Oh dear, my heart bleeds. 😆
She will reappear as minister of something else in a month or two. Something she is even less qualified to represent. In reality she should be fined or sent to prison
Ding dong etc!
woohoo e.t.c 😀
hopefully the police might want a little word with her now (doubt it though 🙁
In reality she should be fined or sent to prison
At the very least,if I submit expenses cousins that are fraudulent I would be sacked and prosecuted, not just get a slap on the wrist, keep my job and told not to do out again.
Thought they'd have learnt after the last fiasco.
She will reappear as minister of something else in a month or two. Something she is even less qualified to represent. In reality she should be fined or sent to prison
On R4 they just said she had been given an ultimatum, resign or pay back the money. Bit of a no brained, but she remains an MP, just resigned as Minister. FFS prosecute the witch, make her pay ack the money, it's tantamount to saying theft is ok just a bit naughty, don't do so you can be found out next time.
one set of rules for them and another for the rest of us ... ffs ... ggrrrrrrrrr
There was a great clip on the news the other night where Ian Duncan Smith was taking about some new welfare reform, his press launch was hijacked by the expenses thing. A journalist asked IDS what should happen to a benefit claimant who fraudulently claimed, say £5800. Would it be enough for them just to apologise?
IDS did squirm.
If her wrong doing is significant enough to resign as a minister, then she should not remain an MP.
She should be forced to pay the whole 45k as well.
I thoroughly concur!
She said she was devastated about [s]what had happened[/s] getting caught.
This whole fiasco has seriously undermined David Cameron. Not only has he been shown to be, yet again, out of touch with public opinion, but in the end also with the views of his own party members.
I really don't know what he was thinking of when he gave her his full and unequivocal support.
I seem to recall, that once they become a minister, then their pay grade and pension etc goes up to that level and remains at that level even when they are kicked down to the back benches. It was suggested that the number of ministerial roles have increased massively since the 80's so that ruling party members can be "churned" through ministerial roles.
[i]This whole fiasco has seriously undermined Parliament. They have been shown to be, yet again, out of touch with public opinion.[/i]
Fixed it.
So she's finally jumped, after a week of looking indignant that anyone, let alone the plebs in the electorate, should dare have the audacity to question her. And Dave has backed her up, concurring with her analysis. Right up until the moment it might get a tad embarrassing for him personally, then he made the request she jumps before he pushes her.
She's still an MP, with her large salary, and even larger expenses claims. She's had to pay back a measly 5 grand when she's defrauded the taxpayer out of over £50,000, which she will not even be questioned by the police about. The 'second' home the taxpayer subsidised her to buy, she's sold at a profit of over a million quid! And to top it off Dave has left the door open for her to do a Mandleson. Seems like she's done alright to me.
But having seen her churlish non-apology, and how affronted she looked, I bet she's still feeling like she's entirely innocent, and simply being persecuted
And they say that our MP's are out of touch, and 'still don't get it'
How could anyone possibly reach that conclusion? 🙄
If her wrong doing is significant enough to resign as a minister, then she should not remain an MP.
But why? surely as an arrogant, greedy, self-interested, self-obsessed, [s]benefits[/s] expenses fraudster she absolutely represents the face of the modern Conservative Party?
She should be sacked as an MP, forced to repay the money she stole, and have her big fat MP pension taken back. And sent to prison.
You hadn't realised that both sides of the House of Commons were calling for her resignation dragon ?
Not only was this a rare example of unity across the benches but it also showed how the House of Commons, in this case at least, were very much in touch with public opinion.
It's Cameron who has been shown to be seriously out of touch with public opinion.
She should pay back the other money, on principle never mind the duff "standards" committee that says "it might be ok".
She will reappear as minister of something else in a month or two.
Minister for Morals and Integrity 😉
How could anyone possibly reach that conclusion?
It's a mindset thing, Tories believe they were put on God's earth to take as much as they can from everyone else. The concepts of Greed and Fairness aren't taught in public schools.
The most shocking thing about this whole farce is that the expenses system was meant to have changed so that it was now independently overseen
Well… it seem thats only up to a point
So the independent commission concluded she'd 'over-claimed' (lets not use the frightful word 'defrauded) the sum of £52 grand. But then a panel of her [s]mates[/s] peers, have a look at their evidence, and say "just bung us 5, and we'll forget the whole thing"
And thats what passes for an 'independent' system in their world, is it? Perhaps the entire justice system should hinge on the final decision being taken by the lads we were out for a pint with last night 🙄
I seem to recall, that once they become a minister, then their pay grade and pension etc goes up to that level and remains at that level even when they are kicked down to the back benches.
Well I'd like a reference for that!
Her resignation leter, and Dave's reply, are really rather sickening. She brought in press regulation yet again, and mentioned going to a S Wales Comp.
An MP so bent that all the other MPs noticed.
Not to mention that she also seemed to avoid paying cgt on her second house by switching it as her main residence just before the rules changed.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5102248
They really are w**kers
Not to mention that she also seemed to avoid paying cgt on her second house by switching it as her main residence just before the rules changed.
> http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5102248They really are w**kers
I would do the same, if it was legal and above board.
Wouldn't you ? 😕
I would do the same, if it was legal and above board.
Wouldn't you ?
Possibly. But that's not what really annoys me. What really pisses me off is that she has made over a million pounds profit on a house, whose mortgage interest was paid for by the taxpayer. Then didn't pay any cgt on that profit (allegedly). Then gets arsey when told she has to pay back 45k of said taxpayers money. Then is still defiant even though her "mates" drop that to £6k.
Why aren't they forced to rent accommodation like everyone else? Why should MPs get a second home paid for by us and then be allowed to make eye watering profits on it?
I admit it may be legal and above board. It may be the system. But the system stinks.
if it was legal and above board
How is it above board to "redesignate" her parents home as her main home ?
It was clearly a ruse, or do you think she really did start using her parents home as her main home whereas previously it hadn't been ?
Possibly. But that's not what really annoys me. What really pisses me off is that she has made over a million pounds profit on a house, whose mortgage interest was paid for by the taxpayer. Then didn't pay any cgt on that profit (allegedly). Then gets arsey when told she has to pay back 45k of said taxpayers money. Then is still defiant even though her "mates" drop that to £6k.
You forgot to add that she also thinks she is the real victim in this affair!
Has anyone else read the [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmstandards/1179/1179.pdf ]Standards Committee Report[/url] ?
I have and was quite surprised to learn that the findings were somewhat different to the way it's been reported in the press, principally:
- the original complaint that she housed her parents at our expense was not the case
- the retrospective application of new standards to events that took place many years before contributed to the delay in her responses
- on the key items of "dispute" she took advice from the standards office and followed it
- the element of "fraud" is very much open to interpretation based on the lack of fact and the lack of clarity in what rules were being applied when
What seems to be happening is a bit a witch hunt in which the loudest voices are either wittingly or unwittingly slating someone without actually having looked at the facts of the matter.
I always find it interesting that so many people are happy to brand someone they've never met a thief, liar or dishonest as most people wouldn't generally act this way in person... the fact that we use "social media" doesn't alter the need to act courteously or objectively or recognise there's a real person and family on the receiving end of the death threats and other things that are apparently now taking place.
i see a certain wannabe MP is having a public meeting in millers constituency this afternoon
[img] 
[/img]
I would do the same, if it was legal and above board.Wouldn't you ?
I commend your honesty but i wont be voting for you....perhaps use this as your slogan
Vote for me ...I would if i could get away with it 😉
An MP so bent that all the other MPs noticed.
Nicely summed up
Vote for me ...I would if i could get away with it
🙂
Has anyone else read the Standards Committee Report ?
I thought it was widely accepted that the Standards Committee Report was discredited ?
The Daily Telegraph which isn't noted for its "witch hunt", as you like to call it, against senior Tory politicians, certainly is of that opinion. And they are not alone.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/conservative-mps-expenses/10743455/Maria-Miller-expenses-report-MPs-conspired-to-save-Culture-Secretary.html ]Maria Miller expenses report: MPs conspired to save Culture Secretary[/url]
[i][b]Maria Miller has escaped serious censure and avoided repaying more than £40,000 after a committee of MPs overruled an official inquiry into her expenses claims. [/i][/b]
How is it above board to "redesignate" her parents home as her main home ?
From how I understand it, with regards to the CGT element, she worked within the current Tax Regulations.
So it was Legal and above board. She didn't do anything she shouldn't.
I commend your honesty but i wont be voting for you....perhaps use this as your slogan
Vote for me ...I would if i could get away with it
Or how about,
"I adhere to the current Tax Regulations, do you ?"
😉
Why aren't they forced to rent accommodation like everyone else? Why should MPs get a second home paid for by us and then be allowed to make eye watering profits on it?
I have never heard a good argument against this. Seems such a logical thing to do.
To shed some light on why it was reduced to 5 grand, you need to look at the track record on expenses of the people on the 'standards committee'
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/06/mps-expenses-maria-miller-row-scrutiny ]MPs on standards committee face scrutiny over expenses amid Miller row[/url]
They close ranks because they're all bloody at it, and its just a case of who gets caught out next. When you look more closely at it, this supposedly 'independent' new system looks as toothless and ineffective as the one it replaced.
So it was Legal and above board. She didn't do anything she shouldn't.
Except possibly lying ?
I repeat, do you think she really did start using her parents home as her main home whereas previously it hadn't been ?
[img] 
[/img]
I think binners guardian piece is very relevant that 90% reduction is teh joke
same day there was a similar story about a woman claiming benefits fraudulently to the tune of 50k, she is awaiting sentencing butbeen told to expect jailtime
the problem is after the expenses scandal MPs had to pay back millions and yet only a couple of sacraficial lambs got sent down
i think we should provide them with a flat on HB and then penalise them via the bedroom tax if it has more than one bedroom ....none of them had extra rooms in their homes did they...the thieving bastards
What we need is someone called Guy Fawkes to sort this out once and for all....
Except possibly lying ?
I repeat, do you think she really did start using her parents home as her main home whereas previously it hadn't been ?
She doesn't need to.
She just needs to designate it as her PPR (for as little as a week) for it to have an effect on Tax liability.
(Funny picture by the way, but no. Not gullible, I just understand the regulations 😉 )
She just needs to designate it
I think you'll find that for it to be "above board" it needs to be based on truth.
What Miller did was not above board. Despite your claim. At least that's how the overwhelming majority of the population sees it.
