• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Ministers' Expenses: This is Beyond a Joke

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Of course you wont find a squeaky clean MP. Labour know they are going to lose next year so are lining their pockets now.
    What about this chap?

    Meet Westminster's cheapest MP: Philip Hollobone
    While the average MP claims £135,600 a year in expenses, Mr Hollobone claims £44,551.

    Mr Hollobone does not have a PA. He does not have a research assistant and he does not have a diary secretary.

    Whilst most MPs have a small army of helpers, paid for by the taxpayer, Mr Hollobone takes the view that he should work a bit harder himself and save the taxpayer some money.

    He goes to all sorts of other lengths to be good value too. He travels second class – MPs are entitled to travel first and do – he uses second class stamps, he refuses to pay his wife to help him like so many of his Tory colleagues because "that would not be right".

    His philosophy is simple: "I have tried to keep my expenses low, it's taxpayer's money. It has to be accounted for properly."

    His fastidious quest for value is laudable but I can't help wonder how it is to be spread to other MPs. Are there any signs of colleagues taking it up? "I doubt it," he says.

    Comment


      #22
      Morally and institutionally corrupt b****rds, I cannot wait to place my vote in the ballot box in 13 months time.

      "It's within the rules"... if the rules said it was ok to murder people would they do that too?.. sackless t**ts should be forced to pay it back with interest, just like anyone outside their little club would be made to do.
      The cycle of life: born > learn > work > learn > dead.

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by chris79 View Post
        Morally and institutionally corrupt b****rds, I cannot wait to place my vote in the ballot box in 13 months time.

        "It's within the rules"... if the rules said it was ok to murder people would they do that too?.. sackless t**ts should be forced to pay it back with interest, just like anyone outside their little club would be made to do.
        Sadly members of all parties exploit the expenses rules, it doesn't matter who you vote for whatever party forms a Government this particular piece of waste will continue.

        The grim and hopeless fact is that it's our entire political system that's morally and institutionally corrupt.

        Comment


          #24
          Looks like there all on the take...

          Greedy Bast*rds


          " Chancellor Alistair Darling has become the latest in a line of ministers to be drawn into the row over MPs' expenses, over claims made for a second home.

          While living in 11 Downing Street rent free the chancellor claimed second home allowances for his Edinburgh home while also renting out his London flat. "
          If at first you don't succeed... skydiving is not for you!

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by centurian View Post
            And I do appreciate people have their principles.

            Maybe I have a negative view of the world, but I find principles are bounded by the situations and scenarios people are in - they sound hard and fast, but they are not immovable objects - it is merely just a case of how much pressure needs to be applied before they get moved - a bit like "code freezes".
            In the end, it is not an easy question. That's why it grabbed my interest. I maintain that it is an important principle of rule of law. You make me ask myself, How far do principles go if sticking to them produces possibly worse evils? Or are the evils of bending principles just less visible?

            Not simple.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by expat View Post
              In the end, it is not an easy question. That's why it grabbed my interest. I maintain that it is an important principle of rule of law. You make me ask myself, How far do principles go if sticking to them produces possibly worse evils? Or are the evils of bending principles just less visible?

              Not simple.
              I have two things to add


              1 Motives
              2 Lesser of two evils
              3 Ends justifying the means



              (\__/)
              (>'.'<)
              ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by chris79 View Post
                Morally and institutionally corrupt b****rds, I cannot wait to place my vote in the ballot box in 13 months time.

                "It's within the rules"... if the rules said it was ok to murder people would they do that too?.. sackless t**ts should be forced to pay it back with interest, just like anyone outside their little club would be made to do.


                ... and what makes it worse is that Blair said Labour would be 'whiter than white'. Labour truly are the worst form of hypocrites.

                ... and ..... Broon passed a law to make expenses tax free for MPs in 2003 !!!!!!!!

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
                  I have two things to add


                  1 Motives
                  2 Lesser of two evils
                  3 Ends justifying the means



                  The three rules of crime: Means, Motive and Opportunity.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by TheBigD View Post
                    Greedy Bast*rds


                    " Chancellor Alistair Darling has become the latest in a line of ministers to be drawn into the row over MPs' expenses, over claims made for a second home.

                    While living in 11 Downing Street rent free the chancellor claimed second home allowances for his Edinburgh home while also renting out his London flat. "
                    A. He is making income from his London flat.
                    B. Receiving benefit in kind (11 Downing St.) which allows (A)
                    C. Claiming expenses on 3rd residence, despite A&B

                    I'm no expert but that looks dodgy to me, especially the benefit in kind.
                    State within a state.
                    Bored.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Originally posted by ace00 View Post
                      A. He is making income from his London flat.
                      B. Receiving benefit in kind (11 Downing St.) which allows (A)
                      C. Claiming expenses on 3rd residence, despite A&B

                      I'm no expert but that looks dodgy to me, especially the benefit in kind.
                      State within a state.

                      Benefit in kind is not taxable for MPs.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X