Would Wild Birds Eat Grapes If They Were...
Home & Garden2 mins ago
Sir Geoffrey Cox
40 Answers
The Mail has got its trolleys in robble over the 'sleaze' accusations regarding this politician.
I wonder whether the angst is caused less by the fact that Sir Geoffrey has a second job, or the fact that me makes a serious amount of money from doing it?
The Mail is making much of the fact that he works in 'dodgy tax havens' and makes millions doing it.
Sir Geoffrey advises he has not broken any rules, and it's difficult to see that he actually has.
Making millions may be something for the Mail to pump up their jealous small-minded readership about, but that does not make it illegal.
Your thoughts on this?
I wonder whether the angst is caused less by the fact that Sir Geoffrey has a second job, or the fact that me makes a serious amount of money from doing it?
The Mail is making much of the fact that he works in 'dodgy tax havens' and makes millions doing it.
Sir Geoffrey advises he has not broken any rules, and it's difficult to see that he actually has.
Making millions may be something for the Mail to pump up their jealous small-minded readership about, but that does not make it illegal.
Your thoughts on this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not only the Mail thinks he has done wrong:-
https:/
https:/
danny - Thanks for your link.
The Guardian manages to make the same points, although without all the bluster and harrumphing that the Mail loves so much.
If Sir Geoffrey is guilty of the misuse of his parliamentary office premises, he should be sanctioned accordingly.
But the rest of the Mail's nonsense is clearly routed in the notion that Sir Geoffrey is earning serious money but given that it's the results of his skill and experience, that is nothing more than petty jealousy.
Sir Geoffrey has been his constituency's MP for sixteen years, if they are unhappy with his input to his constituency work, they have the right to remove him at the time of the next election, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening at all.
Sleaze is wrong - legitimate employment within the rules, is not.
The Guardian manages to make the same points, although without all the bluster and harrumphing that the Mail loves so much.
If Sir Geoffrey is guilty of the misuse of his parliamentary office premises, he should be sanctioned accordingly.
But the rest of the Mail's nonsense is clearly routed in the notion that Sir Geoffrey is earning serious money but given that it's the results of his skill and experience, that is nothing more than petty jealousy.
Sir Geoffrey has been his constituency's MP for sixteen years, if they are unhappy with his input to his constituency work, they have the right to remove him at the time of the next election, but there is absolutely no sign of that happening at all.
Sleaze is wrong - legitimate employment within the rules, is not.
The Mail does seem incenced about the large sums of money Sir Geoffrey is earning.
It speaks to the famous story where Lord Beavbrook (ironically a newspaper magnate himself) speaking with an American actress and asking if she would 'live with' (these were more restricted times) a man for a million dollars. When she said she would, his lordship asked her if she would do the same for five dollars, the lady was angry and replied 'Five dollars? What sort of a woman do you think I am?' His lordship relplied 'We have already established what sort of a woman you are, we are just arguing about the degree'.
The Mail therefore leans leavily on the million-plus fees Sir Geoffrey is earning, and the territories in which he is earning them - but as I pointed out in my OP, he appears to be acting within regulations, notwithstanding using his parliamentary office for outside business, which is under investigation, and therefore an accusation of which he is innocent until proven guilty.
It speaks to the famous story where Lord Beavbrook (ironically a newspaper magnate himself) speaking with an American actress and asking if she would 'live with' (these were more restricted times) a man for a million dollars. When she said she would, his lordship asked her if she would do the same for five dollars, the lady was angry and replied 'Five dollars? What sort of a woman do you think I am?' His lordship relplied 'We have already established what sort of a woman you are, we are just arguing about the degree'.
The Mail therefore leans leavily on the million-plus fees Sir Geoffrey is earning, and the territories in which he is earning them - but as I pointed out in my OP, he appears to be acting within regulations, notwithstanding using his parliamentary office for outside business, which is under investigation, and therefore an accusation of which he is innocent until proven guilty.
He really isn’t taking the pee though.
He’s using his skill, undoubtable intelligence and acumen to earn money for what he trained for.
You mentioned the hours…he could well be, and mostly probably is, doing those hours outwith his hours as an MP.
Picking up on Andy’s point, would you have a problem with a call centre worker putting in their 8 hours a day, and then working a further 8 in a bar?
Let’s face it - it’s the amount of money isn’t it that’s annoying people.
He’s using his skill, undoubtable intelligence and acumen to earn money for what he trained for.
You mentioned the hours…he could well be, and mostly probably is, doing those hours outwith his hours as an MP.
Picking up on Andy’s point, would you have a problem with a call centre worker putting in their 8 hours a day, and then working a further 8 in a bar?
Let’s face it - it’s the amount of money isn’t it that’s annoying people.
“Being an MP should be a full time job”
Full time varies, but let’s say “full time” is 37.5 hours a week on average. What business is it of anybody if MPs work outside those hours.
Or are you suggesting they should be working only as an MP?
Given the skill of many, on both sides of the house, if that’s the suggestion then they’re massively underpaid on £80 odd grand a year.
There are exceptions of course - Rayner, Abbott, Corbyn et al are overpaid, and in commercial enterprises would not be getting anything like £80k given their clear intellectual limitations, so they’re earning more than they should, and the clever ones are using their cleverness to their advantage. And good luck to them I say.
Full time varies, but let’s say “full time” is 37.5 hours a week on average. What business is it of anybody if MPs work outside those hours.
Or are you suggesting they should be working only as an MP?
Given the skill of many, on both sides of the house, if that’s the suggestion then they’re massively underpaid on £80 odd grand a year.
There are exceptions of course - Rayner, Abbott, Corbyn et al are overpaid, and in commercial enterprises would not be getting anything like £80k given their clear intellectual limitations, so they’re earning more than they should, and the clever ones are using their cleverness to their advantage. And good luck to them I say.
Latest Posts
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
