Cafferysmum Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Well it just gets better and better doesnt it this week... been in hosital and glued to the news, nowt else to do... the amount of politicians taking the mickey is getting longer and longer, bet they are all quivering in their boots now... manure for garden swimming pool 16k for non existent mortgage all these are of course over sights, yeah and im mickey mouse... if that had been you or me we would have been dragged down to court....do you think they should face criminal prosecution of deception and how many years has this gone on for... Changing to be an mp... dont have to work but will claim expenses only.... Seems to be one rule for one and not the other, if this had been a person who had submitted false accounts to tax office they would have been slapped and fined.. all they seem to be getting so far is a telling off... As for handing money back... bit poor, the offence has already been committed and its only cause they have been found out... i think they need to bring in the investigators and see how longs its been going on for and what they have claimed for... What do you think of it all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtle Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) The majority haven't offended as the rules for what they could claim were so loose they could submit them and they were approved. They don't seem to have the tight rules that companies abide my!! Edited May 18, 2009 by murtle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrier Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) It's silly, but it seems that most of them were working within the rules. TBH if my employer allowed me to claim for a second home, window cleaner etc - I would. Perhaps I'll put in a claim for a dog-walker on expenses, see how far I get... The problem is more the system that allows politicians to make such claims and have them approved. However, those claims such as for a mortgage that has already been paid. Yeah, pull the other one. Finding a loophole that allows you to make these claims legally is one thing, claiming huge sums of money for a non-existent mortgage looks to me like deliberate fraud. I have to wonder how they relate to their constituents if £16,000 can be claimed "accidentally" and them not notice. For those who made legitimate (albeit excessive) claims, I think handing the money back is acceptable. For those who made spurious claims and just pocketed the cash - I'd hope to see them in court. Edited May 19, 2009 by Terrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrier Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090519/video/...zi-49bfa63.html Claims for travel expenses, fine. £19,000 on FOOD??? Without a receipt?? Apparently that's not excessive. I wonder how many of the people who voted him into office earn that in a year. I don't. More worrying IMO is the fees office helping Dawn Butler to cover up her claim for too much rent. Edited May 19, 2009 by Terrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 To me the lot of them are a disgrace to their office - within the rules or not. Common sense alone should have told them these sort of claims were not going to be acceptable if they ever "came out". Whilst some of them may need a second home I'd be interested to know how much time is being spent in each & whether a hotel would be an option for some of them. Even those that do need a 2nd home don't need a moat, thousands of pounds worth of plants, 19k in food, to claim for a toblerone etc etc. As for claiming for a mortgage that they've already paid off & then blaming the system it's just beyond belief & i.m.o. he should be hauled into a police station asap for proper investigation of possible deception / fraud charges. The only question come the next election would appear to be whether you'd like to be shafted just a little or completely as none of them appear to be as interested in us as they are in themselves to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) If they have claimed within the rules then technically they have not broken the law. Ethically however is a different matter... If they have claimed for non-existent items or claimed for them more than once, that's obtaining money by deception and they should be prosecuted as any other common criminal would be. Gorbals Mick is apparently going to resign at the start of session this afternoon. Good riddance I say The best way around it as far as I can see is to house them in purpose built apartment blocks close to Parliament, rent free for as long as they are an MP. They should pay for their own food etc but heating, etc should be paid for. It will also permit increased security if they are all housed in one place. Should they choose not to take up the offer of a free apartment, then they pay their own costs. Simples. ETA : They should only have this benefit if they live further than x miles from Parliament. If they are London based already, then why would they need to claim? Edited May 19, 2009 by merledogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carole Stitcher Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 If they have claimed within the rules then technically they have not broken the law. Ethically however is a different matter... If they have claimed for non-existent items or claimed for them more than once, that's obtaining money by deception and they should be prosecuted as any other common criminal would be. Gorbals Mick is apparently going to resign at the start of session this afternoon. Good riddance I say The best way around it as far as I can see is to house them in purpose built apartment blocks close to Parliament, rent free for as long as they are an MP. They should pay for their own food etc but heating, etc should be paid for. It will also permit increased security if they are all housed in one place. Should they choose not to take up the offer of a free apartment, then they pay their own costs. Simples. ETA : They should only have this benefit if they live further than x miles from Parliament. If they are London based already, then why would they need to claim? For once I have nothing more to say This would sort it all out, though perhaps an unused building could be converted into reasonable accommodation rather than purpose building one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kats n greys Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Morally bankrupt sums up my thoughts. Claiming for mortgages that have finished, seem like they forgot Agree with Alex too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranirottie Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 if they knowingly claimed for things that they are not entitled to then it is fraud,plain and simple,so they should be prosecuted the same as any other fraudster or benefit cheat. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrier Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 TBH if my employer allowed me to claim for a second home, window cleaner etc - I would. I've been thinking about this. I have to retract that statement above. I wouldn't have the front to claim for things on expenses that I didn't need for my job. I can't say I'm surprised that some do though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrier Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 TBH if my employer allowed me to claim for a second home, window cleaner etc - I would. I've been thinking about this. I have to retract that statement above. I wouldn't have the front to claim for things on expenses that I didn't need for my job. I can't say I'm surprised that some do though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantan Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 I've been thinking about this. I have to retract that statement above. I wouldn't have the front to claim for things on expenses that I didn't need for my job. I can't say I'm surprised that some do though. I think it's this that has got so many of us riled as we have integrity and a sense of what is morally right. The claims for some of the stuff that some MP's have put in are just amazing - it's tantamount to stealing and bugger whether it is within any so called rules. Who set the rules in the first place anyway? Alex summed it up admirably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 What really pizzes me off is the government cracking down on benefit payments, incapacity and disability allowances (some rightly off course, but also a lot of people treated unfairly) and the whole time some of these ministers have been stuffing their pockets with our money As has been said already, it may have been within the rules but they of all people should have shown some integrity and restraint with the tax payers money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Basically, they were ' allowed' to claim up to a certain amount of money and that is what they did. They treated it as an allowance, not payment for expenses incurred. As a civil servant, if I was away from my home office, I was allowed a fixed day subsistence allowance and any overnight accomodation had to be booked through a specific agency. Why shouldn't MP's be treated the same? MP's get a salary for doing a job. That job includes attending the House of Commons. Those with a government position get a second salary, so why do they need expenses. HMRC do not allow claims for meals as a business expense, as we all have to eat, whether at home or away, so why should MP'S be able to claim for food. What is their salary for? Who set the rules in the first place? THEY DID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts