MP's still cheating expenses
Discussion
(Mods, please move if I've dropped this in the wrong place)
This -
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lord-bassam-ex...
A few points.
Why on earth after the previous scandal have they not re-written rules and process to ensure it was never repeated?
Why do individuals who commit such fraud not end up in jail?
Someone known to me, I'm being deliberately vague, was in the armed forces. He lied about something, to get his family a slightly better allowance whilst he was away. He got found out, was given a two year jail term.
Nice that some are above prosecution hey.
This -
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/lord-bassam-ex...
A few points.
Why on earth after the previous scandal have they not re-written rules and process to ensure it was never repeated?
Why do individuals who commit such fraud not end up in jail?
Someone known to me, I'm being deliberately vague, was in the armed forces. He lied about something, to get his family a slightly better allowance whilst he was away. He got found out, was given a two year jail term.
Nice that some are above prosecution hey.
98elise said:
It's not fraud if it's within the rules.
The fact he's been asked to pay it back suggests it isn't. £260k claimed for a house he doesn't live in? What other public sector job would you be allowed to 'get away' with this?
Also, one of my points was why haven't processes and rules been tightened up following 2009.
98elise said:
It's not fraud if it's within the rules.
It's the rules that need sorting out.Fundamentally MPs should be bound by exactly the same rules on "expenses" as everyone else. They aren't currently.
Either let everyone else start claiming for second homes etc, or take it away from them.
CoolC said:
Hang on.
He claimed £260k for a house he's not using, but has to pay back the £41k he spent getting to London while he wasn't using that house.
He should be paying back the £260k not the legitimately claimed £41k
Was there actually a house? Or was he claiming for an imaginary one?He claimed £260k for a house he's not using, but has to pay back the £41k he spent getting to London while he wasn't using that house.
He should be paying back the £260k not the legitimately claimed £41k
CoolC said:
Hang on.
He claimed £260k for a house he's not using, but has to pay back the £41k he spent getting to London while he wasn't using that house.
He should be paying back the £260k not the legitimately claimed £41k
QuiteHe claimed £260k for a house he's not using, but has to pay back the £41k he spent getting to London while he wasn't using that house.
He should be paying back the £260k not the legitimately claimed £41k
He said:
“waiving the right to such travel claims would perhaps have been a more appropriate response on my part”.
No, you pay back the £260k of costs you didn't need.
98elise said:
Murph7355 said:
98elise said:
It's not fraud if it's within the rules.
It's the rules that need sorting out.Fundamentally MPs should be bound by exactly the same rules on "expenses" as everyone else. They aren't currently.
If it's not criminal, which is open to debate, it is wrongful. He was claiming for a house which he doesn't live in, and for travel expenses from another.
OP - remember this ?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul...
This is the Lord caught wearing a bra and snorting coke off a hooker's tits whilst bragging that his expenses and allowances were paying for it.
Class.
He's still got a pass to the (heavily subsidised) bars at Westminster btw.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul...
This is the Lord caught wearing a bra and snorting coke off a hooker's tits whilst bragging that his expenses and allowances were paying for it.
Class.
He's still got a pass to the (heavily subsidised) bars at Westminster btw.
Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 9th December 13:57
98elise said:
Murph7355 said:
98elise said:
It's not fraud if it's within the rules.
It's the rules that need sorting out.Fundamentally MPs should be bound by exactly the same rules on "expenses" as everyone else. They aren't currently.
Can't see a problem with that, no siree. Perhaps we should pay him
a large bonus for outstanding inventiveness. Austerity, what f
king austerity?The problem with the current parliamentary expenses system is that it was introduced as a means to give parliamentarians sensible levels of remuneration without ever having to grasp the nettle and raise basic salaries to sensible levels.
We should move to a model where;
Backbench MPs/working peers - £250k pa
PPS - £350k pa
Junior minister/whip/shadow cabinet - £500k
Cabinet minister/Chief Whips/Leader of the Opposition - £750k
Chancellor, Foreign Sec and Home Sec - £850k pa
Prime Minister - £1m pa
Then expect them to work exclusively in their role and allow them to claim expenses in line with HMRC guidelines
We should move to a model where;
Backbench MPs/working peers - £250k pa
PPS - £350k pa
Junior minister/whip/shadow cabinet - £500k
Cabinet minister/Chief Whips/Leader of the Opposition - £750k
Chancellor, Foreign Sec and Home Sec - £850k pa
Prime Minister - £1m pa
Then expect them to work exclusively in their role and allow them to claim expenses in line with HMRC guidelines
But all we know about it is what we see on the internet and on the news, and in newspapers, so we can’t trust it.
Or so the ‘usual suspects’ will warn us on here. Unless you can quote the facts from a guaranteed and genuine source, that you can link to directly, not a newspaper, then it can’t possibly be true.
Or so the ‘usual suspects’ will warn us on here. Unless you can quote the facts from a guaranteed and genuine source, that you can link to directly, not a newspaper, then it can’t possibly be true.
King Herald said:
But all we know about it is what we see on the internet and on the news, and in newspapers, so we can’t trust it.
Or so the ‘usual suspects’ will warn us on here. Unless you can quote the facts from a guaranteed and genuine source, that you can link to directly, not a newspaper, then it can’t possibly be true.
Full expense claims for every member of the House of Lords, from 1st April 2001...Or so the ‘usual suspects’ will warn us on here. Unless you can quote the facts from a guaranteed and genuine source, that you can link to directly, not a newspaper, then it can’t possibly be true.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-th...
It doesn't show his accommodation payments, because they don't exist separately. They're part of his salary as chief whip in the Lords. It's that salary - £39k/year - which come to the £260k/7yr figure given.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2471/artic...
Because he's an office-holder, and gets paid to do that job (rather than the £300/day attendance allowance), then he shouldn't have also claimed the travel expenses.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff