David Cameron accused the mps who have been exposed in recent days for claiming money that they were not entitled to were"abusing tax payers money". Maybe it is the way I was brought up but "abusing" is not the term that colmes to mind I think steaing tax payers money would have been more approtpriate. One MP apparently claimed for hanging a chandalier in his house.
Quote from: Capt Pat on May 13, 2009, 02:35:36 AM
David Cameron accused the mps who have been exposed in recent days for claiming money that they were not entitled to were"abusing tax payers money". Maybe it is the way I was brought up but "abusing" is not the term that colmes to mind I think steaing tax payers money would have been more approtpriate. One MP apparently claimed for hanging a chandalier in his house.
People, glass houses and all that. I believe Cameron has been eat his words over the last few days in between his Labour witch hunt. While no doubt there has been lots of abuse of the system, I have to wonder who has been approving these expenses or if any internal review process exists?
The galling thing about this whole affair is in the majority of cases the hoors were not breaking any rules.
One of them claimed to have his moat cleaned???? FFS thats just ridiculous!! Its hard to know which is the most galling - these big expenses or the small expenses like light bulbs - they have such disregard for tax payers money that they wont even put their hand in their pockets for a bit of change to buy new light bulbs - unbelievable! It makes you wonder - if they are so bliase with taxpayers money on these issues how the hell are they going to use it to run the country!
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 08:53:02 AM
One of them claimed to have his moat cleaned???? FFS thats just ridiculous!! Its hard to know which is the most galling - these big expenses or the small expenses like light bulbs - they have such disregard for tax payers money that they wont even put their hand in their pockets for a bit of change to buy new light bulbs - unbelievable! It makes you wonder - if they are so bliase with taxpayers money on these issues how the hell are they going to use it to run the country!
I bill back list bulbs and little stuff like that to my company ;D Although I haven't needed the moat cleaned yet and i'm quite happy with the chandelier.
Quote from: thebigfella on May 13, 2009, 09:10:53 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 08:53:02 AM
One of them claimed to have his moat cleaned???? FFS thats just ridiculous!! Its hard to know which is the most galling - these big expenses or the small expenses like light bulbs - they have such disregard for tax payers money that they wont even put their hand in their pockets for a bit of change to buy new light bulbs - unbelievable! It makes you wonder - if they are so bliase with taxpayers money on these issues how the hell are they going to use it to run the country!
I bill back list bulbs and little stuff like that to my company ;D Although I haven't needed the moat cleaned yet and i'm quite happy with the chandelier.
Thats fair enough - but its not tax payers money! I for one have to get the wetsuit on and clean my own moat out!!! :P
Quote from: Capt Pat on May 13, 2009, 02:35:36 AM
David Cameron accused the mps who have been exposed in recent days for claiming money that they were not entitled to were"abusing tax payers money". Maybe it is the way I was brought up but "abusing" is not the term that colmes to mind I think steaing tax payers money would have been more approtpriate. One MP apparently claimed for hanging a chandalier in his house.
Steaing isn't a term that colmes to mind either.
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 09:24:49 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on May 13, 2009, 09:10:53 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 08:53:02 AM
One of them claimed to have his moat cleaned???? FFS thats just ridiculous!! Its hard to know which is the most galling - these big expenses or the small expenses like light bulbs - they have such disregard for tax payers money that they wont even put their hand in their pockets for a bit of change to buy new light bulbs - unbelievable! It makes you wonder - if they are so bliase with taxpayers money on these issues how the hell are they going to use it to run the country!
I bill back list bulbs and little stuff like that to my company ;D Although I haven't needed the moat cleaned yet and I'm quite happy with the chandelier.
Thats fair enough - but its not tax payers money! I for one have to get the wetsuit on and clean my own moat out!!! :P
How do you know I don't spend taxpayers money ;)
The issue is really that they are using the living allowances to pay mortgage's on second homes and then selling them on for profit. I personally have no problem with an MP using taxpayer money for the upkeep/cleaning of rented accommodation (light bulbs etc... within reason) but I do have when they own the property. Expenses are there to compensate you for living away from home and to make sure your not out of pocket. They are not for supplementing your income as a number of MP's appear to think.
They are all a bundle of scheming bastards, i honestly do believe that in their eyes the only thing that they hvae done wrong is getting caught. Its a disgrace some of the things they have been claiming for, they were basically claiming for everything that everyone would be paying for with their disposable income, i.e (they were living for free)
I will never vote again
Pains me to say, but I've a lot of respect for the way David Cameron handled it.
Loved hearing him say that wee fecker Norman Tebbit would need to watch himself, or he'll be in the Commons as an Independent.
Quote from: thebigfella on May 13, 2009, 10:02:20 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 09:24:49 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on May 13, 2009, 09:10:53 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 08:53:02 AM
One of them claimed to have his moat cleaned???? FFS thats just ridiculous!! Its hard to know which is the most galling - these big expenses or the small expenses like light bulbs - they have such disregard for tax payers money that they wont even put their hand in their pockets for a bit of change to buy new light bulbs - unbelievable! It makes you wonder - if they are so bliase with taxpayers money on these issues how the hell are they going to use it to run the country!
I bill back list bulbs and little stuff like that to my company ;D Although I haven't needed the moat cleaned yet and I'm quite happy with the chandelier.
Thats fair enough - but its not tax payers money! I for one have to get the wetsuit on and clean my own moat out!!! :P
How do you know I don't spend taxpayers money ;)
The issue is really that they are using the living allowances to pay mortgage's on second homes and then selling them on for profit. I personally have no problem with an MP using taxpayer money for the upkeep/cleaning of rented accommodation (light bulbs etc... within reason) but I do have when they own the property. Expenses are there to compensate you for living away from home and to make sure your not out of pocket. They are not for supplementing your income as a number of MP's appear to think.
Well they pretty much are. Independent pay reviews have recommended that MPs are paid more, but as such recommendations don't generally go down well with the public, expenses were used to compensate and 'top-up' salaries instead.
An MP's salary is around £65k, which relative to the private sector isn't really that much for a job that would be pretty demanding with very long (and non-standard) hours.
Put the salary at a suitable level and have clear rules on what constitutes expenses.
I think the salary is quite adequate!
Lets not forget the many add-ons that are available for MP's who are on committees or who are junior minister's etc..
The salary should reflect the average wage of the people you represent therefore you will always be in touch with how the general public feel.
I would advocate an MP's salary should mirror the average working wage in the country.
Quote from: thebigfella on May 13, 2009, 10:02:20 AM
The issue is really that they are using the living allowances to pay mortgage's on second homes and then selling them on for profit. I personally have no problem with an MP using taxpayer money for the upkeep/cleaning of rented accommodation (light bulbs etc... within reason) but I do have when they own the property. Expenses are there to compensate you for living away from home and to make sure your not out of pocket. They are not for supplementing your income as a number of MP's appear to think.
They are not using the taxpayers money to pay their mortgage - only the interest on the mortgage.
I do believe MP's should be able to claim a reasonable amount on expenses for nights away from home. However a second home allowance should only be payable for MP's that attend parliament for a minimum number of days per year etc
There just need to be more transparency and receipts for everything.
As someone who is used to travelling on business, living in hotels is not a pleasant exepreince however often unavoidable and for anyone with a job in 2 locations - a second home is a perfectly reasonable expense, and should be equal to the living standards of your main home
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 09:24:49 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on May 13, 2009, 09:10:53 AM
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 08:53:02 AM
One of them claimed to have his moat cleaned???? FFS thats just ridiculous!! Its hard to know which is the most galling - these big expenses or the small expenses like light bulbs - they have such disregard for tax payers money that they wont even put their hand in their pockets for a bit of change to buy new light bulbs - unbelievable! It makes you wonder - if they are so bliase with taxpayers money on these issues how the hell are they going to use it to run the country!
I bill back list bulbs and little stuff like that to my company ;D Although I haven't needed the moat cleaned yet and i'm quite happy with the chandelier.
Thats fair enough - but its not tax payers money! I for one have to get the wetsuit on and clean my own moat out!!! :P
Ultimately it is taxpayers money - what happens to a company's profit?
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 13, 2009, 01:16:51 PM
I think the salary is quite adequate!
Lets not forget the many add-ons that are available for MP's who are on committees or who are junior minister's etc..
The salary should reflect the average wage of the people you represent therefore you will always be in touch with how the general public feel.
I would advocate an MP's salary should mirror the average working wage in the country.
That's ridiculous. The average wage in the UK is less than £30k. Your salary should reflect your role and responsibilities as an MP. If someone in the private sector worked the hours of an MP and did the type of work MPs do, they would be earning a lot more than £65k.
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 08:23:50 AM
The galling thing about this whole affair is in the majority of cases the hoors were not breaking any rules.
When you make your own rules you have to be VERY stupid to break them. Self regulation is no regulation.
Sure werent the Shinners paying something like £4000 per month rent on a London flat when the going rate was £1500 ? You wouldnt mind those boyos in if you were a landlord.........
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 01:41:30 PM
Sure werent the Shinners paying something like £4000 per month rent on a London flat when the going rate was £1500 ? You wouldnt mind those boyos in if you were a landlord.........
Would be alright until you tried to put them out :-\
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 01:41:30 PM
Sure werent the Shinners paying something like £4000 per month rent on a London flat when the going rate was £1500 ? You wouldnt mind those boyos in if you were a landlord.........
Given that the landlord is also Irish...
Quote from: Chrisowc on May 13, 2009, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 01:41:30 PM
Sure werent the Shinners paying something like £4000 per month rent on a London flat when the going rate was £1500 ? You wouldnt mind those boyos in if you were a landlord.........
Would be alright until you tried to put them out :-\
See above. I doubt it would be an issue.
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 01:41:30 PM
Sure werent the Shinners paying something like £4000 per month rent on a London flat when the going rate was £1500 ? You wouldnt mind those boyos in if you were a landlord.........
2 flats,and claiming in total £1800 per month each,dont believe everything you read in the Telegraph cause dont know many rooms in London you could rent for much less than £450 week,also Sinn Fein politicians take home approx £300 week wages the same as every other employee of the party including,office staff,drivers,researchers,etc;I understand you may not like or agree with Sinn Fein but I can assure you all those employed by the party earn thier £300 as they work long hours for thier constituents.
They are all a bundle of bastards, FACT
Quote from: glens abu on May 13, 2009, 02:07:11 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 01:41:30 PM
Sure werent the Shinners paying something like £4000 per month rent on a London flat when the going rate was £1500 ? You wouldnt mind those boyos in if you were a landlord.........
2 flats,and claiming in total £1800 per month each,dont believe everything you read in the Telegraph cause dont know many rooms in London you could rent for much less than £450 week,also Sinn Fein politicians take home approx £300 week wages the same as every other employee of the party including,office staff,drivers,researchers,etc;I understand you may not like or agree with Sinn Fein but I can assure you all those employed by the party earn thier £300 as they work long hours for thier constituents.
According to the telegraph:
QuoteThe party's two best-known figures, Gerry Adams, the party leader, and Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland's deputy first minister, jointly claimed expenses of £3,600 a month to rent a shared two-bedroom flat in north London. A local estate agent, who knows the properties, said a fair monthly rent for the flat would be £1,400.
The three other Sinn Fein MPs together claimed £5,400 a month to rent a shared, modern town house, which the estate agent said would rent on the open market for around £1,800 a month. At other times some of the MPs have stayed in a third property, another two-bedroom flat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5301510/MPs-expenses-Sinn-Fein-claimed-500000-for-second-homes.html
That's £9,000 per month - not the £1,800 you claim. And whatever about not believing what you read in the Telegraph, SF have pretty much confirmed the Telegraph's claims. So unless you know better than both the Telegraph and those making and receiving the claims (i.e. SF), you must be bluffing.
And yes, SF pay themselves an 'industrial wage' - fair enough, that's their choice.
Does the point not remain that they're ripping off the tax payer, whether or not they're benefitting personally?
I didnt see anywhere that Sinn Fein disputed the figures in the Telegraph article.
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 13, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
They are all a bundle of b**tards, FACT
Just the Shinners? Or MPs in general?
Quote from: saffron sam2 on May 13, 2009, 08:57:23 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 13, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
They are all a bundle of b**tards, FACT
Just the Shinners? Or MPs in general?
All of them I'd guess, from top to bottom. It is clear there was very little oversight as to what was a justifiable expense. It's as well for Gordon there isn't a general election for another year or he'd be up the road.
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 05:58:10 PM
I didnt see anywhere that Sinn Fein disputed the figures in the Telegraph article.
Adams was on the radio the other day and did not dispute the figures. In face he was quite proud that he was doing the brits out of money. He reckoned it would be a long time for them to pay what the owe. Can't say I disagree with him!
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 13, 2009, 09:06:07 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 05:58:10 PM
I didnt see anywhere that Sinn Fein disputed the figures in the Telegraph article.
Adams was on the radio the other day and did not dispute the figures. In face he was quite proud that he was doing the brits out of money. He reckoned it would be a long time for them to pay what the owe. Can't say I disagree with him!
Gerry and his cronies love HMGs money, sure they've been getting it in brown envelopes for thirty years. Allegedly.
Quote from: Lazer on May 13, 2009, 01:27:46 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on May 13, 2009, 10:02:20 AM
The issue is really that they are using the living allowances to pay mortgage's on second homes and then selling them on for profit. I personally have no problem with an MP using taxpayer money for the upkeep/cleaning of rented accommodation (light bulbs etc... within reason) but I do have when they own the property. Expenses are there to compensate you for living away from home and to make sure your not out of pocket. They are not for supplementing your income as a number of MP's appear to think.
They are not using the taxpayers money to pay their mortgage - only the interest on the mortgage.
Hmmm some MP's are claiming for mortgages that don't even exist >:( Even if is only the interest as they may claim (apparently not having to justify it either), this is the scenario - buy a house, the taxpayer covers the interest on the mortgage while you own it. Refurbish/decorate (install a f**king sauna) the house and claim it back though expenses. Sell the house on and repay your borrowed amount pocketing a tidy profit, potentially avoiding capital gains tax too.
Quote from: Lazer on May 13, 2009, 01:27:46 PM
I do believe MP's should be able to claim a reasonable amount on expenses for nights away from home. However a second home allowance should only be payable for MP's that attend parliament for a minimum number of days per year etc
Agreed but I don't believe MP's should be able to use that allowance to own/buy their that 2nd home. There's a conflict of interest and this practice, on an individual employee basis, is pretty much not allowed in the private sector.
Quote from: Lazer on May 13, 2009, 01:27:46 PM
As someone who is used to travelling on business, living in hotels is not a pleasant experience however often unavoidable and for anyone with a job in 2 locations - a second home is a perfectly reasonable expense, and should be equal to the living standards of your main home
Same here, i've spent less than 30 nights in my own house over the last 2 years but what do you constitute as equal living standards?
If you spend 2 nights away from home, do you really need a 2nd home or is a decent hotel (or serviced apartment) not justifiable? I have 4 bedrooms do I need 4 in my accommodation provided by a client? Do I need a 42 inch flatscreen and sky in my work accommodation just because I have it in my main home (yes but I sacrificed 2 bedrooms for it ;) )?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on May 13, 2009, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on May 13, 2009, 08:57:23 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 13, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
They are all a bundle of b**tards, FACT
Just the Shinners? Or MPs in general?
All of them I'd guess, from top to bottom. It is clear there was very little oversight as to what was a justifiable expense. It's as well for Gordon there isn't a general election for another year or he'd be up the road.
Hard to see Brown being the man to save Labour even if an election is a full year away. Whilst I wouldn't want to see Conservatives in power, Cameron seems to be handling this issue a lot better than Brown.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 13, 2009, 09:06:07 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 05:58:10 PM
I didnt see anywhere that Sinn Fein disputed the figures in the Telegraph article.
Adams was on the radio the other day and did not dispute the figures. In face he was quite proud that he was doing the brits out of money. He reckoned it would be a long time for them to pay what the owe. Can't say I disagree with him!
Yeah, to be honest i don't think SF would suffer from any of this the way other parties might.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 13, 2009, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 13, 2009, 01:16:51 PM
I think the salary is quite adequate!
Lets not forget the many add-ons that are available for MP's who are on committees or who are junior minister's etc..
The salary should reflect the average wage of the people you represent therefore you will always be in touch with how the general public feel.
I would advocate an MP's salary should mirror the average working wage in the country.
That's ridiculous. The average wage in the UK is less than £30k. Your salary should reflect your role and responsibilities as an MP. If someone in the private sector worked the hours of an MP and did the type of work MPs do, they would be earning a lot more than £65k.
Don't forget that MPs can and do earn money outside Parliament at the same time.
Quote from: MW on May 13, 2009, 11:21:40 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 13, 2009, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 13, 2009, 01:16:51 PM
I think the salary is quite adequate!
Lets not forget the many add-ons that are available for MP's who are on committees or who are junior minister's etc..
The salary should reflect the average wage of the people you represent therefore you will always be in touch with how the general public feel.
I would advocate an MP's salary should mirror the average working wage in the country.
That's ridiculous. The average wage in the UK is less than £30k. Your salary should reflect your role and responsibilities as an MP. If someone in the private sector worked the hours of an MP and did the type of work MPs do, they would be earning a lot more than £65k.
Don't forget that MPs can and do earn money outside Parliament at the same time.
Fair enough. But if they don't do their main job properly, the public can and should give them the boot.
I still maintain that the time inputs and competence that should be required to be an MP would not be reflected by a 30k salary.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on May 13, 2009, 08:57:23 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 13, 2009, 02:13:03 PM
They are all a bundle of b**tards, FACT
Just the Shinners? Or MPs in general?
Oh every single last one of them, and i will never vote again, cudnt give a shite anymore
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 13, 2009, 04:08:14 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 13, 2009, 02:07:11 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 13, 2009, 01:41:30 PM
Sure werent the Shinners paying something like £4000 per month rent on a London flat when the going rate was £1500 ? You wouldnt mind those boyos in if you were a landlord.........
2 flats,and claiming in total £1800 per month each,dont believe everything you read in the Telegraph cause dont know many rooms in London you could rent for much less than £450 week,also Sinn Fein politicians take home approx £300 week wages the same as every other employee of the party including,office staff,drivers,researchers,etc;I understand you may not like or agree with Sinn Fein but I can assure you all those employed by the party earn thier £300 as they work long hours for thier constituents.
According to the telegraph:
QuoteThe party's two best-known figures, Gerry Adams, the party leader, and Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland's deputy first minister, jointly claimed expenses of £3,600 a month to rent a shared two-bedroom flat in north London. A local estate agent, who knows the properties, said a fair monthly rent for the flat would be £1,400.
The three other Sinn Fein MPs together claimed £5,400 a month to rent a shared, modern town house, which the estate agent said would rent on the open market for around £1,800 a month. At other times some of the MPs have stayed in a third property, another two-bedroom flat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5301510/MPs-expenses-Sinn-Fein-claimed-500000-for-second-homes.html
That's £9,000 per month - not the £1,800 you claim. And whatever about not believing what you read in the Telegraph, SF have pretty much confirmed the Telegraph's claims. So unless you know better than both the Telegraph and those making and receiving the claims (i.e. SF), you must be bluffing.
And yes, SF pay themselves an 'industrial wage' - fair enough, that's their choice.
Does the point not remain that they're ripping off the tax payer, whether or not they're benefitting personally?
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning,now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad.I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties because I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter,sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
Tory MP Andrew MacKay has quit the Conservatives. Apparently he had voluntarily submitted his expense claims to party officials and these had revealed "an unacceptable situation that would not stand up to reasonable public scrutiny".
Sounds like he was sacked.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2009, 10:53:37 AM
Tory MP Andrew MacKay has quit the Conservatives. Apparently he had voluntarily submitted his expense claims to party officials and these had revealed "an unacceptable situation that would not stand up to reasonable public scrutiny".
Sounds like he was sacked.
Must be the hookers on the old tax payers credit card
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2009, 10:53:37 AM
Tory MP Andrew MacKay has quit the Conservatives. Apparently he had voluntarily submitted his expense claims to party officials and these had revealed "an unacceptable situation that would not stand up to reasonable public scrutiny".
Sounds like he was sacked.
His wife is also an MP. She was claiming for a second home in london. He then said it was this full time home and claimed on their original home as his second.
"It appears Bracknell MP Andrew MacKay and his wife Bromsgrove Tory MP Julie Kirkbride both claimed a second home allowance - one for their London home and one for their constituency home, leaving them two second homes but no main home"
Honest to f*** , if this was the private sector, they'd all face instant dismissal.
................................................
On a different note i heard that some of the "locals" had claimed for 2k worth of televisions, however the individual concerned has not been named yet. Is it just me, or is there a certain element who normally prostitute themselves to the media remaining remarkably tight lipped recently ?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
Is there any word on who exactly was the landlord of the SF flats?
Quote from: Roger on May 14, 2009, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
Is there any word on who exactly was the landlord of the SF flats?
Why, what differences does that make Roger?
I know Roger but I was told not to tell you ;)
Quote from: Chrisowc on May 13, 2009, 09:46:33 AM
Quote from: Capt Pat on May 13, 2009, 02:35:36 AM
David Cameron accused the mps who have been exposed in recent days for claiming money that they were not entitled to were"abusing tax payers money". Maybe it is the way I was brought up but "abusing" is not the term that colmes to mind I think steaing tax payers money would have been more approtpriate. One MP apparently claimed for hanging a chandalier in his house.
Steaing isn't a term that colmes to mind either.
I think "stealing" is the one that is most appropriate for some of this carry on myself. What word would you use? If a tax collector had been walking around with a bag of money he had collected and a petty criminal had grabbed it off him and run away with it, it would have been called strealing. Whit collar equivalents of stealing are just as bad if not worse in my opinion.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 13, 2009, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 13, 2009, 01:16:51 PM
I think the salary is quite adequate!
Lets not forget the many add-ons that are available for MP's who are on committees or who are junior minister's etc..
The salary should reflect the average wage of the people you represent therefore you will always be in touch with how the general public feel.
I would advocate an MP's salary should mirror the average working wage in the country.
That's ridiculous. The average wage in the UK is less than £30k. Your salary should reflect your role and responsibilities as an MP. If someone in the private sector worked the hours of an MP and did the type of work MPs do, they would be earning a lot more than £65k.
What exactly are they doing. Just because the commons is open from 11 in the morning until 11 at night does not mean they are there all the time. Even if they are there all they are doing is sitting there and falling asleep for the most part. The other thing about the job is it should not be the money that is attractive but the ability to make a difference and have powere and influence.
Quote from: Capt Pat on May 14, 2009, 04:35:50 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 13, 2009, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 13, 2009, 01:16:51 PM
I think the salary is quite adequate!
Lets not forget the many add-ons that are available for MP's who are on committees or who are junior minister's etc..
The salary should reflect the average wage of the people you represent therefore you will always be in touch with how the general public feel.
I would advocate an MP's salary should mirror the average working wage in the country.
That's ridiculous. The average wage in the UK is less than £30k. Your salary should reflect your role and responsibilities as an MP. If someone in the private sector worked the hours of an MP and did the type of work MPs do, they would be earning a lot more than £65k.
What exactly are they doing. Just because the commons is open from 11 in the morning until 11 at night does not mean they are there all the time. Even if they are there all they are doing is sitting there and falling asleep for the most part. The other thing about the job is it should not be the money that is attractive but the ability to make a difference and have powere and influence.
Pat, those days are long gone, politicians are mostly in it for the ego trip nowadays, this expenses fiasco has shown them all to be a bunch of greedy hoors. Even Sylvia Hermon was at it FFS, but she rather appallingly blamed her husbands death for her theft!! They all arrogantly defended themselves with the 'it was within the rules' blurb yet failed to recognise the rules have been badly skewed for a long time, we are all watching our cash and these greedy bastards are ripping us all off. As Onion Bag said it would make you seriously consider not voting again.
Expect a serious upset at the euro elections in England with the greens, UKIP and god help us the BNP doing well and picking up seats. The public are raging with the major parties in England and will hammer them. Cant wait for the locals details to be revealed, bound to be some of them up to their necks in it.
Quote from: slow corner back on May 14, 2009, 05:00:41 PM
Expect a serious upset at the euro elections in England with the greens, UKIP and god help us the BNP doing well and picking up seats. The public are raging with the major parties in England and will hammer them. Cant wait for the locals details to be revealed, bound to be some of them up to their necks in it.
Are the "locals" expenses going to be revealed soon, am i right in thinking all MP's expenses will be made public and available online in June?
Quote from: Minder on May 14, 2009, 05:09:52 PM
Quote from: slow corner back on May 14, 2009, 05:00:41 PM
Expect a serious upset at the euro elections in England with the greens, UKIP and god help us the BNP doing well and picking up seats. The public are raging with the major parties in England and will hammer them. Cant wait for the locals details to be revealed, bound to be some of them up to their necks in it.
Are the "locals" expenses going to be revealed soon, am i right in thinking all MP's expenses will be made public and available online in June?
They are already there to be dissected by the Telegraph by all accounts, they are bricking it now, already have been on the defensive about it.
The below is from BBC
BBC Northern Ireland political reporter Stephen Walker asked other Northern Ireland MPs if they had expenses voters might question.
He said that South Down SDLP MP Eddie McGrady - did not want to talk about expenses at all, but that his party leader Mark Durkan went further.
The Foyle MP said all the claims he has made were legitimate but he accepted there was a concern amongst the public about the expenses system.
"In this current environment where anything can be questioned," he said.
"It could be the case that myself and others err on the side of caution and propriety and end up paying some money back."
Upper Bann DUP MP David Simpson said everything he claimed for was for the "good of the constituency" and when asked if he thought he may have to pay anything back replied: "Absolutely not."
Lagan Valley DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson said that there was "nothing he was aware of" that could be questioned in his expenses he said that he had "only just received the receipts".
The South Antrim DUP MP Willie McCrea said he hadn't had the opportunity to go through all his claims.
He said he was satisfied his expenses and allowances fell within the guidelines. However he said 'if there is anything that is not correct I have no problems in making amends but I have to see all my claims first' .
The Daily Telegraph has been outlining the expenses claimed by MPs for the last week.
While it has mostly concerned itself with the front bench of the major parties and some Sinn Fein claims, Stephen Walker said there could be more attention paid to local MPs by the paper later this week.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 14, 2009, 05:16:05 PM
Upper Bann DUP MP David Simpson said everything he claimed for was for the "good of the constituency" and when asked if he thought he may have to pay anything back replied: "Absolutely not."
Lagan Valley DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson said that there was "nothing he was aware of" that could be questioned in his expenses he said that he had "only just received the receipts".
The South Antrim DUP MP Willie McCrea said he hadn't had the opportunity to go through all his claims.
He said he was satisfied his expenses and allowances fell within the guidelines. However he said 'if there is anything that is not correct I have no problems in making amends but I have to see all my claims first' .
WTF? How do these cnuts not know what they are spending money on already? Probably expensing someone to do their expenses >:(
Quote from: BennyHarp on May 13, 2009, 08:53:02 AM
One of them claimed to have his moat cleaned???? FFS thats just ridiculous!! Its hard to know which is the most galling - these big expenses or the small expenses like light bulbs - they have such disregard for tax payers money that they wont even put their hand in their pockets for a bit of change to buy new light bulbs - unbelievable! It makes you wonder - if they are so bliase with taxpayers money on these issues how the hell are they going to use it to run the country!
Let's face it, it's not the worst thing Douglas Hogg's ever done ... sure didn't the wee bastard get Pat Finucane murdered
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2009, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: Roger on May 14, 2009, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
Is there any word on who exactly was the landlord of the SF flats?
Why, what differences does that make Roger?
They were paying way over the odds. Just wondered who the beneficiary from this normally frugal party was for their exhorbatant rent.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them.
It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as
significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
I'm fed up hearing about these MP expenses. The UK is facing a prolonged period of high taxes and high inflation as a result of the financial crisis, the banks are in disarray, the construction industry is on its kness, public spending is being culled and yet all the people can talk about is how outrageous it is that some charged a carrier bag from Lidl. People need to catch a grip. Ok the system doesn't work. Fix the system. Vote for Lib Dems. Then let the politicians concentrate on the bigger issues that will actually make a difference to your lives
Quote from: Caid on May 14, 2009, 10:14:42 PM
I'm fed up hearing about these MP expenses. The UK is facing a prolonged period of high taxes and high inflation as a result of the financial crisis, the banks are in disarray, the construction industry is on its kness, public spending is being culled and yet all the people can talk about is how outrageous it is that some charged a carrier bag from Lidl. People need to catch a grip. Ok the system doesn't work. Fix the system. Vote for Lib Dems. Then let the politicians concentrate on the bigger issues that will actually make a difference to your lives
You must be an MP
Margaret Beckett getting a grilling on Question time now.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 14, 2009, 10:56:47 PM
Margaret Beckett getting a grilling on Question time now.
Did you hear what David Dimbley said to her?? :D
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2009, 11:12:54 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 14, 2009, 10:56:47 PM
Margaret Beckett getting a grilling on Question time now.
Did you hear what David Dimbley said to her?? :D
You are a hornball Ziggy!
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 14, 2009, 11:18:07 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2009, 11:12:54 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 14, 2009, 10:56:47 PM
Margaret Beckett getting a grilling on Question time now.
Did you hear what David Dimbley said to her?? :D
You are a hornball Ziggy!
Whaaaaaat? It wasn't me that said it!
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 14, 2009, 10:56:47 PM
Margaret Beckett getting a grilling on Question time now.
She's getting a fair old grilling now compared to the rest.
I believe Peter and Iris are in for some rough headlines tomorrow re: expenses ... should be thoroughly enjoyable reading
Quote from: red hander on May 14, 2009, 11:26:47 PM
I believe Peter and Iris are in for some rough headlines tomorrow re: expenses ... should be thoroughly enjoyable reading
They got it before though 'Swish family Robinson'!
According to Question Time this fiasco will allow the BNP to gain ground in some areas of England now, scaremongering though by the mainstream parties to protect their own vote I would say.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 14, 2009, 11:12:54 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on May 14, 2009, 10:56:47 PM
Margaret Beckett getting a grilling on Question time now.
Did you hear what David Dimbley said to her?? :D
Jesus can you imagine
Peter and Iris Robinson, i see have claimed £30,000 for food,
I recall a newspaper article a while back that these have combined salaries of over £600K,
This is a gear grinding post, f**king bastards, that they are using my Tax Payers money to by themselves food, and them earning over £600K
The bollocks are allowed to claim £400 a month in food expenses believe it or not. People are talking about MP's squirming, im not so sure, you couldnt embarrass a politician if you tried.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them. It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
They havn't been buying second homes in London they have only rented, and its the rent that has been paid to the Landlord not to them.If you dont buy the Daily Telegraph you should start I think you might enjoy it.Yes I am very defensive when a paper like the Telegraph makes accusations againist Sinn Fein as they have a very poor record over the years when reporting on Irish affairs,anyway I think we should agree to differ and yes I do work for the party, at the minute 5 nights a week all on a voluntary basis.
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them. It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
They havn't been buying second homes in London they have only rented, and its the rent that has been paid to the Landlord not to them.If you dont buy the Daily Telegraph you should start I think you might enjoy it.Yes I am very defensive when a paper like the Telegraph makes accusations againist Sinn Fein as they have a very poor record over the years when reporting on Irish affairs,anyway I think we should agree to differ and yes I do work for the party, at the minute 5 nights a week all on a voluntary basis.
Was the rent not claimed back as "expenses" ?
Why does a dog lick its balls?
Ans: Because it can.
'I wish that I was Mr Gates,
they'd haul my money in in crates...'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=802KWzPbZjQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=802KWzPbZjQ)
I wouldn't wipe my hole with the telegraph. Newsletter for the Empire
Quote from: The GAA on May 15, 2009, 11:28:09 AM
I wouldn't wipe my hole with the telegraph. Newsletter for the Empire
May be the case but i dont think too many of the MP's are disputing the revelations.
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 08:48:08 AM
The bollocks are allowed to claim £400 a month in food expenses believe it or not. People are talking about MP's squirming, im not so sure, you couldnt embarrass a politician if you tried.
Is that just because they can or is it overnight living allowance? If it's for overnight thats rubbish.
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them. It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
They havn't been buying second homes in London they have only rented, and its the rent that has been paid to the Landlord not to them.If you dont buy the Daily Telegraph you should start I think you might enjoy it.Yes I am very defensive when a paper like the Telegraph makes accusations againist Sinn Fein as they have a very poor record over the years when reporting on Irish affairs,anyway I think we should agree to differ and yes I do work for the party, at the minute 5 nights a week all on a voluntary basis.
I doubt very much i'd enjoy the Telegraph, but that's beside the point.
I never said they had
bought a second home - the point was that their second residence was paid from public funds, allegedly above the market value. I also never said they had personally benefited from these claims.
The Telegraph has today published expenses of the Robinsons - is this also part of their anti-Irish bias or is this fair game?
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2009, 11:51:56 AM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them. It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
They havn't been buying second homes in London they have only rented, and its the rent that has been paid to the Landlord not to them.If you dont buy the Daily Telegraph you should start I think you might enjoy it.Yes I am very defensive when a paper like the Telegraph makes accusations againist Sinn Fein as they have a very poor record over the years when reporting on Irish affairs,anyway I think we should agree to differ and yes I do work for the party, at the minute 5 nights a week all on a voluntary basis.
I doubt very much i'd enjoy the Telegraph, but that's beside the point.
I never said they had bought a second home - the point was that their second residence was paid from public funds, allegedly above the market value. I also never said they had personally benefited from these claims.
The Telegraph has today published expenses of the Robinsons - is this also part of their anti-Irish bias or is this fair game?
The Robinsons are Irish.
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2009, 11:51:56 AM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them. It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
They havn't been buying second homes in London they have only rented, and its the rent that has been paid to the Landlord not to them.If you dont buy the Daily Telegraph you should start I think you might enjoy it.Yes I am very defensive when a paper like the Telegraph makes accusations againist Sinn Fein as they have a very poor record over the years when reporting on Irish affairs,anyway I think we should agree to differ and yes I do work for the party, at the minute 5 nights a week all on a voluntary basis.
I doubt very much i'd enjoy the Telegraph, but that's beside the point.
I never said they had bought a second home - the point was that their second residence was paid from public funds, allegedly above the market value. I also never said they had personally benefited from these claims.
The Telegraph has today published expenses of the Robinsons - is this also part of their anti-Irish bias or is this fair game?
The Robinsons are Irish.
I don't think they would agree with you?
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 15, 2009, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2009, 11:51:56 AM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them. It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
They havn't been buying second homes in London they have only rented, and its the rent that has been paid to the Landlord not to them.If you dont buy the Daily Telegraph you should start I think you might enjoy it.Yes I am very defensive when a paper like the Telegraph makes accusations againist Sinn Fein as they have a very poor record over the years when reporting on Irish affairs,anyway I think we should agree to differ and yes I do work for the party, at the minute 5 nights a week all on a voluntary basis.
I doubt very much i'd enjoy the Telegraph, but that's beside the point.
I never said they had bought a second home - the point was that their second residence was paid from public funds, allegedly above the market value. I also never said they had personally benefited from these claims.
The Telegraph has today published expenses of the Robinsons - is this also part of their anti-Irish bias or is this fair game?
The Robinsons are Irish.
I don't think they would agree with you?
no dont think they would ::)
So therefore...
They're not Irish?
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 15, 2009, 12:21:30 PM
So therefore...
They're not Irish?
how are they not Irish if they were born in Ireland :o
Didn't think you would walk into that one.
Who are you to decide on someone's nationality?
Do they not hold British passports?
...so does Gerry Adams :D
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 10:45:25 AM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them. It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
They havn't been buying second homes in London they have only rented, and its the rent that has been paid to the Landlord not to them.If you dont buy the Daily Telegraph you should start I think you might enjoy it.Yes I am very defensive when a paper like the Telegraph makes accusations againist Sinn Fein as they have a very poor record over the years when reporting on Irish affairs,anyway I think we should agree to differ and yes I do work for the party, at the minute 5 nights a week all on a voluntary basis.
Was the rent not claimed back as "expenses" ?
Are you going to answer that one Glens Abu? I genuinely dont know by the way before i am accused of being on a witch hunt and anti-Irish.
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 15, 2009, 12:24:38 PM
Didn't think you would walk into that one.
Who are you to decide on someone's nationality?
Do they not hold British passports?
I have no problem walking into it,I know plenty of people wiht British passports who are Irish.
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 15, 2009, 12:21:30 PM
So therefore...
They're not Irish?
They would say themselves they are Irish, just a different definition to what you and I would say. Well maybe not you Ping Pong Santa, don't know what your political lendings are.
Glens abu, your arrogance knows no bounds and unfortunately is highly typical of your kind.
Someone's nationality and cultural identity is personal to themselves. There is a significant population in the north eastern part of this island who consider themselves British and have every right to do so.
Furthermore, why would you want to force Irish nationality on someone who did not want it?
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 15, 2009, 12:21:30 PM
So therefore...
They're not Irish?
They would say themselves they are Irish, just a different definition to what you and I would say. Well maybe not you Ping Pong Santa, don't know what your political lendings are.
Well if they say it themselves then fine, thats the point I'm trying to make, it is up to them.
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 15, 2009, 12:33:36 PM
Well if they say it themselves then fine, thats the point I'm trying to make, it is up to them.
Yeah I know. I'm agreeing with you, in a roundabout way :P
I'm conscious that the discussion may be hijacked here and I don't want to be accused of going off topic but just felt that needed to be addressed.
The whole thing is rotten to the core. Crooks the vast majority.
I thought Free Statepolitics was corrupt but this make it look like a teddy bears picnic in comparison.
Sad thing is with the timing is that the BNP and UKIP are waiting in the wings to reap the benefit of any fall out.
Yes politicians need to be paid in accordance with the job they are doing but everything should be transparent and above board.
Maybe it won't be a bad thing for the BNP and UKIP get in this time around. Could shake up the system and get the mainstream parties to sort themselves out before the Westminister elections.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 12:51:15 PM
Maybe it won't be a bad thing for the BNP and UKIP get in this time around. Could shake up the system and get the mainstream parties to sort themselves out before the Westminister elections.
Wow there Ziggy. First of all there is a difference between the two. UKIP was set-up with the main aim of leaving the EU. It is not an exaggeration to say that the BNP are Nazis.
It will certainly be a bad thing for them to gain any ground whatsoever.
I'd love glens to answer minders question. Was the rent not cliamed back as expenses? Therefore put into the pocket of people cliaming it rather than paid straight out to the landlord?
I couldn't care less about the UK's stance within Europe, sorry Ping Pong Santa.
I'm aware there's a world of differences between the two parties, should have said that in my original post.
I think you misunderstood, I wasn't commenting on the UK's position in Europe one way or the other, was just pointing out the difference between the two parties.
Anyone else noticing all the Liberas adverts on this thread lately?
Skull I do not know the answer to the question from minder but going by elliot morley he produced bank statements proving that he paid £800 pm for his mortgage and was then reimbursed. Going on that example the shinners would have to prove they paid the rent then claim it back like all other MPs. However unlike Elliot Morley since the shinners were renting they would never pay off the flats.
Anyway it is all small beer compared to £600,000 per annum to the swish family robinson!!!!
There was an opinion poll last night that reckoned ukip could push labour into fourth spot! I reckon the greens and ukip will clean up with the bnp unfortunatly also doing well.
Quote from: slow corner back on May 15, 2009, 01:08:03 PM
There was an opinion poll last night that reckoned ukip could push labour into fourth spot! I reckon the greens and ukip will clean up with the bnp unfortunatly also doing well.
I think you're right. The election is under a form of PR so smaller parties have a better chance of being elected. The English public are seriously pissed off with big 3 parties and they know that a vote for UKIP/Greens/BNP will worry the big party leadership.
Couldnt be bothered climbing through 7 pages of this to find out, but is someone here trying in some way justify some of these expense claims for these c***ts
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 01:20:45 PM
Couldnt be bothered climbing through 7 pages of this to find out, but is someone here trying in some way justify some of these expense claims for these c***ts
Probably Roger ;)
Roger?
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 01:20:45 PM
Couldnt be bothered climbing through 7 pages of this to find out, but is someone here trying in some way justify some of these expense claims for these c***ts
Probably Roger ;)
Someone was defending SF's expense claims. It definitely wasn't Roger! :P
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 11:55:09 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2009, 11:51:56 AM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 10:05:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 02:16:46 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 14, 2009, 01:49:44 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
No Maguire i was not bluffing,that is what i said £1,800 month each,5 MPs divided into £9000 = £1800month=£450 week each room which includes car parking maintenance and cleaning
Fair enough.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
now I dont know much about property in central London but I would have thought £450 week to stay there wasnt too bad. I do not believe everything I read in the Telegraph and what their fictitious estate agents say about the value of the properties
Only SF are renting flats in North London, not Central London. But maybe the Telegraph did have fictitious estate agents - who knows? Why are you so sure?
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
I know going by their past record on the Irish and Sinn Fein in particular they would be very happy if Sinn Fein MPs went to London on business and slept in the gutter
Yes, SF's MPs are are the only MPs being exposed at the minute.
Quote from: glens abu on May 14, 2009, 10:44:55 AM
sorry Maguire but days of being sent to the back of the bus are over even if you dont want them to be.
And that's just a rant. Who is talking about the back of a bus? Sure all MPs are chauffeur driven now anyway.
As i have said above, the expenses of all parties are being exposed. There's no need to claim victimisation here.
Yeah the expenses of all parties being exposed,but Sinn Fein have not claimed any expenses other than rent paid to a landlord for somewhere for them to sleep when they are in London,however if you and the Telegraph think they should sleep in a hostel or kip down on a sofa well think again because as I have already told you the days at the back of the bus are over,not looking for anything more than anyone else but definetly not going to settle for anything less.
You're very defensive. Do you work for them?
I have never bought the Telegraph in my life (except for the Belfast Telegraph for the Jobfinder :P).
I have never suggested that SF MPs should be treated any different to any other MPs. If they need a second home, they should have one. All that is being questioned is the amount they're paying for them. It's really no different to the Paisley's being exposed for the price of renting their constituency offices in Ballymena - described as significantly above the normal market rate in the papers earlier this month. It's not about Nationalists or Republicans being pushed to the back of any bus - there's no need to play the victim.
They havn't been buying second homes in London they have only rented, and its the rent that has been paid to the Landlord not to them.If you dont buy the Daily Telegraph you should start I think you might enjoy it.Yes I am very defensive when a paper like the Telegraph makes accusations againist Sinn Fein as they have a very poor record over the years when reporting on Irish affairs,anyway I think we should agree to differ and yes I do work for the party, at the minute 5 nights a week all on a voluntary basis.
I doubt very much i'd enjoy the Telegraph, but that's beside the point.
I never said they had bought a second home - the point was that their second residence was paid from public funds, allegedly above the market value. I also never said they had personally benefited from these claims.
The Telegraph has today published expenses of the Robinsons - is this also part of their anti-Irish bias or is this fair game?
The Robinsons are Irish.
Regardless of whether the Robinson's are Irish or British, the Telegraph's revelations have exposed politicians in England, Scotland and Wales as well as here. If revealing SF's expenses (and even the Robinsons') is anti-Irish bias, then is revealing all the other MPs' claims anti-British?
Quote from: theskull1 on May 15, 2009, 12:59:30 PM
I'd love glens to answer minders question. Was the rent not cliamed back as expenses? Therefore put into the pocket of people cliaming it rather than paid straight out to the landlord?
Cant really answer that to be honest,but I think that is totally irrelevant as the money was paid to the landlord by either Sinn fein and claimed back, or paid by the treasury what is the differance.What I do know is for 20 years Sinn Fein representatives were denied expenses for the work they did for their consituents so they are only getting now what they are entitled to.
Quote from: Ping Pong Santa on May 15, 2009, 12:32:15 PM
Glens abu, your arrogance knows no bounds and unfortunately is highly typical of your kind.
Someone's nationality and cultural identity is personal to themselves. There is a significant population in the north eastern part of this island who consider themselves British and have every right to do so.
Furthermore, why would you want to force Irish nationality on someone who did not want it?
I am sorry if I have offended you but I class everyone born on the Island of Ireland as Irish,might be Southern IRISH,or Northern IRISH but Irish all the same,also think you will find even the Telegraph has classed the Robinsons as Northern IRISH MPs.I dont have a problem with the Robinsons considering themselves as British and enjoying that culture and identity,I just hope they would not deny me the same privilege.
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on May 15, 2009, 12:59:30 PM
I'd love glens to answer minders question. Was the rent not cliamed back as expenses? Therefore put into the pocket of people cliaming it rather than paid straight out to the landlord?
Cant really answer that to be honest,but I think that is totally irrelevant as the money was paid to the landlord by either Sinn fein and claimed back, or paid by the treasury what is the differance.What I do know is for 20 years Sinn Fein representatives were denied expenses for the work they did for their consituents so they are only getting now what they are entitled to.
Glens, i came on here, and asked was there someone attempting to justify these expense claims. Im assuming its you,
personally i couldnt give a flying f**k about Sinn Fein, DUP, UUP, or any other party for that matter and what they were denied and and werent denied as regards expenses. but what i do care about is them bastards claiming expenses. And i and every other person here that pays tax are footing the bill.
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 02:04:49 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 01:53:33 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on May 15, 2009, 12:59:30 PM
I'd love glens to answer minders question. Was the rent not cliamed back as expenses? Therefore put into the pocket of people cliaming it rather than paid straight out to the landlord?
Cant really answer that to be honest,but I think that is totally irrelevant as the money was paid to the landlord by either Sinn fein and claimed back, or paid by the treasury what is the differance.What I do know is for 20 years Sinn Fein representatives were denied expenses for the work they did for their consituents so they are only getting now what they are entitled to.
Glens, i came on here, and asked was there someone attempting to justify these expense claims. Im assuming its you,
personally i couldnt give a flying f**k about Sinn Fein, DUP, UUP, or any other party for that matter and what they were denied and and werent denied as regards expenses. but what i do care about is them b**tards claiming expenses. And i and every other person here that pays tax are footing the bill.
I have already justified Sinn Fein's allowance for staying in London on other posts so if you want to know my opinion read them.I pay my tax also and also have a problem with the expenses claims of some of the British MPs ,so whats your point?
Sinn Fein claiming for houses in London, and then they dont attend parliment, thats my point
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 02:28:22 PM
Sinn Fein claiming for houses in London, and then they dont attend parliment, thats my point
They do Parliamentary work in London, just don't sit at Westminister.
do they need second homes over there, i doubt it very much, yes they fly over now and again and talk shite, and come home again
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 02:31:05 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 02:28:22 PM
Sinn Fein claiming for houses in London, and then they dont attend parliment, thats my point
They do Parliamentary work in London, just don't sit at Westminister.
they also do have offices there and meet a lot with different pressure groups.
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 02:34:12 PM
do they need second homes over there, i doubt it very much, yes they fly over now and again and talk shite, and come home again
well you might think they talk shite thats your opinion,but people who vote for them want them to work on their behalf,also they are not second homes they are rented apartments.
Maybe my problem is that, there doesnt seem to be f**k all done, it irritates the shite out of me, all they do is argue over this that and the other, and its costing a fortune,
The issue is not what they do in London but the fact that they are claiming rent for a property at three times its rental value, footed by the taxpayer.
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 02:37:32 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 02:34:12 PM
do they need second homes over there, i doubt it very much, yes they fly over now and again and talk shite, and come home again
well you might think they talk shite thats your opinion,but people who vote for them want them to work on their behalf, also they are not second homes they are rented apartments.
Glens, i vote Sinn Fein and always have, but i can honestly say they have done nothing on my behalf, when they are round looking the vote, promising this that and the other, and to be honest delivered nothing. but i can tell you i wont be voting again, not for anyone,
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 02:42:51 PM
The issue is not what they do in London but the fact that they are claiming rent for a property at three times its rental value, footed by the taxpayer.
so says the Telegraph. : ;D
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 02:42:51 PM
The issue is not what they do in London but the fact that they are claiming rent for a property at three times its rental value, footed by the taxpayer.
so says the Telegraph. : ;D
Sinn Fein, to my knowledge, have not disputed this.
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 02:45:15 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 02:37:32 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 02:34:12 PM
do they need second homes over there, i doubt it very much, yes they fly over now and again and talk shite, and come home again
well you might think they talk shite thats your opinion,but people who vote for them want them to work on their behalf, also they are not second homes they are rented apartments.
Glens, i vote Sinn Fein and always have, but i can honestly say they have done nothing on my behalf, when they are round looking the vote, promising this that and the other, and to be honest delivered nothing. but i can tell you i wont be voting again, not for anyone,
sorry to hear that onion but again thats democracy its your choice, but I also know the hard work that they do and know many people who they have helped,anyway talk to you on Monday away to do a bit of election work now for the auld Shinners.Slan
Glens to be honest i really do think you are going to have a problem convincing the guys here of these Expense Claims, everyone is just pissed off with politicians in general regardless of what party they come from. and it will be a long long time before we the general public trust them again thats if they can be trusted again, only my opinion,
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 02:48:19 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 02:42:51 PM
The issue is not what they do in London but the fact that they are claiming rent for a property at three times its rental value, footed by the taxpayer.
so says the Telegraph. : ;D
Sinn Fein, to my knowledge, have not disputed this.
then your knowledge isnt as good as you think. ;)
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 02:53:51 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 02:48:19 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 02:42:51 PM
The issue is not what they do in London but the fact that they are claiming rent for a property at three times its rental value, footed by the taxpayer.
so says the Telegraph. : ;D
Sinn Fein, to my knowledge, have not disputed this.
then your knowledge isnt as good as you think. ;)
You would think they would publicly dispute it then so their electorate are aware of it, maybe they have.
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 02:53:51 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 02:48:19 PM
Quote from: glens abu on May 15, 2009, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: Minder on May 15, 2009, 02:42:51 PM
The issue is not what they do in London but the fact that they are claiming rent for a property at three times its rental value, footed by the taxpayer.
so says the Telegraph. : ;D
Sinn Fein, to my knowledge, have not disputed this.
then your knowledge isnt as good as you think. ;)
Where have they disputed it?
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 01:20:45 PM
Couldnt be bothered climbing through 7 pages of this to find out, but is someone here trying in some way justify some of these expense claims for these c***ts
Probably Roger ;)
:-[
Did you just see the word c**t in a post and think of me >:(
:D
Quote from: Roger on May 15, 2009, 03:16:50 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 01:20:45 PM
Couldnt be bothered climbing through 7 pages of this to find out, but is someone here trying in some way justify some of these expense claims for these c***ts
Probably Roger ;)
:-[
Did you just see the word c**t in a post and think of me >:(
:D
Well what can I say, you've made an impression ;)
Quote from: Roger on May 15, 2009, 03:16:50 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 01:20:45 PM
Couldnt be bothered climbing through 7 pages of this to find out, but is someone here trying in some way justify some of these expense claims for these c***ts
Probably Roger ;)
:-[
Did you just see the word c**t in a post and think of me >:(
:D
Nothing to do with you Roger, its them politicians, i was referring too
Sorry if this has already been covered but I just read in the paper that those Robinson c**ts ate £30,000 of food at the taxpayers expense last year, greedy f**king pigs!!!
Sinn Fein have revealed a list of their MP expenses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8052493.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8052493.stm)
Quote from: slow corner back on May 15, 2009, 04:21:45 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered but I just read in the paper that those Robinson c**ts ate £30,000 of food at the taxpayers expense last year, greedy f**king pigs!!!
Nail on the head. Slimy Pete came out with some oul guff that it equated to 'only' £78 a day for food (over 365 days, remember).
1. If it was £78 a day for five days in London divided by 2, then you could just about get away with it, but these two sit in Stormont AND were still getting paid when that farce of a parliament was suspended. They weren't in London five days a week, I'd say two days a week is nearer the mark. Add in the generous holiday entitlement MPs get and that takes a big chunk outta the year. Divide the £30,000 they got by the correct number of days and it is an absolute disgrace.
2. Why the f**k should we pay for the food of people earning £600k a year between them?
3. They are - especially her - walking skeletons... are you telling me they ate that amount of food? Balls...
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 02:31:05 PM
Quote from: Onion Bag on May 15, 2009, 02:28:22 PM
Sinn Fein claiming for houses in London, and then they dont attend parliment, thats my point
They do Parliamentary work in London, just don't sit at Westminister.
How much though?
Michelle Gildernew, for example, claimed £352 in air fares in 2007/08 and £447 in 2006/07
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/michelle_gildernew/fermanagh_and_south_tyrone#expenses
Conor Murphy claimed £575 in airfares in 2007/08 and £1,266 in 2006/07
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/conor_murphy/newry_and_armagh#expenses
Now maybe they're being very good and not claiming for all their air fares. But if they are, they can't be going over to London more than a couple of times a year. If so, could they not just book a hotel for the night?
Quote from: red hander on May 15, 2009, 04:51:03 PM
Quote from: slow corner back on May 15, 2009, 04:21:45 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered but I just read in the paper that those Robinson c**ts ate £30,000 of food at the taxpayers expense last year, greedy f**king pigs!!!
Nail on the head. Slimy Pete came out with some oul guff that it equated to 'only' £78 a day for food (over 365 days, remember).
1. If it was £78 a day for five days in London divided by 2, then you could just about get away with it, but these two sit in Stormont AND were still getting paid when that farce of a parliament was suspended. They weren't in London five days a week, I'd say two days a week is nearer the mark. Add in the generous holiday entitlement MPs get and that takes a big chunk outta the year. Divide the £30,000 they got by the correct number of days and it is an absolute disgrace.
2. Why the f**k should we pay for the food of people earning £600k a year between them?
3. They are - especially her - walking skeletons... are you telling me they ate that amount of food? Balls...
I think the maximum 'allowance' is £400/month for food. Receipts aren't required. They've just claimed the full amount by the look of it.
And yes, the £73 per week is a red herring. Firstly, is there not over 100 days in the year when parliment is on holiday? Secondly, as you have pointed out they also have jobs over here that they're paid for - again, surely limiting the time they have to spend in London.
Pigs and Troughs are the appropiate connections.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 15, 2009, 05:15:06 PM
Quote from: red hander on May 15, 2009, 04:51:03 PM
Quote from: slow corner back on May 15, 2009, 04:21:45 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered but I just read in the paper that those Robinson c**ts ate £30,000 of food at the taxpayers expense last year, greedy f**king pigs!!!
Nail on the head. Slimy Pete came out with some oul guff that it equated to 'only' £78 a day for food (over 365 days, remember).
1. If it was £78 a day for five days in London divided by 2, then you could just about get away with it, but these two sit in Stormont AND were still getting paid when that farce of a parliament was suspended. They weren't in London five days a week, I'd say two days a week is nearer the mark. Add in the generous holiday entitlement MPs get and that takes a big chunk outta the year. Divide the £30,000 they got by the correct number of days and it is an absolute disgrace.
2. Why the f**k should we pay for the food of people earning £600k a year between them?
3. They are - especially her - walking skeletons... are you telling me they ate that amount of food? Balls...
I think the maximum 'allowance' is £400/month for food. Receipts aren't required. They've just claimed the full amount by the look of it.
And yes, the £73 per week is a red herring. Firstly, is there not over 100 days in the year when parliment is on holiday? Secondly, as you have pointed out they also have jobs over here that they're paid for - again, surely limiting the time they have to spend in London.
This is what fcuks me off, it's not an expense if you cannot justify the claim. They were treating it as some sort of per diem.
Quote from: ziggysego on May 15, 2009, 03:48:05 PM
Well what can I say, you've made an impression ;)
Cheeky ballix :P
Quote from: slow corner back on May 15, 2009, 04:21:45 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered but I just read in the paper that those Robinson c**ts ate £30,000 of food at the taxpayers expense last year, greedy f**king pigs!!!
Before all the others jump in, I am not a Robinson.
I eat a bit less than those starvos. ;D
Personally I couldn't give a f**k how much the Brit tax payer wastes on these slimballs, but no matter what else you might say against them, it's quite clear the SF MPs are the only ones who haven't milked this system for personal gain. Which is a pity, they'll need to do better if they want my vote next time out. :-\
Quote from: Donagh on May 16, 2009, 12:46:06 AM
Personally I couldn't give a f**k how much the Brit tax payer wastes on these slimballs, but no matter what else you might say against them, it's quite clear the SF MPs are the only ones who haven't milked this system for personal gain. Which is a pity, they'll need to do better if they want my vote next time out. :-\
Dont be ridiculous
Quote from: pintsofguinness on May 16, 2009, 01:01:49 AM
Dont be ridiculous
Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is that anyone seems to have expected any different. All this proves is that the Brits are as corrupt as that banana republic south of the border. As far as I'm concerned if the Shinners aren't pocketing the cash for themselves, they should be jumping on that gravy train for their constituents. f**k sake we could stock the Waterworks with trout for a year on what Robinson pays to feed the Japanese fish in his pond.
Anyone watching Lets Talk? Typical collection of idiots in the audience which makes it worth watching, Michael McGimpsey gave Gregory Campbell a fair touch about his expenses just after Gregory gave his sanctimonious take on things. Mark Durkan looked a wee bit sheepish though, maybe he has something to hide too ???
DUP MP repays cost of hotel films
Jeffrey Donaldson has denied any wrongdoing
Jeffrey Donaldson has paid back £555 to the Commons authorities for the cost of watching pay-to-view movies in hotel rooms in London.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the DUP MP submitted 68 receipts related to films.
The Lagan Valley MP shares a flat with DUP MP Sammy Wilson, but before that was bought four years ago he stayed in hotels when on parliamentary business.
In a statement to the paper Mr Donaldson denied any wrongdoing.
His lawyer told the paper "it would have been common practice to have used pay TV, including internet access and other media services".
His receipts for the year 2004-5 contain charges for room service, in-room media and Video Pay TV.
DUP leader Peter Robinson told the Daily Telegraph that Mr Donaldson should be "entitled to a presumption of innocence
:D
Brilliant! Best yet.
I never realised that Jeffrey was a film buff !!! ;) ;) :D :D :D :D
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on July 05, 2009, 04:35:29 PM
Quote from: orangeman on July 05, 2009, 04:24:50 PM
DUP MP repays cost of hotel films
Jeffrey Donaldson has denied any wrongdoing
Jeffrey Donaldson has paid back £555 to the Commons authorities for the cost of watching pay-to-view movies in hotel rooms in London.
According to the Daily Telegraph, the DUP MP submitted 68 receipts related to films.
The Lagan Valley MP shares a flat with DUP MP Sammy Wilson, but before that was bought four years ago he stayed in hotels when on parliamentary business.
In a statement to the paper Mr Donaldson denied any wrongdoing.
His lawyer told the paper "it would have been common practice to have used pay TV, including internet access and other media services".
His receipts for the year 2004-5 contain charges for room service, in-room media and Video Pay TV.
DUP leader Peter Robinson told the Daily Telegraph that Mr Donaldson should be "entitled to a presumption of innocence
How many of these were red white & blue movies?
Was yer man Berry in any of them ?. ;) ;) :D :D
Apparently "Film prices ranged from £7.50 at the Marriot, County Hall, to £14.95 at the Renaissance Hotel, Heathrow Airport.
He was also billed for 30 films at £7.95 each during stays at the Jolly Hotel St Ermine near Westminster and claimed on four occasions for £9.95, the cost of watching a film at Hilton Hotels."
The Daily Telegraph quoted sources in the hotels who said the movies watched by Mr Donaldson were in the highest price category, made up of recent box office smashes and adult movies.
How could anyone be so stupid?
QuoteThe Daily Telegraph quoted sources in the hotels who said the movies watched by Mr Donaldson were in the highest price category, made up of recent box office smashes and adult movies.
I am sure an hotel employee on min. wage could be persuaded to reveal which movies wee jeff watched. Mind you he's rooming with Sammy Wilson so not hard to guess.......
Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 05, 2009, 07:52:57 PM
How could anyone be so stupid?
Yes - one thing to watch them, another thing to actually claim for them! It is highly entertaining all the same - as a taxpayer, I think this is value for money. :P
Quote from: Maguire01 on July 05, 2009, 08:41:50 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 05, 2009, 07:52:57 PM
How could anyone be so stupid?
Yes - one thing to watch them, another thing to actually claim for them! It is highly entertaining all the same - as a taxpayer, I think this is value for money. :P
The Sun will make great reading this week ! ;)
So Jeffrey was watching films such as the Star Wars Trilogy and The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe :D
Im not sure what sort of films that hotels offer on room service but I find it hard to believe that hotels offer these films as well as charge up to £15 for them.
It's not his fault, people wanted to shoot him >:(
So did he take his whole family with him when he went to do Parliamentary work in London?
Martina Purdy reckoned he watched two in one night. That's good going.
I'm sure one of the local papers will probe (oooh-er!) this a bit further.
QuoteMr Donaldson also said he regretted innuendo in some media that the films could have been pornographic in nature.
"I have been very clear about the nature of those films and what I was watching," he said.
"I did not at any time watch a film that was adult in nature.
"The films that I watched on pay Tv would have been films that you would have seen in the cinema.
"Unfortunately, because of my security situation at the time, my family and I can't go to the cinema, so I took the opportunity to watch some of the films at the hotel."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8137243.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8137243.stm)
:D :D :D
Anytime I was in a hotel they only ever had about 1 non porn film and about 10 porn films on the pay per view. ???
Quote from: pintsofguinness on July 06, 2009, 09:29:51 PM
QuoteMr Donaldson also said he regretted innuendo in some media that the films could have been pornographic in nature.
"I have been very clear about the nature of those films and what I was watching," he said.
"I did not at any time watch a film that was adult in nature.
"The films that I watched on pay Tv would have been films that you would have seen in the cinema.
"Unfortunately, because of my security situation at the time, my family and I can't go to the cinema, so I took the opportunity to watch some of the films at the hotel."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8137243.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8137243.stm)
:D :D :D
Anytime I was in a hotel they only ever had about 1 non porn film and about 10 porn films on the pay per view. ???
which 1 did u pick then :P
None, I seen them all before.