Rob W 0 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 You have to laugh - all that posturing about security and good behaviour and she's fiddling her expenses so her hubby can sit at home and enjoy himself (if you get my meaning)............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5950 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think its a big stink about nowt. She obviously didnt realise her husband had ordered the films and just whacked the hotel room on the expenses as usual. The people calling for her resignation over £10 need to get a life tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think its a big stink about nowt. She obviously didnt realise her husband had ordered the films and just whacked the hotel room on the expenses as usual. The people calling for her resignation over £10 need to get a life tbh Its a bit more than that tbh. my understanding is that an mp can claim expenses only if they are exclusively used in their role as mp. claiming expenses for watching virgintv (or sky) is not what it was meant for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5950 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Its already been established she didnt realise her husband had ordered 'extras' with the room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Its already been established she didnt realise her husband had ordered 'extras' with the room It wasn't in a hotel room was it? It was in her "second home" expenses (i.e. the place she, her husband and kids live), so I assume she claimed for the entire bill as "internet expenses" and NTL being NTL that included, phone, TV package and TV premium payments for films and such. What's interesting in not that her husband watched a couple of porn movies, but the things MPs manager to claim for...... and how they basically routinely go as close to breaking the rule as they can (and thing nothing of breaking the spirit of the rules, so long as the technicality of the rules aren't breached - or it can't be proven anyway). Which is one thing in say an ICI manager (although ironically in private industry or the civil service you'd not get away with what MPs do), but these people are supposed to be running the country and are basically institutionally corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Its already been established she didnt realise her husband had ordered 'extras' with the room Wasn't even in a hotel room man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 He probably only watched the first five minutes of them as well just to make matters worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 He probably only watched the first five minutes of them as well just to make matters worse. Only a 5 minute segment anyway. Proper joke how much she's claimed on her 'second home' btw. Her 'main residence' being a room she rents at her sister's place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 He probably only watched the first five minutes of them as well just to make matters worse. Only a 5 minute segment anyway. Proper joke how much she's claimed on her 'second home' btw. Her 'main residence' being a room she rents at her sister's place. Aye, her main residence that her sister owns and that she spends 1-2 nights at a week (until she finishes re-writing her political diaries anyway, then it will magically always have been 3-4 nights a week ). She claimed (in her "second home") for an 88p bath plug though, which just goes to show the extent of their money grubbing (and again goes back to the point that these are the people trusted to run the country). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26550 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Give them a set amount they can claim for their 'second homes', dependent on where in the country they are. Then let them try and work within a budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Give them a set amount they can claim for their 'second homes', dependent on where in the country they are. Then let them try and work within a budget. Just letting expenses be fully open and transparent would do the trick (as this shows) - of course MPs are utterly -ing themselves over that. Expenses systems always lead to corruption, unless the people claiming are utterly scared of the consequences of anything that isn't fully above board and know there is complete oversight into their expenses claims. The current system is institutional corruption, and is currently positively encouraged within Westminster. Take Smith, she's already paying her husband £40,000 a year to work for her (does he do £40,000 worth of "work" - be interesting to see), before you get into the other issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The solution is to pay them more, remuneration in line with responsibility properly benchmarked, has worked for decades in the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The solution is to pay them more, remuneration in line with responsibility properly benchmarked, has worked for decades in the private sector. Only if they're over 40 years old. It gets on my tits a wee bitty when we get these youngsters becoming career MP's and have little or no knowledge of the 'real' world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26550 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The solution is to pay them more, remuneration in line with responsibility properly benchmarked, has worked for decades in the private sector. There are still plenty of well-paid private sector employees fiddling their expenses though. It's just the nature of expenses, no matter how much some people are paid they will always try to get that little bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 1. Claiming a TV subscription is wrong imo. 2. Employing family members as "researchers" or whatever the job title fiddle is is wrong. 3. the second home thing is wrong. 4. The husband of a home secretary who has an over-zealous anti-porn agenda being caught watching some (however tame) is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3986 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 There are still plenty of well-paid private sector employees fiddling their expenses though. It's just the nature of expenses, no matter how much some people are paid they will always try to get that little bit more. Not many companies would overlook a claim involving adult films though. (I know its not real porn but the point stands) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26550 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 There are still plenty of well-paid private sector employees fiddling their expenses though. It's just the nature of expenses, no matter how much some people are paid they will always try to get that little bit more. Not many companies would overlook a claim involving adult films though. (I know its not real porn but the point stands) You'd be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 There are still plenty of well-paid private sector employees fiddling their expenses though. It's just the nature of expenses, no matter how much some people are paid they will always try to get that little bit more. Not many companies would overlook a claim involving adult films though. (I know its not real porn but the point stands) You'd be surprised. I got away with it once, said that instead of going out for dinner with colleagues i stayed in the hotel room, had room service and watched a film. Gave new meaning to the phrase 'corporate wanker'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The solution is to pay them more, remuneration in line with responsibility properly benchmarked, has worked for decades in the private sector. Yup luring yet more greed into the Government and Parliament is clearly the way forward (it's worked so very well in the banking and financial sector after all ). Maybe just appoint officially Mandelson as Grand High Poobah for Life (unelected, of course) and allow him to officially sell ministerial posts to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yes, comparing the banking sector to politics really works as an analogy fop. Just pay them more and stop them from claiming stupid expenses. The 'expense' system that politicians have is built into their remuneration package, probably as its tax efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yes, comparing the banking sector to politics really works as an analogy fop. Just pay them more and stop them from claiming stupid expenses. The 'expense' system that politicians have is built into their remuneration package, probably as its tax efficient. You're right, it is probably a little unfair on the banking sector. The problem is that there would never just be a "fixed wage" (no matter how high), there'd still be an expenses system and it would still be fiddled. The only solution is to have a thoroughly public and transparent system in the first place and then work from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 What's amusing about this is that the MPs have created the black market themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 What's amusing about this is that the MPs have created the black market themselves. It should be fully available to the public in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now