Commons loses MPs expenses fight

Prepare to be properly disgusted folks. The slithering, slimey slugs in Parliament have lost their High Court battle to keep their trough-snouting out of the public eye!

It's a great day for justice, and an even better one for democracy. We finally get to see exactly what the term "One rule for us, and another for everyone else" means, plus "they shall eat cake".

Beeb

Yet another bill for us tax-payers:

Of course, as we all now know, the oiks have got around this sticky problem by giving themselves a second pay rise in 6 months, I think, totalling another 15% for the second rise, which more than covers what they would like to hide from the 'expenses' gravy train.

Does anyone know the total percentage of pay increases they've awarded themselves this year, and what this comes to in figures?

 

The Commons has until 1200 BST on Tuesday to appeal.

Here we go again, another £100K of taxpayers money

 

Does that mean they'll pay the taxpayers back all the lawyers' fees they've spent pursuing this ridiculous case?

Darling wouldn't have to borrow nearly so much if his mates weren't so cavalier with our money!

 

Good...let's see a few career politicians embarrassed - if that is in fact possible?

 

We have the AFPS at our gaff soon, I'm going to ask them why, as we are both public servants they get their tv license paid for their
London shagging pad but we get hounded to pay despite the fact
I pay at home! The squirming answer will be good.

 

Click here for full story.

Hmmmmmmmmm, obstruction or accident? You decide...

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse or defence , if , as reported , Bliars expenses were shredded then he is ultimately responsible and should go down for it same as any of us would

 

Surely shredding just means the paper copies. Nothing is generated nowadays without it being on a hard drive, in a database, and available for re-production if necessary.

 

Do they not come under tax office rules that state they have to keep all this paperwork for 6 years?

If so, have they not broken the law?

As pointed out - the commons office who honoured these receipts must have copies of that information, or has that also conveniently been destroyed . . .

 

Hi

Anyone catch the Politics show on Sunday morning I have to say I don’t normally watch as it forces me to confront issues which I can do nothing about (well legally anyway) and therefore causes extreme frustration.

However I was at YM seniors abode and we were engage in the usual game, YM snr whinging about tax on pensions and me gently pointing out that you voted for this bunch of self-serving scumbags.

On to the main point, Harriet Harmam at her patronizing best stating that it was hardly in the public interest from an economic stand point to scrutinise MP expenses. This coming from an administration which once queried why the M6 toll appeared TWICE on my return !!!

Also very well done to the interviewer, (apologies didn’t catch his name) when he caught her out on the Crewe and Nantwich campaign, rubbishing the other candidate as a toff when she is the daughter of an Earl or similar and Dunwoodey Jnr lives in and £ 800 K house in Wales (is that possible ?).

Having said that, none of this obviously hypocritical behaviour concerned her for one minute.

YM

 

According to mad_mac's link on the other thread they are only kept for three years.

 

Hang on: Tony Blair's final year in office was June 2006 to June 2007. So even under the three year rule, something dodgy is going on...

 

Hurrah for judicial independence!

I hope the corrupt bastards (MPs, not Judges) get shown for the greedy, useless scum that they are.

Remember, the Judge pointed out that the MPs arguments against disclosure were bogus, and noted that some MPs were claiming for, among other things, non-existent addresses.



#*@$^%#$

 

Our politicians seem bent on trying to alienate their electorage completely.Their ''allowances'' seem to have been built up in conditions of great secrecy.Democracy at work? Maybe UK MPs should stop lecturing others on the D word,when they cannot act in such a way themselves.