Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    17-02-2012 @ 04:10 PM
    Posts
    1,304

    Our Wonderfull Representatives

    It was no surprise reading in the Telegraph (UK) that MPs are a fiddling set of Tossers

    What is interesting is who claimed what eg Francis Maud claiming 35 grand GBP for a flat only doors away from one he owns . One claiming 7500 for gardening services, and our dear Gordon claiming 10 grand for laundry cleaning, ( why claim for this when no matter where you live you need your clothes cleaning)

    The committee that oversees the expenses says that they are within the rules,
    I think the committee might have a vested interest in saying this !

    All this on top of the ridiculas pensions (indexed linked for life) that these cretins receive when retired,

    European MPs are even worse,

    So why do we tolerate it,

  2. #2
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    17-02-2012 @ 04:10 PM
    Posts
    1,304
    An update on this story

    These revelations are fun!

    It seems that at least half of these Slimeballs have claimed expenses that are in reality THEFT!

    One, Elliot Morley claimed 12,000GBP for a mortgage that he did not have, he said he did not realise that fact!!!!, oh really

    Another has returned 35,000GBP .

    If you or I got caught doing such scams we would have our collar felt.

    So all those fined or imprisoned for Benefit frauds should be reimbursed or released

    The likelyhood of the Numbnuts being charged is very unlikely

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by TSR2
    claimed 12,000GBP for a mortgage that he did not have, he said he did not realise that fact!!!!
    When you are rolling around in wads of 50 notes, it's so easy to forget that little pile of tenners under the bed!

  4. #4
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    17-02-2012 @ 04:10 PM
    Posts
    1,304
    WE on this Forum like to criticise Thailand for being corrupt, people in glass houses springs to mind

    The big Yin (Billy Connolly) made an excellant observation years ago

    Anyone wanting to be a Politician is enough reason to disqualify them from doing so!!

  5. #5
    Banned for deleting Gallery
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    2,671
    They are now, some of them at least, paying the cash back. Makes single mums fiddling the SS by doing a cleaning job paragons of honesty. The speaker has claimed thousands for trips to watch football, a tory money to clean his moat, while the mail reports today of a millionaire member charging the taxpayer for his groceries. You can see the funny side when the home secretary claimed for her husbands porn DVD's but really why DO we put up with these freeloading scumbags.

  6. #6
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    17-02-2012 @ 04:10 PM
    Posts
    1,304
    Quote Originally Posted by crazy dog
    but really why DO we put up with these freeloading scumbags.
    Because we are apathetic including me,

    That,s because we think that we can change nothing.

    Good Honest Men prepared to be our leaders are not applying.

    We need a Revolution in our thinking and actions

  7. #7
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 06:22 AM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    28,687
    Here's a look at some of the perks. Of course these arseholes think it's their birthright.
    What did taxpayers buy senior MPs? | Politics | guardian.co.uk
    Look at these twats would you.
    offering to change law for money

    • Lords Truscott and Taylor could be first to be barred since 1642
    • Lords Moonie and Snape cleared but ordered to apologise
    Lord Truscott and Lord Taylor: guilty. Photograph: PA

    Two Labour peers face suspension from the House of Lords until the autumn after being found guilty of offering to try to change the law in return for money.
    An investigation into the so-called "cash for amendments" affair published today concluded that Lord Truscott, a former energy minister, and Lord Taylor of Blackburn broke Lords rules saying that peers must "always act on their personal honour".
    According to Lords officials, the last individual to be suspended from the upper house was Viscount Savile, who was banned by parliamentarians in 1642 for siding with King Charles I.
    Two other Labour peers implicated in the affair, the former MPs Lord Moonie and Lord Snape, have been cleared of any wrongdoing but have been ordered to apologise to the Lords for "inappropriate" conduct.
    The Lords is expected to approve the punishments, which are recommended in a report by the committee for privileges, next week.
    A Labour spokesman said Taylor had been suspended from the party on publication of the report and Truscott had resigned from the party within the last few days.
    It had been thought that the Lords did not have the power to suspend peers, but an internal inquiry running alongside the "cash for amendments" investigation concluded that the Lords did have the right to suspend its members until the end of the current session of parliament.
    Any punishment that was more severe would interfere with the right peers have to attend the start of each new session of parliament as a result of receiving a writ of summons from the Queen, the review concluded.
    The investigation was triggered by a report in the Sunday Times in January which alleged that all four peers had told undercover reporters posing as lobbyists that they were willing to try to amend a bill in return for money.
    Truscott and Taylor both told the paper that they had in the past been able to change legislation on behalf of a client, but today's report concluded that this had not happened and that both men were exaggerating to impress the reporters.
    Taylor suggested to the Sunday Times that he ought to be paid up to 10,000 a month for his services, telling the paper he would work within the rules but that "the rules are meant to be bent sometimes".
    Later, he claimed that he knew he was being set up and was trying to trap the journalists, but the committee rejected this explanation.
    The subcommittee on lords' interests, which investigated the four cases in detail before submitting its findings to the main committee for privileges, said Taylor displayed a "clear willingness" to breach the Lords code of conduct.
    The code bans peers from accepting any financial inducement as a reward for exercising parliamentary influence.
    It also criticised him for telling the Sunday Times that he had helped to change the law for a client in the past.
    "There can be no good reason for Lord Taylor deceiving the journalists about his behaviour in parliament," the subcommittee, whose members include former MI5 chief Lady Manningham-Buller and former lord chancellor Lord Irvine, ruled.Truscott, a former MEP, told the Sunday Times he had helped an energy company to amend the law in the past.
    He discussed a 72,000 a year fee with the paper, and said he would have to be a "bit careful" and that he would not be tabling amendments personally.
    The subcommittee said the evidence against him was "so clear and plentiful that we have little doubt that Lord Truscott was advertising his power and his willingness to influence parliament in return for substantial financial inducement".
    Truscott, like Taylor and Snape, appealed to the main committee for privileges against the subcommittee's findings. He claimed they were "outrageous and slanderous".
    But the 16-member main committee, whose membership includes Lady Royall, the leader of the Lords, and Lord Strathclyde, the Tory leader in the Lords, rejected his appeal.Snape, a former Commons whip, discussed a fee of up to 24,000 a year with the Sunday Times.
    He defended his conduct on the grounds that he personally agreed with the proposed amendment and was, therefore, not breaking the rules.
    The subcommittee rejected this, saying: "We find that Lord Snape expressed a clear willingness to breach the code of conduct."
    But the main committee concluded "on the balance of the probabilities" that Snape had not broken the rules.
    Moonie, a former defence minister in the Commons, told the undercover reporters he would not break the rules, which he said were "made up as they go along".
    He was cleared of breaking the rules, but the main committee said he should apologise for his "inappropriate" comments.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •