News1 min ago
Another one bites the dust?
41 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-118191 4/Justice-Minister-quits-just-minutes-refusing -hand-lavish-expenses-claims.html
Yes yet another one bites the dust. Among this individual's claims are:
�730 for a massage chair because of a back problem.
How many out there with back trouble, could trot along to their GP and get a free prescription for a massage chair?
You would still have to fork out �7.20 for a few pain killing tablets.
�2,600 for a home cinema system, including a 40in flat-screen television - which was halved by officials after it was first rejected.
And �65 for a court summons for not paying council tax, which he has agreed to repay.
And this is the 'Justice Minister' no less that is a contradiction of terms if you like.
But Brown in his wisdom states that he won't be replacing him yet, so it looks as if he is keeping his job open for him to return.
Yes yet another one bites the dust. Among this individual's claims are:
�730 for a massage chair because of a back problem.
How many out there with back trouble, could trot along to their GP and get a free prescription for a massage chair?
You would still have to fork out �7.20 for a few pain killing tablets.
�2,600 for a home cinema system, including a 40in flat-screen television - which was halved by officials after it was first rejected.
And �65 for a court summons for not paying council tax, which he has agreed to repay.
And this is the 'Justice Minister' no less that is a contradiction of terms if you like.
But Brown in his wisdom states that he won't be replacing him yet, so it looks as if he is keeping his job open for him to return.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
-- answer removed --
Trouble is the rules which they keep quoting don't allow it. Talk about selective editing. The bit that matters is the small paragraph saying the expense should be wholly incurred in order for the MP to carry out their duty. A 40" TV does not fit into that category by any stretch of the imagination.
McBottle is finished. And not before time.
But, to the detriment of this country he wont let go until the bitter end. A good government needs a good opposition and the Tories wont have this. Once again Browns fault.
He said he wanted to go down in history. He will, as the most useless PM ever, the labour leader to ever have the worse poll,. and the only PM to be a total 'Berkshire Hunt'
But, to the detriment of this country he wont let go until the bitter end. A good government needs a good opposition and the Tories wont have this. Once again Browns fault.
He said he wanted to go down in history. He will, as the most useless PM ever, the labour leader to ever have the worse poll,. and the only PM to be a total 'Berkshire Hunt'
Two points about Mr Malik 1) Why does our press (e.g The Telegraph and The Daily Mail ) insist upon calling him 'a moslem' MP ? Would they think it necessary to say 'Jewish' MP' or 'Roman Catholic ' MP as the case might be? If not, why not?
2) He claims that his rented home in Dewsbury is where he spends most of his time. Does he provide that with a �2,600 TV and a �730 massage chair . If not , why not? Is it not odd that he would choose to have one of each, at taxpayers' expense, in his London home if he lives happily without either in Dewsbury?
2) He claims that his rented home in Dewsbury is where he spends most of his time. Does he provide that with a �2,600 TV and a �730 massage chair . If not , why not? Is it not odd that he would choose to have one of each, at taxpayers' expense, in his London home if he lives happily without either in Dewsbury?
It gets more disgusting by the day. Most of the people who've been claiming these "expenses" were perfectly aware of what they were doing. If not, then why have such simple-minded brains got the job of helping to run the country?
If we stole from the government, we'd be up for fraud. These people should be as well.
From now on, I won't moan if a fraction of our taxes go to pay for anyone on benefits. Most of thgem deserve it more than those who make claims for these ridiculous itrems at our expense.
If we stole from the government, we'd be up for fraud. These people should be as well.
From now on, I won't moan if a fraction of our taxes go to pay for anyone on benefits. Most of thgem deserve it more than those who make claims for these ridiculous itrems at our expense.
The thing that annoys me most about these MPs is when they say they were wrongly advised and will pay back the amounts claimed and then think everything will be tickety boo
I suppose at the time most of them were just seeing these claims as perks of the job but now when the sh!t has hit the fan they realise the public who pay for these expenses are the same public who vote for them they take a diferent view on it all
Welcome to the real world
I suppose at the time most of them were just seeing these claims as perks of the job but now when the sh!t has hit the fan they realise the public who pay for these expenses are the same public who vote for them they take a diferent view on it all
Welcome to the real world
Ice, in most cases what they were doing was legal and within the rules. The rules need changing. Some seem to have gone well beyond the rules, and will be in trouble - Brown's threatening the Labour ones with deselection
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/15 /mps-expenses-labour-deselected
But I hope this won't include people who claimed for Kit-Kats. They've got a cheek, but I think we need to keep a sense of proportion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/15 /mps-expenses-labour-deselected
But I hope this won't include people who claimed for Kit-Kats. They've got a cheek, but I think we need to keep a sense of proportion.
some expenses are perfectly legitimate, and that includes owning a second home if you're out of London. You need rooms in Westminster as well as in your constituency - both home and offices. I think that's fair, and furnishing them is okay for the same reason. (Otherwise only rich men, like the Tory front bench, would be able to enter politics.) But I think furnishing them from Harrods ought to come out of your own pocket. The rule they used to have was that John Lewis prices were the limit. I can't believe some of the things let through cost that much at John Lewis, but perhaps I'm wrong.
