Most Hypocritical Politician Ever?

[five bellies]

there is no way I can claim for the cost of watching TV, porno or not. What are we doing paying for their TV, its free with a digibox for XXXXX sakes!!!

 

Dan

 

 

IS IT !

[barry luxton]

Just in case anyone thinks it's a bit unfair to castigate her for her husband's activities, just remember that she has, so far, claimed £116,000 in second home allowances. This is a total abuse of the system. The idea is that an MP can keep their family home, since being an MP can be a short term job, and claim for somewhere to live near Westminster. What this odious woman does is rent a room at her sister's house and claim her family home as the "second property", thus maximising what the grubby cow can get out of us taxpayers.

I haven't even mentioned the fact that she pays her husband £40,000 a year as an "advisor". God only knows what advice she needs, certainly not advice on how to screw us for every penny!

The woman is a disgrace.

 

The basis of her expences claim is that she is using her sisters home as her main place of residence while her actual house where hubby and the kids live, i suppose in the country somewhere as the second home, all of the expences for that home she is claiming. Shafting is a better word.

[five bellies]

Turning the arguement on its head Guys if you could legaly claim expenses for a second home knowing the system was poorly thought out and maliable, would you not take advantage of it as a perk, I would have thought this practice has gone on for years, Now it may be the case that this goverment is more greedy than past Incumbants, or it may be just bad luck that owing to the climate someone has done a bit of digging, its also not out of the question that someone is paying back a past favour, as it wasnt that long ago a Conservertive MP was Nicked for leaking information

[Sharkbyte]

Turning the arguement on its head Guys if you could legaly claim expenses for a second home knowing the system was poorly thought out and maliable, would you not take advantage of it as a perk

 

Bringing the argument back into the realms of reality, how many of you, having entered a life of public service, would have manipulated / designed the system to the extent that Jacqui Smith has, to maximise the amount of money one can rob the citizens of this country of, and as Home Secretary, aid an attempted coverup of MP's expense claims?

 

Public servants......self servants!

 

I have infinitely more respect for the stars of the movies Smith's husband gawps over. At least they **** people over with a clean conscience, their full consent, and don't spunk our cash.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Sharkbyte

[five bellies]

Bringing the argument back into the realms of reality, how many of you, having entered a life of public service, would have manipulated / designed the system to the extent that Jacqui Smith has, to maximise the amount of money one can rob the citizens of this country of, and as Home Secretary, aid an attempted coverup of MP's expense claims?

 

Public servants......self servants!

 

 

I have infinitely more respect for the stars of the movies Smith's husband gawps over. At least they **** people over with a clean conscience, their full consent, and don't spunk our cash.

 

My coment was firmly routed in reality, It is human nature to turn a situation to your advantage, unless you are mother Teresa or Ghandi that is. I am no fan of Smith nor most of her coleagues but I do have a realistic understanding of poeple and their frailialties, it was the system that was wrong weak and ill defined. have you never explioted a loophole at work, good on you If you haven't, I my self go looking for them.

 

Could you honistly say you would walk away from an expence package like they have because you find it imoral. chances are you would have a bite of the cherry your self.

 

Moraly she was wrong,most certainly but the system needed little manipulation it was flawed and ill concieved from the begining. and remember someone signs off on them!!

 

politics is a buisness it is the carrier chioce of many, just as some poeple chose to be Bankers and screw you that way instead, If she is proven guilty of wrong doing she will lose her job I fear that the system is so explioted she is the tip of the iceberg it will transpire that she done nothing wrong, the system will be tightend. and then we will trundell on merrily untill the next display of human weakness from polititions a very public Sex scandel proberly!

 

Why should you not respect the stars in the adult film industry? they are just doing a job, and explioting human nature to their advantage, and peoples expense.

[Ken L]

Clearly it's time for a fixed renumeration package for MP's and ministers with no expences.

If they have a constituancy outside London a small set of London rooms could easily be managed by the state for their use when attendinf parliament.

[Bobj]

And then:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2...15875-21248161/

[Ken L]

Turning the arguement on its head Guys if you could legaly claim expenses for a second home knowing the system was poorly thought out and maliable, would you not take advantage of it as a perk, I would have thought this practice has gone on for years, Now it may be the case that this goverment is more greedy than past Incumbants, or it may be just bad luck that owing to the climate someone has done a bit of digging, its also not out of the question that someone is paying back a past favour, as it wasnt that long ago a Conservertive MP was Nicked for leaking information

 

If an expences system is "poorly thought out and maliable", I would expect those lower down the pecking order to take advantage of it as a perk. I would expect those in the boardroom with responsibility for shareholders or tax payers money to fix the system !

[chesters1]

made me laugh on question time the other night a mp with a second home (and no doubt getting any perks on it) was asked how far he had to commute if he didnt have this london home,37 miles he said (rhubarb from the audience) i have to be there on time he said.

just what planet is this guy on? any worker has a set time to arrive (unless its flexi) and many many thousands commute far further everyday do they get second homes (or nice housing portfolio's paid for by the tax payer) no they dont and neither should an MP who knows before he "applies" for the job just whats involved

rather than get rid of the perks and pay them more just get rid of the perks and pay them the same!

if they need to go to london then help with the fares (which is something non government commuters certainly dont get) could be arranged ,and arrange a doorway for them to sleep if an overnight stay is needed!!!

 

i cannot see how this government can put down countries leaders because they are corrupt yet act just like them ,wage war on those that imprison the innocent for years ,torture and kill yet act just like them ,force democracy down peoples throats at the point of a gun (hardly democratic) then act as one of the most undemocratic countries there is.point fingers at regimes with a police state then remove all their own peoples rights to any freedoms

its time our lot cleaned up its act before judging others

Edited April 3, 2009 by chesters1

[ColinW]

I'm entitled to make expenses claims when I go abroad with work. I've never made one yet. I actually enjoy going away for a few days and, since my travel and accommodation is paid for, I'd only be claiming for stuff I'd be buying at home anyway like food and drink. Some people I work with collect receipts for every penny they spend. If I needed a receipt for a kebab I think I'd be looking for another job! It's nothing to do with being "Mother Teresa" it's to do with not having that mentality of milking the system. I've worked with other people who, if asked how many days leave they had left would reply "Five days annual and four days sick" without batting an eyelid. The thing is, when the people we are supposed ???? to look up to behave like Smith does, those lower down the ladder will think that this is acceptable.

It is not.