ChatterBank2 mins ago
MPs Expenses
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-118978 8/Cameron-took-maximum-taxpayer-funded-mortgag e--paid-75k-loan-months-later.html
Was he just following the rules?
Was he just following the rules?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. 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.
I have been surprised Cameron has not been mentioned very much so far. The Telegraph covered his huge mortgage early on, but he has been spared any critisism.
The lady MP who claimed for a few pounds of dog food for her dog has been lambasted (Have I got news for you said "lets look at the greedy bitch" - her dog).
Yet Cameron, who has claimed virtualy the maximum amount he can JUST on his mortgage, has not been critisized.
Even Gordon Brown "flipped" his second home to claim more expenses, even when he had a grace and favour home in London, and he also seems to have avoided much critisism.
What both Brown and Cameron have done are almost as bad as many other MPs (except those who committed fraud by not paying Capital Gains Tax) but they have both escaped with little critisism.
The lady MP who claimed for a few pounds of dog food for her dog has been lambasted (Have I got news for you said "lets look at the greedy bitch" - her dog).
Yet Cameron, who has claimed virtualy the maximum amount he can JUST on his mortgage, has not been critisized.
Even Gordon Brown "flipped" his second home to claim more expenses, even when he had a grace and favour home in London, and he also seems to have avoided much critisism.
What both Brown and Cameron have done are almost as bad as many other MPs (except those who committed fraud by not paying Capital Gains Tax) but they have both escaped with little critisism.
-- answer removed --
let the paparazzi hound the accused? No notion of being innocent until proved guilty, then? Sure, let's suspend British law; it should only apply to us, not to people we don't like.
Okay, you take a job; the boss tells you you can claim expenses to get a taxi home at night. Three years later, he tells you (a) they're changing the expenses rules and (b) you're being sacked for having obeyed them for three years.
Fair? Sounds like a case for an employment tribunal to me.
Okay, you take a job; the boss tells you you can claim expenses to get a taxi home at night. Three years later, he tells you (a) they're changing the expenses rules and (b) you're being sacked for having obeyed them for three years.
Fair? Sounds like a case for an employment tribunal to me.
-- answer removed --
It has proved what a lot of self servicing money grabbing MPs we have taken the time to vote into these jobs hoping that they had the countrys interests at heart. How can any criminal in future be put on the straight and narrow if what he presumes is to create a lawless society.
How do we know that any new law being passed does not benefit the MP in some way? How do we know that scrounging on the taxpayer from the black market or claiming benefits wont be tackled because they are in it themselves? How can they possibly police themselves in future?
Trust has gone completely and many in the past have regarded MPs as bastions of our society. Not any more our society can only get more corrupted and have more lawlessness.
How do we know that any new law being passed does not benefit the MP in some way? How do we know that scrounging on the taxpayer from the black market or claiming benefits wont be tackled because they are in it themselves? How can they possibly police themselves in future?
Trust has gone completely and many in the past have regarded MPs as bastions of our society. Not any more our society can only get more corrupted and have more lawlessness.
1 to 5 of 5
