Commons loses MPs expenses fight

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
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

The House of Commons has lost its High Court battle against a decision to force disclosure of MPs' expenses.

The Commons challenged the Information Tribunal's "unlawfully intrusive" demand that a detailed breakdown of second home allowances must be given.

It also failed to overturn the decision that MPs' addresses could be published.

The Commons must release the details by next Friday. Gordon Brown's spokesman said the PM was "relaxed" about his expenses being published.

But he added that there were security "issues" about giving out MPs' addresses.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, who is not one of the 14 MPs covered by the original Freedom of Information request, said MPs had to be "open and accountable" with public money.

"I am very happy for people to see how I have spent the allowances," he told BBC News.

The Commons has until 1200 BST on Tuesday to appeal.

The Members' Estimates Committee, the body which deals with MPs' pay and allowances, is due to meet beforehand to decide whether to take the case any further.
Yet another bill for us tax-payers:

The Commons authorities have also been ordered to pay at least £33,500 in costs.
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?
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
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!
 
#4
Good...let's see a few career politicians embarrassed - if that is in fact possible?
 
#5
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.
 
#6
Tony Blair's expenses shredded 'by mistake' - just as they were about to be made public
By DANIEL MARTIN

Hundreds of expenses claims by Tony Blair have been shredded, it has emerged.

The claims and receipts, relating to Mr Blair's final year in office, were destroyed even though there was an ongoing legal bid to have them published.

Westminster officials say the documents were destroyed by mistake, as they did not realise they were the subject of a legal challenge.

The revelation came as the Commons authorities were instructed to publish details of all MPs' household expenses by the end of the week.

MPs' expenses average £136,000 - more than twice their annual salaries.

It is already known that Mr Blair claimed £43,029 over a three-year period.But it was not known what the money was spent on.

Court papers have now revealed that files covering claims of Myrobella, his Sedgefield constituency home, were destroyed by Commons officials after they rejected a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Expenses campaigner Norman Baker MP said: "How convenient that some of Tony Blair's expenses have been shredded.

"This is either incompetence or obstruction of the Freedom of Information Act and should be properly investigated."

Earlier this year it was revealed that the former prime minister is not the only MP to destroy his expenses.

Commons Speaker Michael Martin allowed officials to destroy claim forms and receipts up to April 2005 - meaning thousands of expenses have been secretly shredded.

But the authorities said the shredding was simply "routine destruction" - and not a cover up.
Click here for full story.

Hmmmmmmmmm, obstruction or accident? You decide... :roll:
 
#7
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
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
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.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
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 . . .
 
#10
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
 
#11
Biped said:
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 . . .
According to mad_mac's link on the other thread they are only kept for three years.
 
#14
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.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads