Could It Get More Sickening...

[Canada Bob]

Seems to get worse by the day, no wonder the MP's & Ministers don't want us to see their expense claims...

Are they ALL at it !

Of course "we've all got it wrong" or "it was a terrible mistake, I didn't know what I was doing, I never actually looked at the forms that I was signing, my dog filled them in for me, oh... yea, can I claim for the dog too" ?

Edited April 5, 2009 by Canada Bob

[Yngwie]

The worrying thing is that in most of these expense scandals, the outrageous claims being made actually seem to be within the parliamentary rules.

And the ones that are outwith the rules, like porn films, are clearly getting approved for payment without any independent scrutiny at all.

I will happily offer them consultancy services on how to operate an expense claims procedure - for a reasonable fee......plus expenses.

[Canada Bob]

The MPS's are busy little b*ggers aren't they seems as though some MP's were Landlords, and some were Tenants, but there's another level to that, that being a declaration of taxable income (over the years) from the recipients, might be a good idea if HMRC took a look at to see if any of them ever declared income from the rentals.

Wouldn't it be nice to find out that none of them actually declared any rental income, mind you, if that was the case it would be "just a simple, innocent oversight, caused mainly due to the dog eating our tax returns".

Add to that don't you have to get planning permission to use part of your home as a rental property ? and don't you also have to comply with the Housing Act of 2004 {safety standards for Tenants} ?

Maybe folks like Jacqui Smith et-al, don't know the Law or don't feel that it applies to them ?

I wonder if Sara Smithor {et-al} were in compliance with National Safety Regulations when she rented a room to her sister, or if she had planning permission to use part of her home as rental accommodation ? you'd think her sister would be well aware of the Laws of the Land and show respect towards them.

Did any of these so called Landlords apply for planning permission to change the use their properties ?

Here's one of the Regulations that they should have complied with...

Housing Standards and Safety Regulations:

There are various regulations and standards which landlords must adhere to before a property can be let.

These are:

* Safety Regulations

* The HHSRS Safety Rating system for rental property

* Building Regulations

* HMOs

Safety Regulations

There are three specific safety regulations that apply to residential property. These are:

* Gas Safety

* Electrical Safety

* General Product Safety

HHSRS Safety Rating System

Provisions in the Housing Act 2004 replace the old system of fitness standards with a new risk-assessment based system which applies to both ordinary residential dwellings and Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is designed to assess different categories of hazard, and provide a rating for each hazard. The five main categories of hazard are:

* Dampness (e.g. excess cold/heat)

* Pollutants (e.g. asbestos)

* Environmental (space, security, light, noise)

* Accidents

* Structural (e.g. collapse)

The HHSRS is explained in greater detail in Factsheet No. 28.

Building Regulations

Build Regulations help to provide a safe environment for occupiers of both residential and commercial buildings. They also increasingly dictate what works and alterations a landlord can carry out on a property both prior to, and during a tenancy. There are now buildings regulations that apply to:

- installation of new boilers and related plumbing works

- alterations and improvements to the electrical wiring

- installation of new windows and glazing

Houses in Multiple Occupation Housing which is occupied by a group of individuals either living together as a group (e.g. a student house) or independently (e.g. bedsits) come under the general classification of ?House in Multiple Occupation' or ?HMO'.

It has been recognised that HMOs do, in some cases, present additional safety risks to the occupants for a number of reasons:

- bedsits often contain their own cooking facilities

- HMOs are typically let to younger people, with higher incidents of fires starting as a result of smoking materials, candles, portable gas fires and other similar causes.

- Occupants in one part of the building are often unaware and unprotected from fires in another.

- HMOs are often situated in older and larger properties which historically have lower safety standards.

As a result of these risks, Government have implemented a number of regulations that govern the occupation and management of HMOs. In addition, the Housing Act 2004 introduced a new definition for a ?HMO' and a national scheme for the mandatory licensing of HMOs whereby all HMO owners are required to register with their local authority. For more information on HMOs, see our Letting Factsheets Nos. 40 & 41.

The Gas Safety Regulations require that landlords must ensure that all gas appliances in a rental property are serviced on an annual basis, and that a gas safety certificate is issued to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy and annually thereafter. For more information, see Letting Factsheet No. 7.The Electrical Safety Regulations (for more information, see Letting Factsheet No. 4) require that all electrical appliances and the fixed electrical wiring in a rented property should be safe. All portable appliances and associated leads should be visually checked before each tenancy. Portable appliances should be tested periodically.

[Canada Bob]

On and on it goes...

Even the Chancellor is at it...

Not to mention their wives, and the sprogs...

Edited April 5, 2009 by Canada Bob

[DAM]

On and on it goes...

Even the Chancellor is at it...

Not to mention their wives, and the sprogs...

I don't give a sh!t what the rules say - this is blatent theft from every taxpayer in the land.

[Canada Bob]

I don't give a sh!t what the rules say - this is blatent theft from every taxpayer in the land.

Sure as Hell it is, but it's salt into the wound when the Prime Minister shows little if any concern about the goings on...

With words to the effect of...

"well, it's not a big deal, it been going on for years, let's not talk about it, let's focus on something else, better for you not to know it only upsets you knowing what we get up to".

I don't know which of them is the worst, the Home Secretary for "bending the rules" or the Chancellor of the Exchequer

decided that he needs a few more quid out of the taxpayers pockets to put in his own. Of all fekkin people hey, he's the one who imposes his Budget on everyone else in the land. The arrogance of Geoff Hoon almost takes the biscuit, but for Gordon to play it all down when he should be clearing the decks of the lot of them beggars belief...

It's not just the arrogance though, it's the bleedin' incompetence as well, check out the latest blunder from the Home Office, just shows what gobshytes they are, {is everyone asleep at the switch}, or it could be down to Jacqui's husband entertaining himself...

You couldn't make it up, could you...

It's a pity that it's only the Opposition who can call for a vote of "No Confidence" in the Government, rather than the voters, if that was the case these b*stards would be the ones wondering where their next job or their next shilling would be coming from.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Canada Bob

[latviaman]

I don't give a sh!t what the rules say - this is blatent theft from every taxpayer in the land.

Sure as Hell it is, but it's salt into the wound when the Prime Minister shows little if any concern about the goings on...

With words to the effect of...

"well, it's not a big deal, it been going on for years, let's not talk about it, let's focus on something else, better for you not to know it only upsets you knowing what we get up to".

I don't know which of them is the worst, the Home Secretary for "bending the rules" or the Chancellor of the Exchequer

decided that he needs a few more quid out of the taxpayers pockets to put in his own. Of all fekkin people hey, he's the one who imposes his Budget on everyone else in the land. The arrogance of Geoff Hoon almost takes the biscuit, but for Gordon to play it all down when he should be clearing the decks of the lot of them beggars belief...

It's not just the arrogance though, it's the bleedin' incompetence as well, check out the latest blunder from the Home Office, just shows what gobshytes they are, {is everyone asleep at the switch}, or it could be down to Jacqui's husband entertaining himself...

You couldn't make it up, could you...

It's a pity that it's only the Opposition who can call for a vote of "No Confidence" in the Government, rather than the voters, if that was the case these b*stards would be the ones wondering where their next job or their next shilling would be coming from.

Well over here in Latvia where we have a "Crisis" official words, most of the Govt have Directorships of major companies, who surprise surprise get all the major contracts going.

When a reporter asked for a register of interest of govt members he was banned from all Govt meetings and is being sued for defamation of character, by an MP whi is a director of six companies.

Now far from being cynical, we ain't much different over here, the MP's take what they can as they will never be ousted , that's the way it is here. At least you have Democracy!!

[CaleyD]

We've only ourselves to blame. This has been going on for years and people have been trying to raise the issue for years and it's gone largely unnoticed. Only now when the country is up in arms due to the larger than usual catalogue of feck ups do people start making a noise about it.

What's happening is immoral, but (for the most part) not illegal.....it's not the people who are necessarily wrong (although some are responsible for putting the systems that allow them to screw us in place). I bet there's not one among us who would not make full use of an expenses package if it was there to be had.

When I joined RBS they paid for me to live in the Holyrood Hotel for 12 months, as well as covering my travel/accommodation costs to Inverness when I came up the road for weekends. On top of that they covered the cost of my meals and I had full and free use of a Taxi account, and or a healthy mileage allowance if using own car.

I was claiming legitimate (i.e. permissible under the terms of my contract with the bank) expenses in excess of ?4000 per month whilst still receiving my full salary (which I didn't have to spend because everything was being paid for)....and I'd purchased a house (on staff rates) which I was renting out until my 12 month relocation package ended and I had to fend for myself....at which point my house was practically paid for - I had nothing else to spend my salary on!!!

I'm not boasting about that...I'm not proud of it... nor am I ashamed of it....that's just what was available to me and I was making full use of it. Although in hindsight, this is the kind of culture which probably played a large part in the RBS demise, and the kind of mentality that allowed Goodwin to walk away with a ?700,000 a year pension.

Many of these MP's are doing the same thing. The system is there and they are just making best use of it. If we (the country) weren't suffering economically then most of us wouldn't give two hoots....after all, we haven't for the last god knows how long whilst it's been going on.

The system needs changed and tightened up, but in many cases I don't think it's right to be hauling MP's through the gutter for claiming what the current system entitles them too. We might not like or agree with the system....but that's an entirely different argument.

[Yngwie]

When I joined RBS they paid for me to live in the Holyrood Hotel for 12 months, as well as covering my travel/accommodation costs to Inverness when I came up the road for weekends. On top of that they covered the cost of my meals and I had full and free use of a Taxi account, and or a healthy mileage allowance if using own car.

Does anyone have Robert Peston's email address?

[Johnboy]

So it was the cost of CaleyD's meals that finally broke the bank.....

[Guest birdog]

CaleyD's post is excellent and explains the situation as it is instead of putting some form of socialist spin on it. Whilst I agree with Canada Bob in that these expenses are unjustifiable if they are claimed legally I can not see how those making the claims can be blamed, something needs to be done to tighten up the system.

What worries me more than the expenses of a few fatcat MPs is the way in which a section of our social security claimants work the system which they use, there are millions of those people ripping off the country in comparison to a couple of hundred MPs.

[EWS]

My view, as someone who claims back expenses themselves, is much the same as to Don's. The guidelines are there, and if we can manipulate them in order to earn a bit of extra cash then I am going to do so. However, that is not to say that what I think the Mps are doing is wrong - it is and I was quite sickened by it. But the rules are laid down there, and they have been changed and modified so that these people can do this.

As has been previously iterated, when the country was in sound financial health nothing was rarely said regarding expenses. MP Pay was a different matter, and I remember that there was always some sort of uproar regarding the fact that the MPs get to decide a pay increase themselves every year. What the MPs get paid is ridiculous and increases the amount of people who decide to become an MP for the salary rather then for what it should be.

However, on the other side, this is not the first time that expenses have been out in the public eye. I am sure that Henry McLeish was forced out of office due to his expenses. I also seem to remember that there was a big thing here in Scotland regarding Taxi Expenses that caused quite a stir.

Everyone, at one time or the other, tries to play the system. And if you can find a way that benefits yourself then you have won, and that is the principle that we have been taught in this great capitalist world.

[Canada Bob]

I think the difference is, the very favourable rules that MP's exploit are written by the very people who intend to exploit them, the rules that some of the rest of us might bend at times aren't written by us they are imposed on us...

The result being MP's et-al are feigning rules with the full intent of abuse, not to mention a betrayal of the trust that the taxpayers and the nation have vested in them.

If/when we exploit our expenses {by dishonesty} we let outselves down, when an MP or the like exploits the system they let the whole nation down, but does it look like they care about that ?

Edited April 14, 2009 by Canada Bob

[CaleyD]

It's only "dishonest" when rules/laws are being broken....Up until that point it's simply a matter for the conscience of each individual.

[Canada Bob]

It's only "dishonest" when rules/laws are being broken....Up until that point it's simply a matter for the conscience of each individual.

Nah it's not Don, it's dishonest when the MP's et-al rig the system in such a way that they know it's nothing more than a way for them to dip endlessly into the taxpayers pocket, let's call it what it is, THEFT.

They simply put the "rules" in place to hide behind, or to excuse their greed, selfish intent, disregard and disrespect towards the rest of the nation.

Looking at what's gone on in Whitehall {and many Town Halls} there's no excusing the diabolical behaviour of those who with more regard for money than "conscience" have betrayed the nation and the publics trust.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Canada Bob

[Scarlet Pimple]

And when I was a Bank Inspector for the Royal Bank of Scotland they forced me to travel first class on British Railway for six years---I am so ashamed!

But then again when I was younger and spending hours at night each week counting notes and stuffing pay bags for the wages of the miners in the coal mines in Methil and District I never got paid a red cent in overtime.

What can I say?

[CaleyD]

It's only "dishonest" when rules/laws are being broken....Up until that point it's simply a matter for the conscience of each individual.

Nah it's not Don, it's dishonest when the MP's et-al rig the system in such a way that they know it's nothing more than a way for them to dip endlessly into the taxpayers pocket, let's call it what it is, THEFT.

They simply put the "rules" in place to hide behind, or to excuse their greed, selfish intent, disregard and disrespect towards the rest of the nation.

Looking at what's gone on in Whitehall {and many Town Halls} there's no excusing the diabolical behaviour of those who with more regard for money than "conscience" have betrayed the nation and the publics trust.

The system was "rigged" long before todays MP's were even born...they've merely inherited a beneficial situation, a situation which they (and to some expect the population of the UK) accepted as the norm. Expenses for MP's is no new thing, and if the level of the perks comes as a surprise to anyone then I'd ask what bubble they've been living in.

As I said, when everything was cosey nobody had a problem with how much MP's were claiming or for what, but now things aren't as we like it then the knives are out and we'll attack them from any and every direction and claim that "they're all criminals and thieves".

This is not a defence of what is going on, morally when things get tough for the country then MP's should suffer the same fate/consequences as the rest of us and things like expenses and perks should be trimmed back....but we can't just go around calling them criminals because we disagree with things, especially when no laws are being broken (in the vast majority of cases).

The argument I would put forward to Government for change is that.....They were outraged by the pension given to Goodwin after the whole RBS fiasco and were claiming that, morally, he had a duty to give up all or part of that pension (regardless of the legal position). Given that MP's are ultimately responsible for the state of the economy then we should be expecting them to apply the same principles to themselves......I think we all pretty much know what the response would be, the question is, is the country willing to get off it's erse and do something about it?...and if so, what's to be done?

[CaleyD]

And when I was a Bank Inspector for the Royal Bank of Scotland they forced me to travel first class on British Railway for six years---I am so ashamed!

But then again when I was younger and spending hours at night each week counting notes and stuffing pay bags for the wages of the miners in the coal mines in Methil and District I never got paid a red cent in overtime.

What can I say?

Nothing had changed during my time there either SP. The "us and them" divide between management and other staff is still a culture enforced/encouraged by the bank.

[Canada Bob]

For the most part I can accept much of what you say, who was it that said a few hundred years ago that people deserve the Government they get, or words along those lines, some Bishop or other I think...

Anyway, here's where I can't accept...

we can't just go around calling them criminals because we disagree with things, especially when no laws are being broken (in the vast majority of cases).

It's not a matter of "if there's a Law against their behavoir or not", like the guards on the concentration camps who broke no laws, {in fact they got medals for doing what they did}, but they are still Criminals when they show such lack of integrity, such lack of regard and lack of respect for fellow men.

When folks ask for your trust and then betray it, especially when they are in such high public office, they are worse than Criminals. There's no excusing betrayal, it's one of the most bitter pills to swallow, one that many of us have tasted at some point in our lives, a taste we never forget...

How can we even think for a moment that stealing from the public purse is OK, especially when...

according to 2006 data, almost a third of families are living in "non-decent homes" which fail to meet the statutory minimum requirements for housing.

Is it tolerable to anyone in the Untidy Kingdom ! that one third of its citizens are living like paupers, whilst the b*stards who we have been conned into voting for are claiming for more houses than they can find time to live in !

Is that not Criminal !!! No, I suppose it's not while the Laws are made by these r soles for their own benefit...

Edited April 15, 2009 by Canada Bob

[Canada Bob]

Hmmm, there I was thinking it was just Whitehall to Town Hall, looks like I forgot this lot...

Gawd knows where the rot stops...

And while Rome burns...

24th out of 29, how bad is that !!!

Edited April 21, 2009 by Canada Bob

[Canada Bob]

Even after what's gone on...

NuLabour just can't let go of the bone...

Edited April 22, 2009 by Canada Bob

[Canada Bob]

Well it took a few phone calls, but the concerns I had about Jacqui Smith didn't fall on deaf ears at the Sun et-al.

It's all starting to fall apart...

The News of the World are also digging into what's been going on, look for an article by Philip Whiteside sometime soon...

From what he tells me, some MP's have had their names registered on more than one electoral role, so that they can vote for themselves in their own constituency and then vote for a colleague in their second home constituency, and there was me thinking it was "one man, one vote", what happened to that, FFS !!!

As mentioned before, "we are all equal, it's just that some are more equal than others !!!

There's more to come yet, I hear there's an ongoing investigation into MP's et-al by HMRC's Intelligence Office in Cardiff.

Looks to me as though the whole lot of them are rotten to the core. I just can't wait until they all come unstuck, the only pity is they probably won't be charged with fraud, be nice to see some of them "Serve Her Majesty" in a "second home" with a locked gate and big walls around it...

Edited May 7, 2009 by Canada Bob

[Yngwie]

Don't worry Bob, it appears that the politicians are stepping aside and letting Joanna Lumley run the country.

[Johnboy]

Don't worry Bob, it appears that the politicians are stepping aside and letting Joanna Lumley run the country.

She'd get my vote long before the hapless and ineffectual Gordon Brown...

[DAM]

Don't worry Bob, it appears that the politicians are stepping aside and letting Joanna Lumley run the country.

She'd get my vote long before the hapless and ineffectual Gordon Brown...

What would you expect of Gordon Brown anyway, he's from Fife is he not, and you know the saying "beware of a Fifer"!!