MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Elliot Morley. The man who put the c*** in S****horpe.
Oh, so he's not all bad then? 😉
Hmm this is a bit like fred the banker isnt it? Someone in authority agreed a load of rules and they took what they could. If your work started offering expenses for flat cleaning or second homes I'm sure you'd all take them up on it. Now tho we are getting a look at what actually goes on and has been OKed by those in power and we are quite rightfully incensed by it. Yes there are some right thieving scum at it, claiming for a mortgage already paid for, claiming a second home they dont need. But we are still pretty pissed off by the people who put in standard claims that were 'within the rules' (sorry) We need to be directing our anger at the ****wits who made the rules not the people who fully exploited them (I mean those who claimed for and got everything they possibly could not the fraudulent claims) After all I should think there's plenty of people here (or atleast a few) who take the piss with expenses or other work privelages but if they are within the rules then blame the company policy makers not the workers.
The issue is that they are one and the same - they made the rules they are exploiting.
The issue is that they are one and the same - they made the rules they are exploiting.
Yes I was worried that would be the answer, but which MPs made the rules? All of them? A select few from years ago? Surely someone signed their name to this ludicrous scheme....hehe oops sorry I was forgetting, these are UK politicians, it's never their fault.
Thing for me about the Rules is they include these lines:
[i]Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.
Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.
The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services – Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant
or luxurious.[/i]
I don't think a lot of the expense claims being exposed satisfied these inclusions which to me demonstrates the contempt these arrogant MPs have for the general public
[i]I do, however, wonder what is to come about the Balls household...! [/i]
Nothing particulartly exciting.
[url] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5325590/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-flipped-homes-three-times-MPs-expenses.html [/url]
And unsurprisingly the injunction rubbish turned out to be well, rubbish. Mind you what do you expect if you use the gutter press as your news-source?
Nukeproof, ah yes good point. In that case why the hell did someone not refuse re-imbursements for these dubious claims? Oh yes we're back to the self governing thing aren't we? OK they [b]are[/b] all interminable wsnkers.
This house flipping business seems to be within the rules but hard to defend really.