Poison Dwarf

[ludwig]

Can anyone find a photograph of Hazel Blears where she's not wearing a self satisfied smirk?
I've searched images on Google and there don't seem to be any.

[jno]

I'm not trying to play with words, naomi; according to my dictionaries - Oxford and Chambers - reproach does indeed mean criticise, varying from mild complaint to severe upbraiding. (Googling "define:reproach" gives the same answer.) So I'm not asking what it means, I'm saying that it's too vague to have any practical meaning. If failing to act above reproach was a crime, it could never be proved.

Nor do I know how you'd decide what is necessary to perform parliamentary duties. A table and chairs? Hanging baskets? Quite possibly, given that modest entertainment seems to be legitimate parliamentary business, unless you insist your MP live in squalor as a form of punishment.

ludwig, I quite agree that many MPs' actions are indeed below reproach; duck houses, moats, non-existent mortgages and so on. But last time I looked, few MPs were at it on anything like this scale.

Quinlad, I think you're right about the need for transparency; events show the public have a right to know what they're spending their money on. But it's still not exactly an answer, because it depends on how the public feel about it at any given time, which may depend how much other news is around. One week they might think it's ok for an MP to have a KitKat from a minibar; the next the Telegraph might whip them up into righteous fury about it. That doesn't make the system much more transparent.

[naomi24]

jno Nor do I know how you'd decide what is necessary to perform parliamentary duties. A table and chairs? Hanging baskets? Quite possibly, given that modest entertainment seems to be legitimate parliamentary business, unless you insist your MP live in squalor as a form of punishment.

That bit should have been in answer to Quinlad, not to me, but I'll get back to my point.

I don't agree that the words 'beyond reproach' applied to rules surrounding financial claims are vague at all. The meaning is perfectly clear.

Quinlad, nothing would surprise me!

[jno]

naomi, actually it was in response to ludwig but I moved sentences around a bit and lost track.

And sorry, but 'reproach' is perfectly clear to me: it means 'criticise' and I've quoted two authoritative dictionaires agreeing with me. The words don't carry 'an entirely different meaning' as you say they do. (Though you might have a dictionary that says otherwise? I don't have a Collins.)

And I don't think a rule saying 'You mustn't do anything that might be criticised' has any practical application at all, because politicians are criticised for everything they do.

[naomi24]

jno, You certainly have a penchant for skirting around the fundamental issue when it suits you. Goodness, one could almost believe you're in politics.

[jno]

ah, we're down to personal insults now?

[naomi24]

Jno, Not at all. Merely an observation of the methods you employ to avoid confronting and addressing the fundamental issue.

Tell me jno, if you joined a company that gave you a contract containing the following in respect of your expenses claims, what would you understand it to mean?

Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.

Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for the employee to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her duties.

Employees must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.