Thanks for clearing that up.

[Drewster]

Now re-read my post...

It doesn't absolve responsibility on the MPs who were blatently playing the system,

an edited section of my post taken out of context. My original post actually included the word BUT and some weasly words attempting to provide justification for the thieving b'stards

but I think some at least were genuinely following advice from people they thought knew best.

[RichardCranium]

Im reminded of Ken Livingstone's novel - 'If voting changed anything then they would abolish it. '

I bet the ex-Mayor is chewing those words now...

[d000hg]

Claiming for a mortgage or a house you haven't got is fraudulent. No "ifs" or "buts"!

Now re-read my post...

It doesn't absolve responsibility on the MPs who were blatently playing the system...

[Amiga500]

It's akin to dipping your hand in a collection box and saying there were no rules saying you couldn't take money out.

You do that too?

[The Lone Gunman]

Not quite, several people have said they were advised to claim full amounts regardless... "it's just part of your salary". I'm sure many of us have been in situations where employers have done things in that way to avoid paperwork. It doesn't absolve responsibility on the MPs who were blatently playing the system, but I think some at least were genuinely following advice from people they thought knew best.

simple reading of "The Green Book" tells you how wrong Cameron (and the rest) is and how wrong your statement is.

The book states that the individual MP is responsible for the validity of any claim.

The book states that claims must be in order to enable the MP to carry out their parliamentry duties.

The book states that claims must be reasonable and not likely to damage the reputation of Parliament.

Aside from the fact that they can claim all sorts we can not they are still managing to claim for things they should not and are interpreting "enableing them to carry out their duties" in a much looser way than HMRC interprets "wholey and exclusively for work" for us.

This "I have not broken the rules" mantra is bollocks. Most of them have broken the rules and have certainly ignored the guidance. If they think their claims would not damage the reputatuíon of Parliament then they are patently not competent to be an MP. The public are outraged and Parliaments reputation will take years to restore.

[dang65]

Quite apart from the MPs making these dubious expenses claims, I'm surprised that more attention hasn't been focused on the Claims Office. They seem to have cleared pretty much anything that was passed through them, without question. Maybe it was just a couple of temps sitting at a shared desk and just entering the claims into a spreadsheet and paying out the cash, but it seems to me that that is the real weak point in the system.

It's the thought that someone might query your claim which stops most people from trying anything dodgy, I would have thought. If you know that nothing is going to be questioned then it must be very easy to get "a little carried away" shall we say.

[DimPrawn]

You could say the same about IR35. But when you get caught, you don't get to just hand the money back. No, you get forked over.

[Churchill]

Not quite, several people have said they were advised to claim full amounts regardless... "it's just part of your salary". I'm sure many of us have been in situations where employers have done things in that way to avoid paperwork. It doesn't absolve responsibility on the MPs who were blatently playing the system, but I think some at least were genuinely following advice from people they thought knew best.

Claiming for a mortgage or a house you haven't got is fraudulent. No "ifs" or "buts"!

[d000hg]

It's akin to dipping your hand in a collection box and saying there were no rules saying you couldn't take money out.

Not quite, several people have said they were advised to claim full amounts regardless... "it's just part of your salary". I'm sure many of us have been in situations where employers have done things in that way to avoid paperwork. It doesn't absolve responsibility on the MPs who were blatently playing the system, but I think some at least were genuinely following advice from people they thought knew best.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Im reminded of Ken Livingstone's novel - 'If voting changed anything then they would abolish it. '

[DimPrawn]

It's akin to dipping your hand in a collection box and saying there were no rules saying you couldn't take money out.

[wobbegong]

Speaking later at Imperial College, London, Mr Cameron said: "This is not about MPs who have broken the rules. We all know the rules weren't good enough.

So contrary to what we all thought, it's not a case of dishonest, theiving, cheating M.P's, it's the "rules" that are at fault!

All blame is hereby absolved. Those nice upstanding ladies and gentlemen were simply victims, yes victims, of a set of rules designed to ensnare them.

WTF happened to knowing the difference between right and wrong, between honesty and dishonesty?

Quite frankly, with woolly-minded ill-thought out bollox like that, the next election is as good as Labours'.