'Official' expenses documents published but heavily censored.

[Gromit]

After the Daily Telegraph leaked details of MPs expenses, the House of Commons has published the official documents into the public domain.

However, the official documents are heavily censored and details about flipping, claiming for paid up mortgages, moat cleaning and Duck Houses do not appear.

In short, they have been covered up. If it wasn't for the Telegraph we would have never known.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps -expenses/5565710/MPs-expenses-published-by-Pa rliament-with-key-details-removed.html

What is the point in censoring information that has been in the papers for weeks?

[sqad617]

What is the "big deal?"...Fiddling expenses is a national pastime in the UK and it will continue as before.

[Gromit]

sqad617

The question is not about expenses, it is about censoring information we already know - why do it?

[jno]

I've grumbled about the Telegraph's use of stolen information on another thread, but unfortunately Parliament seems determined to justify the Telegraph's actions by demonstrating that it cannot be trusted to police itself or act transparently.

I imagine the actual reason is that they've been working on preparing this information (a very big task, by the look of it, with endless Tesco's receipts and so on) for months, long before the story broke. It would have taken them even longer to go back and uncensor it all.

[123everton]

Although we don't know which expense relates to which property we do know the names of the M.Ps concerned, all the press has to do is ask.

[Julnar]

I have long despaired at the lack of transparency in matters governmental in Britain and this is another example of releasing the bare minimum of information. Many of the scams detected by the Telegraph would not be brought to light using these censored documents and I believe this once again shows the contempt Parliament has for the electorate.

[paraffin]

God bless the Daily Telegraph, that's what I say.

[jake-the-peg]

I think you'll find the argument is that it would be a security issue to publish the home addresses of MPs

Indeed remembering that Fred Goodwin Scuttled off abroaard after his house waas attacked I can see the argument.

In this case though a lot of this information is already in the public domain after the Telegraph published it.

So there appears to be nothing to stop it being published here.

I imagine they are concerned about setting a precident. That if the home address details of MPs were published now they might have to do so in future.

Perhaps we could get the home address details of a certain pair of newly elected MEPs for the North of England.

What's the worst that could happen?

[Rollo]

Here's some addresses:

http://www.northwestvotes.gov.uk/download/9/st atement_of_parties_and_individual_candidates_n ominated_and_notice_of_poll

[Twenty20]

I thought the addresses of MPs, Councillors etc was given automatically when they were standing for election? Probably not on a national level because no one is interested but certainly locally. It seems a bit daft to claim its for security reasons to blank out the address later.

I can understand bank and credit card details being withheld but blanking out the addresses of second (and flipped) homes just seems like a cover up.

[Gromit]

It looks like a lot more than addresses have been dedacted. The Daily Mail has some documents relating to the Party leaders, and a lot more than just addresses are blanked out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-119382 3/Blackout-MPs-expenses-finally-public-online- -key-details-removed.html

[anotheoldgit]

You can always depend on the Daily Mail to cover a story in depth Gromit.

THE KEY DETAILS THEY WERE ALLOWED TO REMOVE

* Residential addresses
* Regular travel arrangements
* Identity of anyone who delivers goods or provides services at their homes
* Costs of security arrangements
* Names of hotels / guest houses used
* Correspondence or advice letters to or from Department of Resources/ DFA
* Manuscript additions to forms, receipts etc made by Commons staff
* Dates and times on till receipts where the name of the supplier is included
* Bank and credit card statements (with special rules for mortgages and rent)
* Itemised parts of telephone bills listing calls to individual numbers
* Personal items on till receipts and invoices for which no claim has been made
* Misfiled pages relating to another Member
* Names and addresses and other details of staff if claiming for their expenses
* Other information not central to the purpose of the claim or which could aid identity fraud including: personal phone numbers and other contact details, barcodes, bank / Giro details, photocopies of cheques, cost centres and departmental identification numbers, personal data of third parties (excluding the name of mortgagees, chargees or landlords), account, invoice, delivery, order, NI or reference numbers, signatures

[Bobbisox]

Gromit I apoligise, should have looked further down and read you thread