Too bloody right they should – thieving scumbags!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11724838

Should be far more than these three tho.

THREE! Where’s all the rest?

The funniest thing about the whole MPs expenses scandal is, statistically, MPs are far more honest about their expenses than the rest of us, and look how many of the ‘rest of us’ there are. 🙂

Should be far more than these three tho.

Those Lords should be up before a judge & jury too

The funniest thing about the whole MPs expenses scandal is, statistically, MPs are far more honest about their expenses than the rest of us, and look how many of the ‘rest of us’ there are.

Don’t make it right though! Besides I don’t have expenses so have no chance of benefitting like plumbers getting cash in hand or those who claim mileage.

It’s funny, I could have told them Chaytor was a crook nearly 10 years ago. Fortunately I no longer live in (what was) his constituency.

The funniest thing about the whole MPs expenses scandal is, statistically, MPs are far more honest about their expenses than the rest of us,

hmmm.

what expenses? I have never had a job where there are expenses to claim.
I am 100% provably honest about my expenses claims.

The funniest thing about the whole MPs expenses scandal is, statistically, MPs are far more honest about their expenses than the rest of us, and look how many of the ‘rest of us’ there are.

bolox, who else gets to claim housing as an expense. I get to claim mileage which is checked on, and the occasional hotel and evening meal which I have to provide receipts for, and has to be below certain amounts anyway. The MP’s where given carte blanch to profit from their expenses and it seem far too many of them were happy to take advantage of the situation.

That sounds like a made up fact to me.

I claim expenses for work stuff from time to time, would have to be a criminal mastermind forger to get an extra penny, given the financial controls. Not that I would !

bolox, who else gets to claim housing as an expense.

pretty much anyone who has two mandatory worksites some distance apart to attend as part of their employment. Usually in the form of hotel expense, or sometimes a corporate flat.

The proper question is “how far is too far?” to commute between two sites as necessary. And the other issue is whether expenses should be used to cover asset acquisition.

Isn’t one of them [Jim Devine, I think] accused of mass producing fake receipts for non-existent goods & services?

The rest of the MPs in Westminster were taking the pee big time & ripping the tax payer off but fabricating the whole lot is in another league entirely

I still want to know how Eric Pickles managed to get away with only paying £300 back, despite claiming for a second home whilst he lived in Brentwood!.

Good to see.

Now how about war crimes? Going to war for a fake reason that results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands is an even worse crime IMO. The politicians who signed off on that should be tried.

The politicians who signed off on that should be tried.

That was about 80% of them at the time, could be a long trial 🙂

doubt they will be punished much for their thievery.

courtesy of private eye –

“3 years for which benefits cheats will have payments halted under new rules”

“1.5 years for which Baroness Uddin has been suspended from House of Lords for wrongly claiming £125,000 of taxpayer money”

What about Phil Woolas then? Apparently a lot of MPs from both sides of the house are jumping to his defence… I fail to see how someone could honestly, hand on heart, condone the deliberate telling of malicious lies to gain an advantage in an election.

Unless they were all doing it and did not want to set a precedent…

What about Phil Woolas then? Apparently a lot of MPs from both sides of the house are jumping to his defence… I fail to see how someone could honestly, hand on heart, condone the deliberate telling of malicious lies to gain an advantage in an election.

I’m going to be unpopular and say inncoent until proven guilty, appeal hasn’t been heard yet.

But as for expenses, it’s not just over-claiming, if it’s fraud they should be tried properly. And I believe expenses are something which is ‘completely, soley and unavoidably required to perform one’s job.’ Like a duck house.
(Someone please provide proper deffinition!)

“wholly necessarily and exclusively” for work.

I lost at tribunal on a suit (I was in a consultancy, required to do customer facing work, so I tried claiming it a it was a necessity – which IMHO it genuinely was as I never wear a suit anywhere else).

That’s the phrase I meant.
Does that include moat-cleaning?

sleazy ****