Opinions? Hmmm.
Mrs Jer said he should take the businessman's way out and claim Alzheimers. Apparently that has worked in the past.

He did the crime, so now he has to do the time.

LOL Joe. 

Well said Yogi 

I'm glad. It endorses the fact that MPs are not above the law. Shades of the French Revolution.

Narrow escape for a lot of them.

Good, about time they realise they are not above the law

dollars to doughnuts he'll do 3/4 months in a holiday camp open prison 

He should have got much more, after all, he stole from the public purse 

He got off too lightly in my opinion, stealing from the public while pretending to represent them.

When members of the previous government are being sent to jail for stealing tax payer's money it's hardly surprising they got kicked out of power.  Stealing money while allowing the Country to go to the brink of bankrupcy.  No morals, no integrity and total incompetence.

I agree with pengy and spider. He'll be out fairly soon and he shouldn'd be.

The point most people miss when discussing MPs expenses is that the majority of them were actually acting within the rules - it was the rules which were wrong.  I'm not saying that's the case for this particular guy although it is a point most people tend to either miss or ignore.

How many more are there though    this country could be rich if they all paid back what they owed 

Agreed pp Although, as you say, not the case with the guy in question

Jeez Pamula ... dread to think

Serves him right, just hope that some of the others get their just deserts too....

The point you miss, hevva is, that they were greedy and forgot to see the wood for the trees.

I agree to a certain degree with your statement PP but the reason the rules are wrong is because it's MP themselves that write those rules and they alone have the ability to change them.  If they are made to change them through public outcry, they change the rules to their advantage some other way which is already happening re the second home allowance.

Already they've circumnavigated this by renting their second homes out and then renting another property for themselves for which they claim expenses for!  The organisation set up to monitor MPs expenses is toothless as they have no real power to insist MPs change.

I hope there are more to follow none of them should get away with it, paying the money back is not good enough..

Yeah, I agree with this.

David Chaytor committed out & out fraud.   His case was one that was discovered whilst the investigation into the cultural acceptance within Government that expenses were a means of boosting their income, and there was nothing wrong with this. 

On the whole it was the system at fault...   too much grey area...  allowing those with less than scrupulous morals to take advantage of it.  

In my opinion the David Chaytor case wasn't part of this...   his was a case of fraud that was discovered because of thorough audit of expenses that was  undertaken.

There is a danger that David Chaytor will be used as the scapegoat ...    the "well.. look.. justice has been done.. one of us got banged up" diversion tactic.     


I want to see the bloke that claimed for his moat duck house thingy stripped of rank...   on the grounds of obviously having no moral compass.

Also... I would like to see Bernard Jenkins publically admit that he knew his claims were not genuine expense reimbursements...  but were blatant attempts to get some extra cash! 

This whole thing bugs me more now than it did initially.   they all act like they knew no better.... but throughout the rest of the public sector expense claiming is rigid in its rules & regs.   Down to how much per mile you can claim (based on your car type & age)...   when you claim mileage (not if it takes you in the direction of home)...     the coding for expense claims is like a yellow pages..... most of that is the Excemptions listings...  things you cannot claim for.


Sorry.. I waffled.     First time I have allowed myself to say anything on this subject...   obviously I had been keeping it all in!!  

I am going to put it out of my mind now!

Agreed.

The new rules appear to have gone too far in the other direction.
We don't want to go back to the days when only those with 'family' money could enter parliament. 

We were just debating this on our way back from the Chinese. The state should pay MPs a decent wage, because if they don't someone else will. Of course there will always be rotten eggs!

exactly.   pay peanuts.... get monkeys.

In my opinion there is very little defence for some of these MPs.  Sure there are some that perhaps just claimed a little too much now and again, who have ended up having to pay back a two figure or three figure sum, (I think Lembit Opik was one of them..)   but some of them totally took the piss, and I certainly don’t buy this ‘they were actually just acting within the rules’ type of comment.  Maybe some of them were,, but some of them most certainly were not... As dirtyprettything said, maybe it was the system at fault and things should have been checked more stringently than they were, but nobody can convince me that someone claiming thousands of pounds for a house for their ducks, or to clean out their moat, was just ‘acting within the rules,; or that those were justifiable expenses.’  They know damn well that there is no WAY that they should be claiming for something like this, and there is no justification for the things they claimed for.  And who on earth passed these expenses through anyway?!

In addition, several MPs, ‘employed’ family members, often who lived with them (wife/daughter) as a ‘secretary’ or an 'assistant, 'and paid them 10s of 1000s of pounds salary that just went straight into their family pot of money.  (In fact there is a rule now that they are not even allowed to employ family members!)  Then some of them were doing shopping, raking in loads of petrol expenses (not just for themselves, but for their wife/husband and other family members,) and even claiming for rent for homes they weren’t even living in.  Also, there were stories released of people who were claiming for rent on properties that they OWNED, as well as for the property that they rented in London, and a I heard a couple of cases of them claiming for properties that one of their family members owned.

And also some of them were buying furniture for their ‘actual’ homes (not the rented one in London,) and having new carpets and getting the place decorated and all sorts: all on the expenses!  Tell me how any of that are ‘justifiable expenses?!’  And how is this simply 'acting within the rules?'  They are only supposed to claim essential expenses (rent for the place in London if they live too far away to commute daily, and petrol/vehicle expenses.)  Yet, some of them took the piss, and they did it royally, and they got caught out.  And the ones that really went to town (and in my opinion knew EXACTLY what they were doing: ) I hope they throw the book at them. 

What pisses me off is the arrogance of some of them who think they had every right to do what they did and believe that they have actually done nothing wrong!  They are that arrogant!  As I mentioned earlier, if it had been us mere mortals who did something like that, we would have probably have been up in court and jailed.  I know damn well if I claimed money from work for my food shopping, and clothes and paint and carpets for my home, I would get the bloody sack and probably be charged with theft and fraud!  Why should these shysters be treated any differently?! 

If someone gets done for ‘falsely claiming beneifts’ whether it’s dole or incapacity or whatever, they are demonised in the papers, and taken to court for theft and fraud and sometimes go to prison, so I can’t think of one single reason why the worst offenders in this MP expenses scandal should not receive the same treatment.

Sure, not all of them are complete scumbags, and there were some who just pushed it a bit, and frankly, I wouldn’t have a problem with someone buying a loaf of bread and a lightbulb out of their expenses, (which happened with one or two of them,) but when it’s running into tens of thousands a year, and they are completely scamming the whole system, then I definitely don’t accept that they’re simply ‘acting within the rules. ‘  

Crikey sparkles ... I'm getting right angry about it all over again now

LOL sorry Rexi.. Wasn't my intention to make you go green and make your shirt split... just putting my opinions.      Like I said, I don't think ALL Mps are utter pondscum (or duckpond scum LOL,) but some of them just make want to scream! 

Obviously, some of them took the piss, claiming for moat cleaning and duck houses, flipping homes etc. MPs who were married to each other and claiming expense and mortgage payments on one house each, were obviously defrauding the system and were intelligent enough to know that.

The point is, some of them are expected to live in two places and needed extra funding to do so. If they are expected to be in London all week, should they not be allowed to have a family life in London also, or should they abandon their wives, husbands, or kids all week and just see them at weekends, between doing constituency work. I'm sure that the majority of family members employed were employed legitimately and were doing a good job. Should these family members be sacked from their jobs, Often jobs they were doing before they even met the MP, just because certain MPs decided to fund their sons, daughters, or other family members for doing eff-all? 

The fact that the new system expects them to be able to set up an office and fund it themselves, until they can reclaim expenses, suggests to me that we are now making it extremely difficult for ordinary people to become our representatives in parliament, and I don't see that as progressive.

tbh Blizz...   perhaps, yes!    Plenty of other families have this set up.    My Dad did this for 2 years when I was in my teens (it was bliss I tell ya...   my mum loved it, we loved it...   Dad wasn't right keen on it! ).


However, I agree with the rest of what you are saying.    I think there should be serviced offices ready for these MPs...   its not rocket science..   they know how many MPs there will be each year... government should own the accomodation & office areas for them to use.   Like the nursing accomodation or doctors accomodation hospitals have. 

It should be comfortable..  but not extravagantly so! 

He should've got longer, for the cheek of trying to claim Parliamentary priviledge and avoid the courts.
As for our poor, diddy ickle MPs having to work away from their families - tough titty. Plenty of people in the real world do so (and some are risking their lives fighting overseas) for a fraction of the financial reward and don't expect to be nampy-pambied for doing it.

 Well, I wouldn't mind sending Mr Blizz away, for a couple of years.

Scratch that, I'll leave him with the kids! 

I know plenty of other professions involve time away from families, but, if we want a cross section of society in our parliament i.e. mothers with young children, single parents etc., then we have to make it possible for families to stay together, as much as possible, IMO.

QUOTE: Demantoid.
As for our poor, diddy ickle MPs having to work away from their families - tough titty. Plenty of people in the real world do so (and some are risking their lives fighting overseas) for a fraction of the financial reward and don't expect to be nampy-pambied for doing it.


Couldn't agree more Demantoid.  Many many people have to work away from home, and some have absolutely no choice other than to do so... but many don't have the luxury of being able to claim shed loads of expenses for just about everything.  If there is ANY person I would never feel sorry for, it's a MP!  All the expenses are supposed to be for is for a modest priced flat in London and travel/petrol and 'some' food expenses.  It's just a place for them to stay in the week, when they are at 'work,' not an excuse to rip off the taxpayer, and claim for all and sundry including 1000s of pounds of funds for their existing home in the town they actually live in. 


The only thing I will say is that maybe it may be a good idea for them and their families to be given a chance to relocate so they only have one home and they can stay together with their families.  That would keep them with their families and also stop the opportunity for them to rip off 10s of 1000s of extra expenses.  But then again, as has been discussed, plenty of other people have to work away from home, and don't get offered the chance to take their family with them.  Like I said, at least this would stop them claiming loads of extra expenses at least!. 

And as for the 'I don't see what's wrong with employing your own family member.' Obviously I am not the only one who thinks this is wrong, because it is now being stopped.

They are allowed to employ one family member, which I think was a fair compromise.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...s/article7080133.ece

Are we to believe though Blizz that under 'equal opportunities' these jobs that their families are taking are subjected to rigorous interviews with other members of the general public allowed to apply or is it as I suspect, another case of MP nepotism?

I find it quite hard to make up my mind; on the one hand, I agree with Blizzie about the quality and scope of MPs, but on the other hand, they do know what they let themselves in for. IMO, the best solution is a decent wage. They put themselves out a lot more than certain company or bank bosses who have the advantage financially. As for family life, we have been told to get off our back sides and find the jobs (presumably being aloud to take our families with us). Why should it be any different for MPs?

Chaytor made false claims knowingly - that's no 'mistake' or book keeping error.
And the thieving g*t got Legal Aid.

Also, how can a group of MP's write to the court to ask the judge not to jail him?
I thought that Parliament was not allowed to sway the judiciary?

you can imagine it being passed round for them all to sign can't you..    it was probably done like a the office birthday cards...   in a paper bag...   in a blank card with something bland on the front... probably a monet or something.. 

I can't believe they expected to sway a judge (well I can but....y'know?)
Still, I expect they'd do it for every fine, upstanding member of the community, eh?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12157768

How did he get re-elected last May.

A few companies I've worked for have encouraged fiddling the mileage on expenses forms, so for a journey that in reality would be say, 90 miles, you claim 160. Summat to do with company Tax relief?

Most PLC companies are on some kind of swindle, but it takes the piss when someone is able to claim thousands for stuff that should be paid for by the employee.

I think a second Labour politician is to face a jail sentence soon.  There was something about it in the news yesterday.  Hardly installs faith in our political system does it?

Eric Illsley....It is the link I posted.  Unless there is someone else.

Still amazed Jaqui Smith dodged the prosecution bullet.