ChatterBank18 mins ago
Poison Dwarf
Can anyone find a photograph of Hazel Blears where she's not wearing a self satisfied smirk?
I've searched images on Google and there don't seem to be any.
I've searched images on Google and there don't seem to be any.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ludwig. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The irony of Ms. Blears position is that she placecs herself as a 'grass roots' northerner, while apparently oblviious to the fact that her constituants don't want her anyway!
The notion that MP's think that paying back defrauded public money takes away the crime of fraud in the first place shows how out of touch they are.
I'm off to Tesco to fill a trolley and walk out of the door with it. When they arrest me, I'll claim it was an 'oversight' and give them the goods back.
Problem?
The notion that MP's think that paying back defrauded public money takes away the crime of fraud in the first place shows how out of touch they are.
I'm off to Tesco to fill a trolley and walk out of the door with it. When they arrest me, I'll claim it was an 'oversight' and give them the goods back.
Problem?
andy, not all of this money was obtained fraudulently - in fact very little of it seems to have been. Those who claimed for mortgages they didn't have will, I hope, be explaining themselves to the police. Those who claimed on their moats just seem like ridiculous freeloaders. But most of them just acted within the rules. We have suddenly decided we don't like the rules, which is fair enough; but it's noteworthy that hardly anyone complained about them at the time. Under those circumstances, repaying the money seems a respectable response. I don't like the idea of retrospective law - making something illegal, then prosecuting someone for doing it while it was still legal.
People do sometimes walk out of shops without paying for something, through a genuine oversight - I've done it myself. Honest mistakes do happen. It's nonsense to claim, as some have, that all MPs are equally corrupt. They aren't.
People do sometimes walk out of shops without paying for something, through a genuine oversight - I've done it myself. Honest mistakes do happen. It's nonsense to claim, as some have, that all MPs are equally corrupt. They aren't.
jno - Here are some relevant passages from the rule book governing members expenses.
Quote
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.
Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.
Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others.
unquote
Are you still telling me that most of them acted within the rules? Or are you going to say these are the principles / guidelines / spirit of the rules and not the rules themselves.
This is just a tossy semantic cop out. The text is there in black and white in the rule book. Presumably it's not just for decoration. It's supposed to be adhered to and it clearly wasn't in the vast majority of cases.
Quote
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.
Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.
Individual Members take personal responsibility for all expenses incurred, for making claims and for keeping records, even if the administration of claims is delegated by them to others.
unquote
Are you still telling me that most of them acted within the rules? Or are you going to say these are the principles / guidelines / spirit of the rules and not the rules themselves.
This is just a tossy semantic cop out. The text is there in black and white in the rule book. Presumably it's not just for decoration. It's supposed to be adhered to and it clearly wasn't in the vast majority of cases.
Sack her!! Sack them all!!
I love it when ignorant diddys do the Joe Public thing, "I blame the gumment"
What would you put in its place Joe?
I would abolish the vote for common and uneducated people. This country should be governed from the playing fields of Eton, and the hallowed cloisters of Oxford and Cambridge (especially Magdalene hint hint)
I love it when ignorant diddys do the Joe Public thing, "I blame the gumment"
What would you put in its place Joe?
I would abolish the vote for common and uneducated people. This country should be governed from the playing fields of Eton, and the hallowed cloisters of Oxford and Cambridge (especially Magdalene hint hint)
lynbrown, if the person walks out of the shop with an unpaid item by accident, he or she doesn't expect anyone to pay for it - they just forgot. As I said, I have very occasionally done this myself. Once I realised as soon as I'd left the shop, and went back in and paid. Other times I haven't realised until too late; in which case it was paid for by the shop (which means other shoppers and shareholders). The point is just that I have made perfectly genuine mistakes and not 'expected' anyone else to pay for them.
What's all this about forgetting to pay for things in shops? What utter nonsense. These people haven't forgotten anything. They've purposely filled in forms to claim money for things they aren't entitled to, and sent it to the appropriate 'benefits' office. There is no mistake and there is no excuse. They've been on the fiddle - pure and simple.
ludwig, I think the trouble with the rules/guidelines/whatever they are is that they're meaningless. What on earth is 'above reproach'? Brown's been reproached for something or other every day since he became PM (and before, for that matter). The only thing he could conclude is that he'll never please everyone, and should act according to his own conscience. So have most of them. They don't all have the same conscience as each other, or as any of us - people don't. So you get a range of expenses claims: some have claimed nothing, some have claimed wholly improperly, the rest somewhere in between.
But what's the answer? Tighter limits on spending will be fine for those who already live in London, awkward for those in Aberdeen, and a deterrent for those in expensive towns. I wouldn't want anyone deterred from running for Parliament because it was too expensive.
Tougher monitoring of individual claims? Maybe; it's clearly a problem that MPs basically monitor themselves. But I wouldn't want it delegated to some private company whose only concern is making money for shareholders; that's how you get exam-marking bungles and train crashes.
Any ideas for reforms? I entirely agree that they are needed, but I don't know what they'd be.
But what's the answer? Tighter limits on spending will be fine for those who already live in London, awkward for those in Aberdeen, and a deterrent for those in expensive towns. I wouldn't want anyone deterred from running for Parliament because it was too expensive.
Tougher monitoring of individual claims? Maybe; it's clearly a problem that MPs basically monitor themselves. But I wouldn't want it delegated to some private company whose only concern is making money for shareholders; that's how you get exam-marking bungles and train crashes.
Any ideas for reforms? I entirely agree that they are needed, but I don't know what they'd be.
jno, Unless you are playing with words, which I strongly suspect you are, if you have to ask what 'above reproach' means, then it's no wonder you attempt to defend the indefensible, and that's a sad indictment indeed. Gordon Brown has been reproached when he's done something the public perceive to be dishonest, but in the main he has been 'criticised', and that is something that carries an entirely different meaning. Most of them have indeed acted according to his/her own conscience, but unfortunately that conscience appears to anyone with an ounce of common decency, or a smidgeon of basic morality, to be non-existent. These people have been feathering their own nests - literally - and nothing you can say can detract from that.
Jno - You've questioned what 'above reproach' means. It's clear to me, but fair enough, let's look at two whose meaning seems clearer....
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.
........Is a duck house covered by clause A? Does claiming your sister's bedroom is your main residence satisfy clause B? The answer is obviously no.
In actual fact, if people just stuck to these rules not much would need to change. The fact is that the fees office have been complicit in the systematic fraud because they should have been ensuring these *principles* were adhered to.
Whenever they did reduce or reject claims it seems to have been with a friendly nudge and a wink to say 'look old chap, I'm having to reduce your gardening claim from 20 to 10k because it looks a bit too much like taking the p1ss, and we don't want anything to derail this gravy train we're all on do we now'
By the way, they can call them what they like, but if they're in a rule book and they begin with the phrases 'Members MUST..' and 'claims MUST', then they're rules.
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.
........Is a duck house covered by clause A? Does claiming your sister's bedroom is your main residence satisfy clause B? The answer is obviously no.
In actual fact, if people just stuck to these rules not much would need to change. The fact is that the fees office have been complicit in the systematic fraud because they should have been ensuring these *principles* were adhered to.
Whenever they did reduce or reject claims it seems to have been with a friendly nudge and a wink to say 'look old chap, I'm having to reduce your gardening claim from 20 to 10k because it looks a bit too much like taking the p1ss, and we don't want anything to derail this gravy train we're all on do we now'
By the way, they can call them what they like, but if they're in a rule book and they begin with the phrases 'Members MUST..' and 'claims MUST', then they're rules.
..and another thing, not one of them has had the balls to just say, yes, I was milking the system for all it's worth and we've all been caught with our fingers in the till and it was wrong and I'm sorry.
Instead they just blame 'the system' for their wrongdoing.
David Mitchell summed it up on Have I got News.. last week. We've discovered that the swimming pool is full of p1ss, so they've concluded swimming pools are bad, instead of just admitting that they've all been p1ssing in the swimming pool.
Instead they just blame 'the system' for their wrongdoing.
David Mitchell summed it up on Have I got News.. last week. We've discovered that the swimming pool is full of p1ss, so they've concluded swimming pools are bad, instead of just admitting that they've all been p1ssing in the swimming pool.
"These people have been feathering their own nests - literally - and nothing you can say can detract from that."
What, literally? With actual feathers? ;-)
Seriously, though, I think there's a fairly simple remedy, jno. Make the system transparent. When all this dies down, you'd hope people will recognise that many expenses (however expensive they might be) are essential in MPs' line of work, and in making sure it's not a job that's only feasible for the already wealthy.
Once that happens, I'm sure people will tolerate us picking up the tab. We don't need tighter limits on spending - the current rules (as pointed out by ludwig) are fine. Make the system publicly transparent, and MPs will have to be sure their expense claim meets the guidelines, or they'll be answerable to us. Claims that take the p*ss will be exposed. MPs will think twice before they claim for dog food.
And genuine claims will be accepted. If you're racking up �500 a week travel expenses because you're travelling back and forth between Aberdeen and London to represent your contituents, that's one thing. If you're claiming that amount to commute from Henley, you've got explaining to do. I honestly think that most right-minded people are happy to foot the bill for MPs to do their job.
What, literally? With actual feathers? ;-)
Seriously, though, I think there's a fairly simple remedy, jno. Make the system transparent. When all this dies down, you'd hope people will recognise that many expenses (however expensive they might be) are essential in MPs' line of work, and in making sure it's not a job that's only feasible for the already wealthy.
Once that happens, I'm sure people will tolerate us picking up the tab. We don't need tighter limits on spending - the current rules (as pointed out by ludwig) are fine. Make the system publicly transparent, and MPs will have to be sure their expense claim meets the guidelines, or they'll be answerable to us. Claims that take the p*ss will be exposed. MPs will think twice before they claim for dog food.
And genuine claims will be accepted. If you're racking up �500 a week travel expenses because you're travelling back and forth between Aberdeen and London to represent your contituents, that's one thing. If you're claiming that amount to commute from Henley, you've got explaining to do. I honestly think that most right-minded people are happy to foot the bill for MPs to do their job.
