self-serving?
they just took what was offered
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:15, archived)

And quite right too.
If it annoys the plebs or makes their lives more difficult, I'm in favour of it.

I'm disgusted by all those idiots who complain about it. They should be grateful their money was spent to fund the lifestyles of such wonderful, upstanding individuals.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:15, archived)

that's why i don't like carverys

( mongychops, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:16, archived)

all the duck houses you can eat?

(Mehitabel_Itrang, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:20, archived)

They knew it was against the rules, and some took it anyway.
Admittedly they may have had the agreement of the regulatory body, who are apparently a bunch of retards.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:17, archived)

there are very few examples where anyone broke the rules
and most of them seem to be error rather than malice
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:19, archived)

There are rules saying the expenses have to be wholly and exclusively related to their political duty and staying somewhere other than their main address.
I think there are plenty of examples of things which are certainly not necessary for that purpose. Such as the usual moats, swimming pools etc, or mortgage payments on a flat for someone who already outright owns properties in that area.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:24, archived)

then why were the claims approved if they were against the rules?

( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:25, archived)

As I said above,
'Admittedly they may have had the agreement of the regulatory body, who are apparently a bunch of retards.'
There's been some mention of MPs correspondence with the body, where the MPs basically bully and whine until their claims are accepted.
They didn't think anyone else would look at what was going on, so there was no reason to have any restraint.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:29, archived)

but, they didn't break any rules (most of them)
it's just a media witch hunt
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:38, archived)

Certainly it's a media witch hunt.
But I'm fairly confident a number have broken rules and hopefully they'll be dealt with criminally.
The witch hunt may have the benefit of provoking the formation of a better system that's less ambiguous and less open to abuse.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:42, archived)

dream on
all it did was get the fringe parties more of the vote
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:47, archived)

Depends how long it goes on for really.
I expect we'll all forget about it during the 'consultancy' type phase, so that whoever's in power when it boils over can reinstate much the same system.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:50, archived)

exactly, there's not much you can do differently while running the country
react to events and try not to fuck up too badly, what difference does it make who's in power?
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:51, archived)

Other countries manage to be open and fair about their expenses, I'm sure we could manage if we put our minds to it.
If it's all published, there's a serious incentive to behave well, because they've now seen what happens when the media finds a story like this.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:53, archived)

of course,
instate this new system by all means, just don't make the prosecutions retroactive
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:56, archived)

i feel sorry for the ones that acted within the rules yet are being made into pariahs
just because they claimed for curtains or some other bollocks like that
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:40, archived)

Some of them are very strange.
I don't feel the need to get outraged about a claim for a bathplug.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:43, archived)

I was listening to Richard Herring today
and he was saying, "if it seems like a trivial thing...then it is trivial to investigate it"
What's the point in spending thousands investigating someone who might have spent £1200 on a new telly when it was entirely within the expenses and allowances rules and regulations?
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:45, archived)

Yeah, what's the point in convicting burglars who only stole a small car, or the contents of someone's house.
The court and prison costs will outweigh the value of the theft.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:47, archived)

good point,
why not spend that money convicting rapists and the like instead?
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:54, archived)

But all they've stolen is innocence,
and people give that away willingly all the time.
Seriously though, I don't think it's an either/or. You have to convict for a crime even if it's a net loss for that particular case.
Otherwise, there's be no deterrant and the costs from other people committing the same crime will soon outweigh the savings.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:57, archived)

theft is hardly up there with assault
if there's no threat of physical harm why even bother to prosecute?
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:01, archived)

Because if someone stole my stuff, I'd say it's deserving of punishment.
Are you happy to have your things taken?
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:03, archived)

did you miss the bit that said "when it was entirely within the expenses and allowances rules and regulations"?
i.e. no criminal offence or breach of regulations
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:56, archived)

I think the point of investigation is to find out whether it's within the rules or not.
Noone's going to investigate something that's clearly fine, except possibly David Cameron because it makes him look good.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:58, archived)

but surely noone will know whether it is fine or not without investigating it?
I'm all for dismissing trivial things based on face value, clearly!
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:07, archived)

I'm not saying they should investigate every last claim,
I'm saying they should investigate the non-trivial ones that appear dodgy. I think some of the most clear cut ones are MPs who own properties in London but decide to move onto a new one and get the mortgage interest paid for.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:12, archived)

quite right!
i'm glad we agree! *shakes hands over the internet*
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:24, archived)

Splendid

( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:27, archived)

On their salaries
They shouldn't NEED to claim for curtains!
( Methylene Blue - electrohead, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:45, archived)

they don't earn that much

( rosalicious i fucking love youve been framed, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:46, archived)

Over £60,000 a year isn't much?
That's just the basic starting salary, for a job that requires no qualifications other than popularity.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:48, archived)

yeah, and being constantly in the media firing line

( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:49, archived)

I'd take that for roughly 3x the average salary.
Especially if I also get a second home paid for.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:51, archived)

then why don't you?
get out there and make a difference!
( well, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:53, archived)

I think I fall down at the 'popularity' qualification.
Also, I'm happy doing what I do now.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:54, archived)

The fact is that they were entitled to claim for it.
It is the system that needs reforming. There is no point closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I'm guessing here that you wouldn't therefore claim for something that you were entitled to claim for because it might be unpopular?
(starwars mcguinness is now... STARWARS McGUINNESS, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 21:00, archived)

What they took was what they felt to be their earnings
when Maggie "readjusted" salaries in the last recession so that they got less actual cash and more expenses, rather than just actual cash that they'd got before. It's just semantics, but most MPs felt that that 24k was just their salary called under a different name (as that's what it was pre-1990), so no ethical crime was commited.
( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 20:18, archived)