts politicians from money laundering checks.

http://order-order.com/2016/04/19/osborne-exempts-...

Wow. Such contempt they hold us in.

Some pigs are more equal than others.

[funkyrobot]

Why am I not surprised by this at all.

I think the whole lot need clearing out.

[walm]

Murph7355 said:

Disgraceful.

They should live by the same rules as everyone else on everything. Make the laws and the legislation, live by it.

I you have missed the point here.

This change makes the rules for them THE SAME as for other people.

The situation beforehand was that they were under EXTRA scrutiny.
(For example, senior management approval for establishing a business relationship and enhanced ongoing monitoring.)

So rather than being treated as a member of the public, they had to jump through an EXTRA set of hoops.

And indeed for an MP's Granny that does seem a little unnecessarily onerous, no?

[RottenIcons]

Jasandjules said:

BlackLabel said:

Osborne exempts politicians from money laundering checks.

http://order-order.com/2016/04/19/osborne-exempts-...

Wow. Such contempt they hold us in.

Some pigs are more equal than others.

All holders of public office should undertake a Moral Integrity examination, it's a psychometric test in 2 parts, it's subtle though, the test sets it's own taker's moral expectations of others to set their own standards and it is the former that sets a standard for the latter. 124 questions and you either pass or not. Using this form of inverted blind test it was found that 74% of all tested failed their own set standard so would have been barred from public office, the 'accepted standard' was meant to be +10 answers. Only 2% achieved this figure. Research funding dried up shortly after the first papers were published. 1 in 50 That equates to about 13 MPs in the HoC having a good moral compass and about 100 with a wavering one and the rest rotten as over-ripe pears on an Autumn tree.

[Pesty]

madness.

people who tell/make rules on how others live should have more scrutiny.

[walm]

Pesty said:

madness.

people who tell/make rules on how others live should have more scrutiny.

You think they don't?
What about their grannies?

[cb31]

walm said:

You think they don't?
What about their grannies?

Granny might be coming into some money soon now she is in the clear...

[walm]

cb31 said:

walm said:

You think they don't?
What about their grannies?

Granny might be coming into some money soon now she is in the clear...

Ha!
Although in fairness, she still has to undergo the same ML checks and KYC as you or I.
Just not as much as say Putin's cellist friend.

[Pesty]

walm said:

You think they don't?

you for one

walm said:

I you have missed the point here.

This change makes the rules for them THE SAME as for other people.

they are not treated the same i would have been sacked and charged if id done what they did with expenses.

[walm]

Pesty said:

madness.

people who tell/make rules on how others live should have more scrutiny.

Oh sorry.
I thought you were making a general point about scrutiny.
Not specifically scrutiny about money laundering.

So what you really meant was...

Pesty said:

madness.

people (and their families) who tell/make rules on how others live should have to face the same level of financial scrutiny as African despots.

Got it.

[walm]

Pesty said:

they are not treated the same i would have been sacked and charged if id done what they did with expenses.

What are you talking about???
This change has nothing to do with expenses.

[ClaphamGT3]

RottenIcons said:

Jasandjules said:

BlackLabel said:

Osborne exempts politicians from money laundering checks.

http://order-order.com/2016/04/19/osborne-exempts-...

Wow. Such contempt they hold us in.

Some pigs are more equal than others.

All holders of public office should undertake a Moral Integrity examination, it's a psychometric test in 2 parts, it's subtle though, the test sets it's own taker's moral expectations of others to set their own standards and it is the former that sets a standard for the latter. 124 questions and you either pass or not. Using this form of inverted blind test it was found that 74% of all tested failed their own set standard so would have been barred from public office, the 'accepted standard' was meant to be +10 answers. Only 2% achieved this figure. Research funding dried up shortly after the first papers were published. 1 in 50 That equates to about 13 MPs in the HoC having a good moral compass and about 100 with a wavering one and the rest rotten as over-ripe pears on an Autumn tree.

Absolutely not. Anyone should be allowed to stand for public office and the public should form a judgement on whether they want to vote for that individual or not

[RottenIcons]

ClaphamGT3 said:

RottenIcons said:

Jasandjules said:

BlackLabel said:

Osborne exempts politicians from money laundering checks.

http://order-order.com/2016/04/19/osborne-exempts-...

Wow. Such contempt they hold us in.

Some pigs are more equal than others.

All holders of public office should undertake a Moral Integrity examination, it's a psychometric test in 2 parts, it's subtle though, the test sets it's own taker's moral expectations of others to set their own standards and it is the former that sets a standard for the latter. 124 questions and you either pass or not. Using this form of inverted blind test it was found that 74% of all tested failed their own set standard so would have been barred from public office, the 'accepted standard' was meant to be +10 answers. Only 2% achieved this figure. Research funding dried up shortly after the first papers were published. 1 in 50 That equates to about 13 MPs in the HoC having a good moral compass and about 100 with a wavering one and the rest rotten as over-ripe pears on an Autumn tree.

Absolutely not. Anyone should be allowed to stand for public office and the public should form a judgement on whether they want to vote for that individual or not

No it's too important a role to be left to random chance. That's a ridiculous idea. The highest offices in the land, representing the sea of voters in an area, should not be left to randomness of that sort.

Judgement is nothing to do with it in safe seats etc. You are fundamentally wrong in my opinion. A level of moral robustness is essential, you way is letting the occasional lunatic take over a wing of an Asylum. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[walm]

RottenIcons said:

No it's too important a role to be left to random chance.

So our version of democracy is "random"?

[RottenIcons]

walm said:

RottenIcons said:

No it's too important a role to be left to random chance.

So our version of democracy is "random"?

Yes, all the while there is a 'Party based Democracy' with it's concomitant safe seats, it gives the opportunity for people like a Labour man cavorting around with terrorist sympathisers so if you have the marginally regressive mental condition that makes you lean to the left then you either don't vote or vote for a 'terrorist by proxy'.

Remove the Party System and the daft idea that ClaphamGT3 has posit'd might have 'some go in it', but still not much.

Edited by RottenIcons on Wednesday 20th April 14:21