ORGANISED CRIME IN THE UK
MP's have organised a system for expenses which involves some of them avoiding the payment of Capital Gains Tax. They had in place a system which involved claims for which some ought to be prosecuted. Is that not organised crime?
When Al Capone was done for Tax evasion he got 11 years in the slammer, nothing else was proved, so does that mean our Parliament is being run by some people who were no better than Al?
posted by Mike Tansey @ 11:06 am
2 Comments:
In the Echo 26th May Mr Etherington supports all claims made within the rules including a Torys charge of £2,200 for clearing his moat.
Any profits made on his London home were rightfully his;
And he has no qualms over claiming £400 a month for food.
I note Mr Etherington is not standing for re-election.
Mr Etherington should remember that the system for MPs expenses was set up to assist MPs whose constituencies were a considerable distance from Parliament. To enable an MP to live as normal a life as possible whilst carrying out their Parliamentary duties on behalf of their constituents.
Just because the rule says that an MP may claim up to X amount it does not state one must claim the maximum amount. It is most definitely not part of an MPs wage.
As for his attendance in Parliament, it is quite shocking. Its actually 47%. Well below average. Even so, he has claimed the full amount for travel. How can he do that with less than a 50% appearance in the House?
If, as he states, he was on a Parliamentary delegations to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, and I must assume that he was selected by the government to be on these committees, then expenses to attend these would come direct from the Government and not the MPs expense purse because when attending these European meetings he is not representing his constituents he is representing the government and not able to fulfil his duties as elected.
It also means that for 53% of his time he is not representing my interests in Parliament.
Mr Etherington also defended the amount of holiday time MPs get pointing out they often work a 70-hour week when Parliament is sitting. Other than at the PMs question time I have yet to see the houses of Parliament full!
I would like to see a break-down of a typical weeks agenda for Mr Etherington or, indeed, any MP.
Where, I ask, are the MPs at other times? They can’t all be sitting on committees.
Regarding his home, it’s ironic that neither one is in his constituency or even within the city of Sunderland.
This is one consequence of the move towards career politicians, a good number of whom are chancers without an original political thought in their heads. The thing that amuses and irritates me in equal measure is their insistence the problem here lies in the existing rules.
There is actually little wrong in the rules, which are not dramatically different to the rules governing expense claims in most organisations. The real issue is their inability to distinguish between right and wrong.
It is unfortunate that all MPs are now tarred with the same brush, but the plain facts is they are, and a cleansing process has become essential. Parliament should be dissolved and a general election called. They should be made to put their jobs on the line and convince the electorate they merit our trust and support.
Have local politicians anything to fear from the Freedom of Information Act? I don't think so, least I hope not!
Steve H.
In the Echo 26th May Mr Etherington supports all claims made within the rules including a Torys charge of £2,200 for clearing his moat.
Any profits made on his London home were rightfully his;
And he has no qualms over claiming £400 a month for food.
I note Mr Etherington is not standing for re-election.
Mr Etherington should remember that the system for MPs expenses was set up to assist MPs whose constituencies were a considerable distance from Parliament. To enable an MP to live as normal a life as possible whilst carrying out their Parliamentary duties on behalf of their constituents.
Just because the rule says that an MP may claim up to X amount it does not state one must claim the maximum amount. It is most definitely not part of an MPs wage.
As for his attendance in Parliament, it is quite shocking. Its actually 47%. Well below average. Even so, he has claimed the full amount for travel. How can he do that with less than a 50% appearance in the House?
If, as he states, he was on a Parliamentary delegations to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, and I must assume that he was selected by the government to be on these committees, then expenses to attend these would come direct from the Government and not the MPs expense purse because when attending these European meetings he is not representing his constituents he is representing the government and not able to fulfil his duties as elected.
It also means that for 53% of his time he is not representing my interests in Parliament.
Mr Etherington also defended the amount of holiday time MPs get pointing out they often work a 70-hour week when Parliament is sitting. Other than at the PMs question time I have yet to see the houses of Parliament full!
I would like to see a break-down of a typical weeks agenda for Mr Etherington or, indeed, any MP.
Where, I ask, are the MPs at other times? They can’t all be sitting on committees.
Regarding his home, it’s ironic that neither one is in his constituency or even within the city of Sunderland.
This is one consequence of the move towards career politicians, a good number of whom are chancers without an original political thought in their heads. The thing that amuses and irritates me in equal measure is their insistence the problem here lies in the existing rules. There is actually little wrong in the rules, which are not dramatically different to the rules governing expense claims in most organisations. The real issue is their inability to distinguish between right and wrong.
It is unfortunate that all MPs are now tarred with the same brush, but the plain facts is they are, and a cleansing process has become essential. Parliament should be dissolved and a general election called. They should be made to put their jobs on the line and convince the electorate they merit our trust and support.
Have local politicians anything to fear from the Freedom of Information Act? I don't think so, least I hope not
Steve Hanratty
Post a Comment
<< Home