PDA

View Full Version : Labour MP's Tribute to 'The Few'.


GasFitter
30th May 2009, 23:16
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8075558.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8075558.stm)

Laarbruch72
30th May 2009, 23:33
I can't get the link to work.... can you check it?

GasFitter
30th May 2009, 23:36
Seems good to me.

Laarbruch72
30th May 2009, 23:46
It is now, thanks.

So a £5 donation claimed for, 3 years ago, in a 25 year career? This is another PPRuNe outrage I suppose.....

It's bad that he claimed that. But it was only a fiver.... I'd be more interested in MP's claims that amount to tens of thousands. This is really, really small fry.

Aeronut
31st May 2009, 00:05
Laarbruch, sorry old boy, you are wrong.

Viewed from a taxpayer's perspective, yes, it's small fry. Viewed from a serviceman's perspective or by anyone who is grateful to the few, it's truly massive.

Low Flier
31st May 2009, 00:14
He did it "because you're worth it".

A fiver was worth a lot in them days, especially sumb'dy's else's fiver.

Ali Barber
31st May 2009, 04:38
It's not the amount. It's an indication of the moral decline of all MPs, courtesy of the "professional" politician. Some of the MPs' antics as revealed in the Telegraph have disgusted me, but few more so than this.

sitigeltfel
31st May 2009, 05:03
And Scottish MSPs claiming for remembrance wreaths..

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Scotland politics | MSPs agree to repay wreath claims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/scotland/scotland_politics/8075228.stm)

No Conservatives are thought to have claimedI think this only confirms what we already suspected about the attitude of some MPs towards the armed forces.

Pontius Navigator
31st May 2009, 07:34
Remember he was not the only one. Wasn't it one of the Ed's that tried to claim for two wreaths?

Mind you, Ed could probably argue that as the Public Purse pays for the wreaths laid by military units on Remembrance Day then it was a legitimate claim for his office too.

November4
31st May 2009, 08:29
I don't have a problem with the MPs claiming for wreaths - provided they are being laid on behalf of their constituents and not as a personal wreath from the MP.

As for claiming back a donation....wonder if he tried to claim back any offeratory money that he gave during church services or other charity donations

teeteringhead
31st May 2009, 09:06
It was offertory money. The Sunday Torygraph has a repro of the actual form, although the word "offertory" was "redacted", that is, was going to be removed before intended publication .....

...... which would make you think it was a donation not into the collection .... Personally, I find this one of the meanest attempts to (mis)use our money, and there's plenty of competition!

goudie
31st May 2009, 10:54
Some of the MPs' antics as revealed in the Telegraph have disgusted me, but few more so than this.

Same here. Worthy of 'Hypocrite of the Year Award' but not much else.

Rossian
31st May 2009, 12:50
I have no time for this government and I'm not overly enthralled by Boy Dave either; however allow the possible scenario. Matey's office staff gather all his stuff together and bung it in to the fees office, same as they do every month. He signs the bottom of the form on his way out to catch the train. No conspiracy, just plain ordinary thoughtless cock-up.
AND the fees office rejected it! He didn't get £5 for his donation.

There's a lot that needs explanation in this whole farrago, but if you choose the words correctly you can vary the impression; viz what if Douglas Hogg had claimed for "ditch clearing"
rather than "moat"? Sounds less "Tory grandee" doesn't it?

I think there is an element of unfairness in some cases amidst all the justifiable complaint and it's been there since the beginning of this whole expose.

The Ancient Mariner

ORAC
31st May 2009, 13:20
I have no time for this government and I'm not overly enthralled by Boy Dave either; however allow the possible scenario. Matey's office staff gather all his stuff together and bung it in to the fees office, same as they do every month.

And how and why would they have known he'd put any money in the plate, let alone how much?

Slip ups and errors of various receipts I can understand, he might have some receipts mixed up in the unclaimable pile and the claimable pile - but who fills in a chit for the money they put in the church plate?

anotherthing
31st May 2009, 13:50
It's not the amount, as mentioned above it's the fact he tried to claim for it.

I have a very similar feeling aobut the rest of the expenses 'scandal'. Many of the expenses we hear of are actually legal under the system. It's the fact that politicians, who are employed to make legislation and determine standards etc believe that such claims are morally acceptable, whether it's in the rules or not.

Pay MPs a decent wage, do not give a second home allowance and cut many other expenses. Provide state funded accomodation near Westminster for out of town MPs who need somewhere to stay on the few ocassions they bother to turn up to Parliament.

SirToppamHat
31st May 2009, 13:53
The 'accused' pitches up at Church with no cash. His assistant loans him a fiver and then drops him a note (invoice/receipt) as a reminder that he/she is owed. The note gets to his office, but he doesn't see it because ...

Matey's office staff gather all his stuff together and bung it in to the fees office, same as they do every month. He signs the bottom of the form on his way out to catch the train.

As with others on here, I am not enthralled by the current Government, or by any of the alternatives (and don't even get me started on the MEPs), but I am less concerned by this sort of issue than I am by the large amounts claimed on non-existent mortgages, and the changes of accommodation attracting benefits (flipping). In some cases these attract tens of thousands of pounds - a whole different scale.

As for what this says about his thoughts on the military, I think some on here are reading too much into the newspaper story. At least he was at the BoB service ... or was he?

STH

Double Zero
31st May 2009, 16:11
You might find BAe Systems expenses interesting; the only time I got hauled up was because I hadn't spent enough, so made the others look bad - I was commanded to go and spend more !

This would have left a better taste if I'd been able to do something useful with it towards the aircraft or ' customers ' but a test range in Scotland is a pretty bleak place - it did go usefully on a lot of range staff having another mega curry but it still seems a daft way to inflate aircraft prices.

Pontius Navigator
31st May 2009, 20:05
It's not the amount, as mentioned above it's the fact he tried to claim for it.

Actually Mrs PN had a very good point. Only £5?. As someone earning over £64k pa and generous expenses, why not £50?

iwalkedaway
31st May 2009, 20:23
This specimen MP was on the telly this morning, explaining that the fiver was actually donated by one of his assistants, attending the service as his proxy, who then hand-wrote the chit reproduced by the Torygraph when claiming his expenditure back from his boss - the now embarrassed MP.

The MP himself then had the chit included amongst all the others which were forwarded to the Commons pay office amongst that period's expense claims...and it was rejected by them.

The MP expressed deep and apparently sincere regret, though I'm not convinced whether this was for forwarding the offertory chit, or at now being pilloried for it.

Writing as one who would cheerfully connect politicians of all hues to the mains having first removed the overload trips (d'you think that might open their eyes?), I am still burned by the notion that the p***k who donated the fiver in the first place did NOT just let it go as his own personal tribute...and moreso ditto the MP himself.

These people seem to thrive upon an inexhaustible reserve of self-importance to the extent that any idea of making a PERSONAL donation just does not occur to them. As my old Dad always used to point out - ruefully - you can't put in what God left out. Scum.

iwalkedaway

Ken Scott
31st May 2009, 22:32
Speaking personally, I take the utmost care when submitting all my claims via JPA, not to do so could land me in a heap of trouble if audited (often for petty amounts), and possibly leading to court martial, loss of job/ pension etc.

Pity that those responsible for setting the rules for the rest of us don't take equal care.

Wader2
1st Jun 2009, 09:14
Speaking personally, I take the utmost care when submitting all my claims via JPA,

Probably to the extent of not submitting an item if in doubt.

Liam Gallagher
1st Jun 2009, 09:45
got Court Martialled (unsucessfully and at great expense) a few years back for getting the hotel in NBO to change a phone call to a breakfast. He did it, not for personal gain, but because he knew it was the most expeditious way of getting his imprest to balance and his crew out of the hotel and on their way.

The phonecall wasn't even his, but the Captain's (a Sqn exec); who subsequently put up a plausible argument it was a service related call in any event.

Makes all of the MP's antics all the more unpalatable. Seems to be that those that set rules, feel no obligation to abide by them.

Seemed to recall he was knobbled by a London Borough Councillor standing in the hotel queue and having heard all the "negotiations" felt duty bound to act:yuk:

Strictly Jungly
2nd Jun 2009, 10:08
I'm Gutted, just had a letter back from my MP stating that he doubts that I can claim my, MOD provided accommodation, circa WWII Hut as my second residence! Irrespective that I have to live in it to do my job! I'm sure Guy Gibson has used it in the past!

Its so unfair. I might write to my MEP as they seem to have a knack of making outrageous claims.


An easy solution would be to put all of the MP's on a JPA equivalent system. I would give them a total of 5 minutes before they rejected it!

oldpax
2nd Jun 2009, 10:59
I know a bit about expenses having worked as a private contracter for a few years and know how to hoodwink head office if need be!!However,MPs hand in thier claims to a FEES office.The people who work in thier must be taxpayers so why didnt any off them get annoyed at what was obviously going on?Perhaps a look at thier bank A/C s may reveal a bigger scandal!!!

Lightning Mate
2nd Jun 2009, 11:58
What five letter word begins with F and ends with D?

Archimedes
2nd Jun 2009, 11:59
Seemed to recall he was knobbled by a London Borough Councillor standing in the hotel queue and having heard all the "negotiations" felt duty bound to act :yuk:

OT - but the councillor was subsequently deselected by the Tories, and it may have been that this had a small part in the decision. The councillor, however, suggested that it was the result of a homophobic clique in his local party who didn't like having a gay Arab-Irishman (his own description) representing them...

Maxibon
2nd Jun 2009, 12:13
What five letter word begins with F and ends with D?

Er field, filed, flood, fried, freed, etc etc ad nauseum (limited vocabulary):E
It was too much of a temptation really!

Lightning Mate
2nd Jun 2009, 14:31
But I don't see how a custodial sentence could be the result of those words.

'nuther beer anyone?

Beatriz Fontana
2nd Jun 2009, 20:16
Here we go again. This time it's the Armed Forces Minister (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5431621/MPs-expenses-Bob-Ainsworths-repairs-cost-the-taxpayer-5925.html) and expenses....