Question Time

But the difference is that any of those baying mob would be
fired in an instant if they were caught, or face a severe
financial penalty. Just try claiming tax relief in your
yearly returns for something that no longer exists and see
how quickly the Revenue will be hauling you off to court!

The thing that gets me is that every single MP is hiding
behind the "it's within the rules" and "I've done nothing
wrong" statements; they may not have broken any rules per
se, but that doesn't make claiming for an ipod, a Kit Kat
or a 5p Ikea carrier bag within the spirit of those rules.

No wonder most MPs seem to be out of touch; they earn a
decent salary, get to vote for their own pay rises, vote
on their own pension, vote on their own holiday (76 days
off for summer in 2008!) and then chalk everything up on
expenses while claiming the interest payments on a mortgage
that has already been paid off.

 

Indeed, and in no way am I trying to defend the MPs concerned, but they
are doing what a large percentage of the general public do with respect
to expenses and other fiddles. Perhaps not with the same amounts of
money involved, but I'd be interested to see if parliament not only do
something about their own system but decide that it's "in the public
interest" that we all have to follow some stricter code. Meanwhile
Guido's site is as entertaining as ever;

www.order-order.com

 

I'm amazed at how many people in this discussion and on TV/radio keep making
this point. Is it really true that a large percentage of the population are
criminals? It's a very depressing fact if it's true. There are a few people
in the discussion have pointed out that they don't/ wouldn't fiddle expenses
and virtually none who say they do/would.

 

I take your point, but I must have been offered blank receipts by
cabbies dozens of times for example. I didn't take them, but the offer
must have been made because the driver had previously been asked. But at
the other end of the spectrum I wonder if phone calls, pens and other
things used not strictly for the employer's business isn't also a
fiddle. I dunno, I just feel that some of the "hang 'em high" from the
media and others may just be ever so slightly hypocritical. Still Guido
and Private Eye have been publishing tales of "snout in the trough" for
years, so I wonder why it's this month's top topic. Did someone pull a
jurno's string or am I really getting paranoid?

 

But wasnt he involved in double standards with the 'Right to roam' bill?
ISTR he tried to/has stopped anyone walking on his land, when he was the
Minister promoting the Bill to allow access to much formally closed
land.
Same with the Smoking Bill. Banned in all public places, yet still
allowed in the bars in the House.

Along with many others, I have grown completely cynical with almost all
politicians. I really thought Blair was going to make changes for the
better after the 97 election, the first time I had voted Labour, then he
went and took Ecclestones money, and smoking ads were not banned in F1.
Just an unfortunate coincidence they said, it was planned all along that
fag ads in F1 wouldnt be banned. Yeah, right.

Alan.

 

Blank cab receipts are one thing but interest on the mortgage........

Who pays your mortgage? You I would suspect.

This found following the link above.
http://www.conservatives.com/expenses/expensesPopup.html

David Cameron 12/05/2009 Personal Additional Accommodation Allowance
Mortgage interest 1,081.00

No that's taking the piss. I don't have a mortgage because I can't borrow
enough money to buy a house and monkey boy has it down as expenses even
after the scandal has hit the fan like a dinosaur with diarrhoea curling
one off in front of a big arsed jet engine on full chatt

So not only are you paying your mortgage, you are paying for his as well.

 

Well in the absolute they are the same thing. I know that you may say
that there are degrees to this, but surely breaking the rules is
breaking the rules?

But it's not just politicians up to this game. Business men do similar
things and don't have to get elected. I am not defending either, just
confused about why one seems to be the worst kind of scandal and the
other ok if you can get away with it. I know of a large international
consultancy that took accommodation in hotels of around the £100 per day
cost and charged the customer accordingly. Now some of these hotels were
said to be piss poor but the expenses system frowned upon the idea of
B&B-ing in a non approved place, e.g. the pub down the road. What was
alleged was happening at the time was that the hotel chain paid an
amount back to the consultancy. So the customer got charged £100 and the
actual cost to "blog's consultancy" may have only been £70. Is that a
proper thing to do? I am sure that the customer may have been a bit
cross to have found it out. Given a large project I guess they could
have spent DC's mortgage interest in one evening at the bar.

 

I thought it was just a term[1].

[1] Yes, I know, I know, but I couldn't come up with a joke based on a Kiwi
mountaineer[2] at short notice.
[2] Hmm, Benn Junior wouldn't be a year or two younger than me, perhaps?
Ah, spot on, 26/11/1953; Everest was 29/5/1953[3].
[3] And what have we got to remember that, eh? Coronation Chicken!

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

If customer didn't like the arrangement, then customer could tell
supplier to FRO. Customer would at least be aware of the total bill.
Customer has option to challenge said bill. Customer can shop
elsewhere.

Those options are unavailable to "the customer" in the current
situation.

 

Why?

 

I thought that the customer was unaware of the suppliers arrangement,
that was the point.

True, but I don't believe it to be unique.

 

Claiming an £8000 TV as 'a bit daft'?

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

I would believe it to be 'wrong', however I would have expected the
customer to have some kind of governance on what was going on, and where
the contractors were staying.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

It's Steve. I would use the phrase 'stream of consciousness' but I
think his stream dried up a long time ago..

Phil

 

YMV

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 145 2.0 Cloverleaf 156 V6 2.5 S2
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk