Greedy b@st@rds are still at it!
Comments
-
The thing is stevo, are you going to pay up on that beer or 10, when Corbyn sweeps into power in 2020? (of course with your help) or will you renegade, just like these MP's ?
anyway, what other parties have you previously voted for stevo? you know my earlier choices!
as for MP's expenses, surely we should expect a slightly higher moral standard from people who make our laws? and as such, the penalties they face should be far harsher than joe bloggs gets for fiddling his/her mileage.0 -
But I bet Joe Bloggs does care.Like I said earlier, 1 in 5 of adults think it's ok to fiddle expenses in some circumstances. Difference is when joe bloggs gets caught no one cares.
This!
Especially when he has to pay up.
I believe that to be the point.
Imagine he'd gain more from fiddling one expense claim then he'd lose for all MPs fidling expenses combined.0 -
The thing is stevo, are you going to pay up on that beer or 10, when Corbyn sweeps into power in 2020? (of course with your help) or will you renegade, just like these MP's ?
anyway, what other parties have you previously voted for stevo? you know my earlier choices!
as for MP's expenses, surely we should expect a slightly higher moral standard from people who make our laws? and as such, the penalties they face should be far harsher than joe bloggs gets for fiddling his/her mileage.
Well you can have a say if they should even have the job as MP every 5 years.
You can't say that for many other jobs.0 -
Personally I feel that justice is blind or should be. What I mean is that it doesn't matter about the details of the crime so much as the offence you're found guilty of. Two men found guilty of fiddling expenses, one did it for £1000s the other £10s they both get the sentence for the crime call it fraud (not that I'm saying this is fraud just giving it as an example). Also if one is an ordinary Joe Bloggs and the other is an MP or someone of higher moral purpose (some might think that is everybody but I'm thinking of a priest, vicar, immam, etc) then there is no difference.
Just my view that it's the offence not the size of it or the person doing it that's important.
BTW does it matter who we vote for since this is a good example of cross bench action. All parties (main parties) are represented in this list and very poorly represented. It's still the system that's the real mess to be sorted IMHO.0 -
I will stick by my promises should JC take power at the next election. Squadron of pigs at the readyThe thing is stevo, are you going to pay up on that beer or 10, when Corbyn sweeps into power in 2020? (of course with your help) or will you renegade, just like these MP's ?
anyway, what other parties have you previously voted for stevo? you know my earlier choices!
as for MP's expenses, surely we should expect a slightly higher moral standard from people who make our laws? and as such, the penalties they face should be far harsher than joe bloggs gets for fiddling his/her mileage.
As you well know I have voted for a Labour candidate in the recent past
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Completely missing the point. Again.
But I bet Joe Bloggs does care.Like I said earlier, 1 in 5 of adults think it's ok to fiddle expenses in some circumstances. Difference is when joe bloggs gets caught no one cares.
This!
Especially when he has to pay up.
I believe that to be the point.
Imagine he'd gain more from fiddling one expense claim then he'd lose for all MPs fidling expenses combined.
This issue is not about the monetary values, it is about the principles, and the hypocrisy.
It simply highlights the "one rule for them and one for the rest of us" state of affairs.
And I think you are wrong on the monetary value anyway. Joe Bloggs would lose his job if caught.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
But you're attributing higher standards to MPs than to the rest of the public. That too is double standards.
When a doctor tells you smoking is harming your health, yet smokes himself, is the doctor still right?
Course he is.
MPs are still people. Their job is government policy & laws etc. They're not saintly creatures sent by providence.
I'm infitnitely more interested in their policy and ability to govern than their expenses claims.
As for losing your job - I've seen multiple people caught at a couple of firms I worked at and the result wasn't a sacking. They just had to pay the money back.0 -
No.But you're attributing higher standards to MPs than to the rest of the public. That too is double standards.
When a doctor tells you smoking is harming your health, yet smokes himself, is the doctor still right?
Course he is.
MPs are still people. Their job is government policy & laws etc. They're not saintly creatures sent by providence.
I'm infitnitely more interested in their policy and ability to govern than their expenses claims.
As for losing your job - I've seen multiple people caught at a couple of firms I worked at and the result wasn't a sacking. They just had to pay the money back.
I am not.
I simply expect the same rules to apply.
And this is just one example. Please don't get me started on what MPs can claim for that business people cannot. I gets me angry. And you wouldn't like me when I am angry.
I do know people sacked for fraudulent expenses claims. Mistakes do happen but we all know the difference.
I cannot contemplate a company asking for an employee to repay "mistakes" 3 times, and then just letting them off.
And as for their competency, makes you wonder the consequences of one of them becoming Chancellor. :shock:The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Of course any employer, MP or not should pay the money back at the first time of asking if the amount is not in dispute.
As regards people on here expecting a higher moral standing from MPs, why? Don't get me wrong, if they behave illegally they should go, but if they don't share my or someone else's morals? Seriously?
Be they are shagging around, whatever sexual persuasion, prone to the odd risque comment - so what? If they are doing the job properly then fine.0
