Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Aussie Rules
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, WV said:

They didn't all abuse it though did they 

We know that how? Because they didn't get caught?

If they didn't use the system at all it's a fair assumption they knew it was wrong to do so......... yet for over 20 years no one said anything. Which probably makes them complicit.

Then suddenly records are ordered to be destroyed before anyone finds out. The strange thing is so few faced prosecution and fewer found guilty and imprisoned. MPs were allowed to repay the money and avoid prosecution and keep their job..... isn't that corrupting the system?

If no one is above the law shouldn't all thieves be offered the same opportunity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, geosname said:

We know that how? Because they didn't get caught?

If they didn't use the system at all it's a fair assumption they knew it was wrong to do so......... yet for over 20 years no one said anything. Which probably makes them complicit.

Then suddenly records are ordered to be destroyed before anyone finds out. The strange thing is so few faced prosecution and fewer found guilty and imprisoned. MPs were allowed to repay the money and avoid prosecution and keep their job..... isn't that corrupting the system?

If no one is above the law shouldn't all thieves be offered the same opportunity?

They probably call it parliamentary privilege, most places they would get the sack not want their mates to quash it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can call it whatever they want mate, it doesn't excuse it or justify it.

They should have been sacked and ejected from whichever party they were affiliated to.

20+ years of corruption, getting the tax payers to pay the mortgage on a second home then profiting from the sale, claiming for biscuits, duck houses,  moat cleaning, toilet seats etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Areas of abuseEdit

Alongside specific allegations of incorrect claims such as claims for the cost of mortgages which it transpired had already been repaid in full[38] the Telegraph alleged[39][40][41] that parliamentary 'Green Book' expenses rules[42] gave wide scope for a number of abuses, especially those related to costs of maintaining two residences, one in the constituency and one in London. Areas of questionable claims highlighted by the Telegraph included:

  • Nominating second homes: the Green Book states that 'the location of your main home will normally be a matter of fact'. MPs and peers were able to ensure that their second home was the one which enabled them to claim more expenses.[43][44][45] In at least one case (Margaret Moran) the nominated home was near neither constituency nor Westminster.[46]
  • Re-designating second homes: MPs were able repeatedly to switch the designation of their second home, enabling them to claim for purchasing (e.g. Stamp Duty), renovating and furnishing more than one property.[47] This practice became widely known as 'flipping'.[48]
  • Renting out homes: MPs were able to claim for their 'second home' while they were, in fact, renting other homes out. In most cases the rented homes were 'third' properties,[49][50] but in Elliott Morley's case, a second home was rented to another MP, Ian Cawsey, who was claiming the rent on expenses.[51]
  • Over-claiming for council tax on second home: MPs were able to round up actual amounts due, claiming for 12 monthly instalments where only 10 were due or by claiming up to £250.00 per month with no receipt required until those rules were changed. Over 50 MPs were alleged to have over-claimed council tax.[52]
  • Subsidising property development: the Green Book rule that MPs could not claim for repairs 'beyond making good dilapidations' was not enforced and consequently MPs were able to add significantly to the value of a property.[53][54] By implication some 'second homes' were effectively businesses (not homes) since they were renovated on expenses and then rapidly sold.[55]
  • Evading tax and inappropriate attempts at avoiding tax: MPs either evaded tax, or inappropriately deemed themselves not required to pay tax on reimbursements when it was likely tax was due. This covered two areas:
    • Capital gains tax: MPs were able to designate a property as their second home with the parliamentary fees office so as to claim the cost of renovating it on expenses, but a number of MPs had concurrently described a property as their second home to claim expenses, and to the UK tax authority HM Revenue and Customs as their primary residence in order to sell it without capital gains tax.[56] Some also designated a property as a primary or secondary residence for tax or expenses benefits which was apparently little if at all used by them in that role.
    • Income tax: a number of MPs were criticised for non-payment of income tax for benefits in kind or for reimbursed expenses considered under UK tax law to be of a personal nature. As of 31 May 2009, some 40 MPs had been identified as claiming for personal expenses such as preparation of their tax returns, despite UK tax law and ministerial guidance both of which had stated such expenses were not claimable for tax purposes;[57] of those claiming, only a minority paid tax on the benefit in kind.
  • Claiming expenses while living in grace and favour homes: ministers with 'grace and favour' homes in Westminster as well as their existing primary residence were able to claim for a further 'second home' in addition.[58]
  • Renovating and furnishing properties when standing down: MPs were able to claim for renovations and furniture even when they had already announced their intention to resign from Parliament.[59][60]
  • Furnishing of other homes: MPs were able to claim for items of furniture that were actually delivered somewhere other than their second home.[61][62][63]
  • Exploiting the 'no receipt' rule: MPs submitted a large number of claims for just below £250, the ceiling under which they were not required to produce receipts, without being challenged as to their legitimacy.[64][65]
  • Over-claiming for food: under a rule permitting up to £400 for food each month (without receipts), MPs were simply able to claim the whole £400 every month, even when Parliament was not sitting.[66]
  • Overspending at the end of the financial year: MPs were able to submit claims just before the end of the financial year, so as to use up allowances, without being challenged as to their legitimacy.[67][68]

Specific claimsEdit

The Telegraph first revealed expenses of the governing Labour Party, beginning with the Cabinet on 8 May 2009, before releasing details of the claims by junior ministers and Labour backbenchers. Further allegations were made on 14 May.

On 11 and 12 May, publication focused on the frontbench of the Conservative Party[69] followed by the claims of backbench Conservative MPs whom the newspaper dubbed 'the grandees' of the party.[70] On 12 May, the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, announced that all questionable claims by the Shadow Cabinet would be repaid.[71]

The Liberal Democrats expenses were revealed last of the three main parties,[72] followed by Sinn Féin members' claims in which it was reported that the five Sinn Féin MPs together had claimed nearly £500,000 in second home allowances, despite never taking up their seats at Westminster due to the party's abstentionist policy.[73][74] Sinn Féin stated that its members often have to travel to London on parliamentary business.[74]

The claims published by The Daily Telegraph ultimately covered the entire gamut of Parliament—all major parties and several minor ones[citation needed], ministers (including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, cabinet and shadow cabinet members) through to backbenchers, and members of both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. A number of members were expelled from their parties, or would not stand for re-election; some members repaid, in part or whole, sums they had previously claimed. Expenses claims to be repaid averaged £3,000.[75] The highest repayment by an MP was £42,458.21 by Barbara Follett.[76] There were also payments to the UK tax authority for taxes on possible gains or income previously not paid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geosname said:

We know that how? Because they didn't get caught?

If they didn't use the system at all it's a fair assumption they knew it was wrong to do so......... yet for over 20 years no one said anything. Which probably makes them complicit.

Then suddenly records are ordered to be destroyed before anyone finds out. The strange thing is so few faced prosecution and fewer found guilty and imprisoned. MPs were allowed to repay the money and avoid prosecution and keep their job..... isn't that corrupting the system?

If no one is above the law shouldn't all thieves be offered the same opportunity?

I don't think it is fair to make that assumption. I don't deal in probablys either as that isn't right. You assume everyone is guilty without evidence. There was enough evidence for those who did abuse the system, they were named and shamed. Those that didn't abuse it were also named. 

 

Very clever way to change the subject and take the heat off what is actually happening right now though. Not seen you condemn this corruption, only to intimate that it has been worse previously. 

Edited by WV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fosse69 said:
5 hours ago, WV said:
All the tory boys have been online but for once we don't get their opinions. Why is that i wonder emoji848.png

Are they the ones that voted or abstained against the Tory government and defied the Whips?

The ones who can't wait to defend Boris and co at every turn. Where are they? Waiting for this to blow over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, geosname said:
They can call it whatever they want mate, it doesn't excuse it or justify it.
They should have been sacked and ejected from whichever party they were affiliated to.
20+ years of corruption, getting the tax payers to pay the mortgage on a second home then profiting from the sale, claiming for biscuits, duck houses,  moat cleaning, toilet seats etc etc

My concern is the activities of the current government on a higher  financial level and their undercover activities, very little comes in front of Parliament nowadays. When it does it is all too obvious of the current standards of moral behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WV said:

I don't think it is fair to make that assumption. I don't deal in probablys either as that isn't right. You assume everyone is guilty without evidence. There was enough evidence for those who did abuse the system, they were named and shamed. Those that didn't abuse it were also named. 

 

Very clever way to change the subject and take the heat off what is actually happening right now though. Not seen you condemn this corruption, only to intimate that it has been worse previously. 

I have said the Tories are corrupt a few posts back (present day)

I think the expenses scandal was worse, just my opinion,  because it went on for decades and involved the whole of parliament.

You seem to forget I don't have a dog in this fight,  I think all politicians are liars and are corrupt. No matter which party flag they congregate under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:
20 minutes ago, geosname said:
They can call it whatever they want mate, it doesn't excuse it or justify it.
They should have been sacked and ejected from whichever party they were affiliated to.
20+ years of corruption, getting the tax payers to pay the mortgage on a second home then profiting from the sale, claiming for biscuits, duck houses,  moat cleaning, toilet seats etc etc

My concern is the activities of the current government on a financial level and their undercover activities, very little comes in front of Parliament nowadays. When it does it is all too obvious of the current standards of moral behaviour.

It should be everyone's concern mate. Never trust always question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...