Oh dear

#1
I bet they're squirming at the thought of it all coming out.

A businessman offered to sell the details of every expense claim made by MPs over the past five years to The Times for £300,000. Similar approaches have also been made to other national newspapers.

He said that scans of a million receipts claimed as part of MPs’ £24,000 second-home allowance had been “inadvertently” duplicated by the parliamentary authorities.

The businessman, whose company is based in the City, said that he was offering the politically sensitive information because he believed that it was in the public interest. When he made clear that he was expecting money, The Times turned down the offer.

His approach sheds light on the story that has engulfed Westminster after Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, had to apologise for claiming the cost of pornographic films on her Commons expenses.
Sh1tting themselves to claim it's a breach of the the official secrets act.

He said: “It’s probably [a] breach of the Official Secrets Act. It may be a theft, but we will get to the bottom of it. In the public interest, by the way.”
Full story here.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
He said: “It’s probably a breach of the Official Secrets Act. It may be a theft, but we will get to the bottom of it. In the public interest, by the way.”
Indeed. In the public interest of course. Yes Prime Minister.
 
#3
I wondered how the exact details of Jacqui's naughty films got out, as she wouldn't have itemised the claim.

Can you be in breach of the Official Secrets act if you haven't signed it ??
 
#4
RABC said:
Can you be in breach of the Official Secrets act if you haven't signed it ??
Of course you can.

You are in breach of the Road Traffic act if your headlights don't work, but I bet you haven't signed that?

msr
 
#5
RABC said:
I wondered how the exact details of Jacqui's naughty films got out, as she wouldn't have itemised the claim.

Can you be in breach of the Official Secrets act if you haven't signed it ??
Simples. She has to submit the bill and it would be questioned if higher than the normal "monthly rental fee"
 
#6
msr said:
RABC said:
Can you be in breach of the Official Secrets act if you haven't signed it ??
Of course you can.

You are in breach of the Road Traffic act if your headlights don't work, but I bet you haven't signed that?

msr
Sorry - I wasn't being pedantic. Most of us have had to sign it at some stage, so why the need ??
 
#7
I love the righteous indignation expressed by the politicians about someone daring to sell the details of their expenses.

Yeah, cos that's the really criminal bit of the whole story isn't it!?
 
#8
RABC said:
msr said:
RABC said:
Can you be in breach of the Official Secrets act if you haven't signed it ??
Of course you can.

You are in breach of the Road Traffic act if your headlights don't work, but I bet you haven't signed that?

msr
Sorry - I wasn't being pedantic. Most of us have had to sign it at some stage, so why the need ??
I've always thought that too. I think it's kind of a ceremonial thing to remind you of the seriousness of the Act. Or something.
 
#9
LanceBombardEars said:
I love the righteous indignation expressed by the politicians about someone daring to sell the details of their expenses.

Yeah, cos that's the really criminal bit of the whole story isn't it!?
Well yes, in the big picture. Civil/public servants should not leak.
 
#10
Unfortunately for the wanking fist and his cronies, the fact that civil servants shouldnt leak has been through the courts, and been won. If it is in the public interest it is/was deemed acceptable.

Look up Clive Ponting.
 
#11
bobthedog said:
Unfortunately for the wanking fist and his cronies, the fact that civil servants shouldnt leak has been through the courts, and been won. If it is in the public interest it is/was deemed acceptable.

Look up Clive Ponting.
I can understand (just about) principled (as he saw it) stands like Ponting's. Leaking the fact that few films were seen is hardly that. It was clearly political in nature and should be condemned. It just makes a fully political Civil Service more likely and that is not to be welcomed.
 
#13
How taxpayers money is spent on MP's expenses is in the public interest, particularly in a recession. If Smith and her cronies weren't doing immoral house buying and misusing their positions to make personal gains there would have been no story. She claimed taxpayers money for her husbands masturbatory habits, that is in the public interest. The fact she paid it back makes no difference to me, she claimed it - that is the offence and she should stand down for it.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
ashie said:
bobthedog said:
Unfortunately for the wanking fist and his cronies, the fact that civil servants shouldnt leak has been through the courts, and been won. If it is in the public interest it is/was deemed acceptable.

Look up Clive Ponting.
I can understand (just about) principled (as he saw it) stands like Ponting's. Leaking the fact that few films were seen is hardly that. It was clearly political in nature and should be condemned. It just makes a fully political Civil Service more likely and that is not to be welcomed.
Don't talk sh!t you moron! :evil:

The fact that politicians are claiming (falsely) for second homes that aren't second homes, and putting through expense claims for their husbands porn habits means that FULL DISCLOSURE is very very much in the public interest.

After all, the politicians are incapable of running their accounts honestly, the government accounts departments are incapable of investigating their lies and getting them to account for themselves, and the tax office doesn't treat their little pecadillos as 'business matters' that require full auditing for tax purposes.

In the absence of proper balances and checks, I'd suggest that you can bet your bottom dollar the we THE PUBLIC will scutinise their goings on VERY fcuking carefully, for the good of the public and the office of state.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
I think it's in the public interest that we find out who's leaked the list... so he can be well rewarded.

I'd stand him a night of drinks at the very least if it means these robbing sh1thouses have to curb their ways even slightly.
 
#16
Jacqui even claimed 85 pence for a fcukin bath plug,it appears that we're subsidising these bunch of tossers for every purchase they make in their lives while the rest of us struggle on.
 
#17
If it was just the bathplug we wouldnt mind, but the £1000 Fire Surround, the £550 Kitchen Sink and the 2 washing machines is just the sort of profligate spending we can no longer afford, but she can because she counts her sisters house as her primary residence, so she can fiddle the expenses for her personal benefit. It was when she added in the 2 gay porn flicks her hubby (who himself makes £40K per year out of us) used for his masturbatory pleasures that things came to a head.

She has a grace and favour apartment (and a very grand one at that) available with her position. If she chooses not to take it up fine, but dont expect me to pay to furnish the family pile. Maybe it is "in the rules", but it doesnt make it right, nor in my view does it make it exactly legal. Outside Parliament that would be Fraud, and her Home Office would be deeply investigating anyone who fiddled expenses with a view to getting them into prison.
 
#18
sandy_boots said:
Ashie, it's your lot that politicised the Civil Service. How ironic that you reap what you sow.
The Civil Service is not, by and large, politicised. But you need a quick history lesson: it was Thatcher who politicised the senior levels of the Civil Service by choosing them on the basis of whether they were "one of us".
 
#19
Biped said:
ashie said:
bobthedog said:
Unfortunately for the wanking fist and his cronies, the fact that civil servants shouldnt leak has been through the courts, and been won. If it is in the public interest it is/was deemed acceptable.

Look up Clive Ponting.
I can understand (just about) principled (as he saw it) stands like Ponting's. Leaking the fact that few films were seen is hardly that. It was clearly political in nature and should be condemned. It just makes a fully political Civil Service more likely and that is not to be welcomed.
Don't talk sh!t you moron! :evil:

The fact that politicians are claiming (falsely) for second homes that aren't second homes, and putting through expense claims for their husbands porn habits means that FULL DISCLOSURE is very very much in the public interest.

After all, the politicians are incapable of running their accounts honestly, the government accounts departments are incapable of investigating their lies and getting them to account for themselves, and the tax office doesn't treat their little pecadillos as 'business matters' that require full auditing for tax purposes.

In the absence of proper balances and checks, I'd suggest that you can bet your bottom dollar the we THE PUBLIC will scutinise their goings on VERY fcuking carefully, for the good of the public and the office of state.
Dear me, bipolar, you just get worse. And, of course, miss the point about a non-political and non-leaking civil service.
 
#20
Ashie where did you get that tripe from, can you give us a source, because as I remember nothing of the sort occured under PM Thatcher!

Please provide your source
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads