Thieving MPs to be charged!
Discussion
Balmoral Green said:
I just posted this elsewhere, but realised it should be on this thread too.
Can you post a link to a reference of this (the actual event of CMD/Tories rejecting that bill)Balmoral Green said:
So, today, CMD has said he will remove parliamentary privilege if elected, so that in future, MP's such as those three involved in the expenses scandal can be hung out to dry.
This morning on R4, some woman or other was being interviewed about this, and was talking a lot of sense, I agreed with everything she said. She was logical and rational. Who the hell is this I was wondering? I like her. Then she said that last year they had proposed this very thing, for a bill, that CMD had come out with just now, but the Tories had rejected it, and because of them, it couldn't be made so, yet here was CMD coming out with all this b
ks about how he'd do this, when he'd vetoed the very same thing just a few short months back. Oh Bugger, I realised it's one of the labour wimmin', and not only is she making sense, she's pissed on CMD's chips big time too.
It turned out it was HH
This morning on R4, some woman or other was being interviewed about this, and was talking a lot of sense, I agreed with everything she said. She was logical and rational. Who the hell is this I was wondering? I like her. Then she said that last year they had proposed this very thing, for a bill, that CMD had come out with just now, but the Tories had rejected it, and because of them, it couldn't be made so, yet here was CMD coming out with all this b
ks about how he'd do this, when he'd vetoed the very same thing just a few short months back. Oh Bugger, I realised it's one of the labour wimmin', and not only is she making sense, she's pissed on CMD's chips big time too.It turned out it was HH
More evidence to reinforce my point that whilst activity has perhaps not been criminal, it has absolutely not been acceptable in our eyes but was OK in their eyes, this time it's the Lords. However they are now changing the rules so it wasn't that OK was it?
And how come it's OK for the chairwoman of the investigating committe to be someone who is herself under investigation? Wtf? Taking the piss or what?
Nine peers were cleared of breaking expenses rules
And how come it's OK for the chairwoman of the investigating committe to be someone who is herself under investigation? Wtf? Taking the piss or what?
Nine peers were cleared of breaking expenses rules
Telegraph article said:
Nine peers were cleared of breaking expenses rules last night after they were told that they needed to spend only one night a month at a “main home” outside London to claim £174 a night for living in the capital.
The decision by the Lords authorities cleared the way for peers to keep tens of thousands of pounds which they claimed from the taxpayer while designating holiday cottages and relatives’ homes as their main houses.
The neers peers , including two ministers, had been under investigation for making multiple claims for overnight stays in the capital.
Under the rules, peers could claim up to £174 for every night they spent away from their “main home” while attending Parliament.
In the House of Commons, a “main home” is defined as where an MP spends the majority of his or her time each year.
However, it had no formal definition under Lords’ rules. A committee of the Lords has now ruled that peers were free to designate a property at which they spent only one night a month as their “main home”. The main home could be owned and lived in by someone else.
The committee was chaired by Baroness Hayman, who was herself under formal investigation for allegedly abusing the system. Its ruling led to her being cleared of wrongdoing along with Baroness Barker, Lord Colwyn, Lord Haworth, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, Lord Morris of Manchester, Baroness Northover, Baroness Thornton and Baroness Whitaker.
Baroness Hayman claimed that her main residence was a property in Norfolk where she was resident “about three weekends in four during term time”.
Over the past eight years, she received more than £200,000 in expenses for staying at her “second home”: a house near Hampstead Heath, north London, which she and her husband bought in 1975 and is worth about £1million.
The couple’s four children were brought up and went to school in the area. When she became a Labour peer, she took the title Baroness Hayman of Dartmouth Park, where her “second home” is.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, the Children’s Minister, received more than £140,000 in expenses by sayingdesignating a holiday cottage in Wales was as her main residence.
She was born in London and lived in the capital for the first 42 years of her life before becoming a peer in 2004.
A few months after entering the Lords, she bought a small cottage near Cardigan.
This property was designated as her “main residence”, which allowed her to claim the night subsistence for ministers living outside London.
This is worth £38,280 a year and is paid automatically by her department along with her £73,600 salary.
The system of Lords expenses is to change after the election to tighten up the definition of “main” and “second” homes. Peers will also have to provide receipts.
Yesterday, it was announced that Lord Clarke of Hampstead has been referred to a parliamentary committee which investigates the conduct of peers.
He will not face criminal charges.
The decision by the Lords authorities cleared the way for peers to keep tens of thousands of pounds which they claimed from the taxpayer while designating holiday cottages and relatives’ homes as their main houses.
The neers peers , including two ministers, had been under investigation for making multiple claims for overnight stays in the capital.
Under the rules, peers could claim up to £174 for every night they spent away from their “main home” while attending Parliament.
In the House of Commons, a “main home” is defined as where an MP spends the majority of his or her time each year.
However, it had no formal definition under Lords’ rules. A committee of the Lords has now ruled that peers were free to designate a property at which they spent only one night a month as their “main home”. The main home could be owned and lived in by someone else.
The committee was chaired by Baroness Hayman, who was herself under formal investigation for allegedly abusing the system. Its ruling led to her being cleared of wrongdoing along with Baroness Barker, Lord Colwyn, Lord Haworth, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, Lord Morris of Manchester, Baroness Northover, Baroness Thornton and Baroness Whitaker.
Baroness Hayman claimed that her main residence was a property in Norfolk where she was resident “about three weekends in four during term time”.
Over the past eight years, she received more than £200,000 in expenses for staying at her “second home”: a house near Hampstead Heath, north London, which she and her husband bought in 1975 and is worth about £1million.
The couple’s four children were brought up and went to school in the area. When she became a Labour peer, she took the title Baroness Hayman of Dartmouth Park, where her “second home” is.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, the Children’s Minister, received more than £140,000 in expenses by sayingdesignating a holiday cottage in Wales was as her main residence.
She was born in London and lived in the capital for the first 42 years of her life before becoming a peer in 2004.
A few months after entering the Lords, she bought a small cottage near Cardigan.
This property was designated as her “main residence”, which allowed her to claim the night subsistence for ministers living outside London.
This is worth £38,280 a year and is paid automatically by her department along with her £73,600 salary.
The system of Lords expenses is to change after the election to tighten up the definition of “main” and “second” homes. Peers will also have to provide receipts.
Yesterday, it was announced that Lord Clarke of Hampstead has been referred to a parliamentary committee which investigates the conduct of peers.
He will not face criminal charges.
Futuo said:
But we're in the middle of an epic financial crisis, everything should be done to turn that round, a duck house really isn't that big an issue..
completely agree. if they had spent a little less time scamming the system for a few k and a little more time running the country we'd be in a little less of a crisis.Morley says he is being denied natural justice
So the in Shorpe wants some natural justice does he?
I suspect he might regret phrasing it quite like that.
Lord Paul considers quitting Lords over tax exile rules
Good! You can set a lot of others an example by following what has become known as the Soovy FIFO rule.
Fit In or fk Off.
Next!
So the
in Shorpe wants some natural justice does he?I suspect he might regret phrasing it quite like that.
Lord Paul considers quitting Lords over tax exile rules
Good! You can set a lot of others an example by following what has become known as the Soovy FIFO rule.
Fit In or f
k Off.Next!
fbrs said:
Futuo said:
But we're in the middle of an epic financial crisis, everything should be done to turn that round, a duck house really isn't that big an issue..
completely agree. if they had spent a little less time scamming the system for a few k and a little more time running the country we'd be in a little less of a crisis.F i F said:
Lord Paul considers quitting Lords over tax exile rules
Good! You can set a lot of others an example by following what has become known as the Soovy FIFO rule.
Fit In or fk Off.
Next!
"Lord" Paul really is the must disgusting of all these scummy bGood! You can set a lot of others an example by following what has become known as the Soovy FIFO rule.
Fit In or f
k Off.Next!
ds. To be as rich as he is and still leeching off the taxpayers of the country that welcomed him is sickening. He should be prosecuted for his fraudulent expenses claims and then deported in disgrace.Not 1½m to look into the fiddling but 6m.
80m in benefits for fat folk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249809/80...
Now that is really criminal
80m in benefits for fat folk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249809/80...
Now that is really criminal
The bottom line is that rather than giving a st about the country, you have to now protect yourself. That means functioning outside the influence of the state as much as possible.
Get off PAYE as soon as you can and avoid paying tax (legally).
At least when you hear more of this madness, it won't be your tax funding it.
t about the country, you have to now protect yourself. That means functioning outside the influence of the state as much as possible. Get off PAYE as soon as you can and avoid paying tax (legally).
At least when you hear more of this madness, it won't be your tax funding it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff