Sir Thomas Legg

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by BlueDanubeWalt, Oct 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Turns out he's ex 45 Royal Marine Commando(albeit Nat. Service).. its a job well done, credit to his capbadge...before I start on about the 'Liabour cnuts' who to a man/person I believe have never served who out of the other parties is a disgrace to their Regiment/Corps(noses in the trough)..??
     
  2. I bet 'Cyclops' is wishing he had not selected an able, independent minded, intelligent, experienced, knowledgeable, honest, brave man of integrity and initiative such as Sir Thomas.

    A 'white-washing', supine, snivelling 'yes man' was needed here!

    I fear that Sir Thomas may face a 'Doctor Kelly' moment, but he certainly looks as though he may fight back! Once a 'Royal' always a 'Royal'.

    Per Mare et Terram - or:

    Stick it to the thieving, greedy, dishonest detritus and once stuck - twist!.
     
  3. Can anyone else not see a "suicide" in the next few months or am I just a cynical old git.
     
  4. No sympathy for the MP's but got to say that Clegg has a point: Sir T. seems to have missed the big targets and gone for a somewhat unfortunate paper pushers solution: retrospectively putting arbitrary limits on what can be claimed.

    If my expense claims for the past 5 years (modest and reasonable as they are....) submitted and paid out in accordance with the rules at the time were then subject to retrospective review for political arrse covering purposes and I was asked to repay a wodge of cash my answer would be the same as some of soon not-to-be MP's: see you in court.

    Yes, Cyclops has fcuked up again bigtime.
     
  5. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    What the Green Book quite clearly states, in unequivocal terms is that the cost being claimed for must have been incurred directly in the course of parliamentary duties.

    Cleaning bills, gardening bills and the like do NOT fall within that remit. If the lazy fcukers can't clean their own properties or do their own gardening, then they can pay for their own cleaners and gardeners to do it for them. Who the fcuk do they think they are even thinking of suggesting that the British public should pay them?

    The point was raised by that ugly Labour bint with the high pitched voice on telly last night: "If we politicians cannot be trusted to police ourselves, then how can we be trusted to manage the country?"

    Got it in one love, well done you! You failed to police yourselves, you lied and committed fraud, and thus very few of you are fit to call the shots for the rest of the country. The very fact that Jacky Spliff has just got away with a £110,000 fraud on the day you say such a thing is clear evidence of a complete failure of government to police itself; that and the enoblement of Gorbals Mick, who also failed to police the expenses fraud.

    Sir Thomas Legg is in no way going beyond his brief or changing the rules retrospectively. He is not re-intepreting anything. All he has done is read the rules, applied them to the expenses claims, and come to the clear and honest conclusion that these expenses claims should not have been allowed.

    Sir Thomas Legg is 100% on the button on this one, and he has the full support of the British electorate. ANY politician that fails to heed what he says is finished. This will not go away until the balance is redressed, and the greedy, lying cheats are got rid of.
     
  6. Cut 'n' pasted from todays readers letters from the times

    Sir,

    The audit of MPs’ expenses claims conducted by Sir Thomas Legg has been widely reported as introducing new rules that were not in force at the time (reports, Oct 12 and 13). Thus, a widespread complaint has been voiced that this is unfair and contrary to a basic principle of English law that one may not be penalised under retrospective laws.

    This is to misunderstand what Sir Thomas has actually done. In his note to MPs he has explained that in many cases there was no specific “rule” governing how much might legitimately be claimed. However, he interpreted parliamentary “rules” as if they permitted only proportionate claims to be made. It is for this reason that he has recommended repayment for what the public would regard (and MPs ought to have regarded) as disproportionate expenses claims.

    Sir Thomas’s approach is exactly what a judge would do when construing an Act of Parliament, particularly in the human rights field. This is not a retrospective application of law and should not be confused as such. It is simply interpreting the rules as they should have been read at the time.
     
  7. Sir Thomas Legg has proven to be impressively imune to politicians, not quite as far as I would have liked (Smith should be in court for fraud now) but far less of a sweeping under the carpet excersise than I thought it would be.
    As for retrospective, bollox, he has simply applied the spirit of the system MP's have so happily being abusing as an excuse to steal from us for years. It is what he was apointed to do is it not? Presumably the MP's are disappointed it wasn't the whitewash they desired?
     
  8. I saw of all people Ann Widdecombe on CH4 news last night trying to defend the practice, trotting out the usual excuses about being within the rules and how unfair it all was to ask for money back when the rules at the time said it was all above board. It was a good thing there was nothing to hand of suitable heft or I'd be down a telly. She, like all the others, seems to have missed a vital point: just because you can claim a certain figure doesn't mean you're obliged to.

    £1,000.00 p/a for laundry? Who the fuck spends that? My washing machine cost £350.00 3 years ago and it's still going strong. The bastards could have kitted out all of their homes with one year's laundry allowance with money to spare. And who the Hell gets to charge their normal laundry bill to expenses when they're travelling? I sure as Hell don't.

    These tossers really have no clue about daily life for the vast majority.
     
  9. My Bold

    Wasn't this the excuse the MP's used to fleeces us ragged in the first place. So it's OK for them to apply the "spirit" but not OK for the Inquiry to use it. *********
     
  10. Yup, as far as I can see Legg has simply said "if you are going to use the spirit of the system I am going to define what that spirit should mean"
    OF course the MP's don't like it as it hampers them in their quest to help themselves to our money.

    And yes Smartas, Widdecombe just proves the point, the whole stinking bunch of them feel they are entitled. Doesn't matter how much they have squeezed us mere mortals over the last few years they feel entitled to be cushioned from the financial hardship they have forced upon the rest of us.
     
  11. I certainly hope the decent chap is allowed to follow up all his well deserved work, I'm also cynical due to the Dr Kelly incident :evil:

    These MP's as already stated have had too good for far too long, some not wishing to stand next year but the bare face cheek shouting (behind closed doors of course) we'll see you in court :roll:

    If they refuse to pay, expell them, it would happen in any other civilian working environment!

    Make them an example for once.
     
  12. Grownup_Rafbrat

    Grownup_Rafbrat LE Good Egg (charities)

    Don't forget that when they stand down they will have final salary pension schemes funded by the taxpayers who are seeing their own pension schemes ravaged.

    And a 'golden goodbye' payment dependent on length of service, which if re-elected later to another seat, they are not obliged to pay any of it back! At a time when many people are being made redundant on government minimum rates.

    And no doubt they will walk into directorships, lobby firms and privatised industries where their experience can help their employers expoit the very laws they have helped to make.

    Standing down is not a bad option really.
     
  13. Don't forget she will be calling in all those favours she did for various people/business' while she was Home Secretary. She will get a long list of paid consultancy work in return for her assistance whilst in public office.
     
  14. My Bold.

    Yet I was listening to an MP on the news this morning saying that the Army should not be allowed to police themselves over the prisoner abuse enquiry. Strikes me as double standards.
     
  15. they may have obeyed the rules but they set the rules and massivly took the piss.
    its telling labour/con mps want a joint meeting.
    not about sorting UK plcs problems out but how they have been stiched up.

    think £65000+ is over paying an awful lot of them.
    if the answer is the bnp then its a bloody stupid question. But honestly the loons on BNP wives on sky on sunday would have more political savvy than these cretins :roll: