Naturally we all know that these claimed expenses were 'all within the rules', or the investigation will show this, however I seem to recall reading somewhere that the London property is rented from a housing association?* If this latter fact is true, it does somewhat compound the moral and principle aspects of 'within the rules'.
How can Uddin explain this:
Yvonne Adams, who has lived next to the flat for three years, said: “I can’t emphasise enough how no one has lived there. They just haven’t. I know that for a fact." Adams said she went on to her rear balcony every day and had never seen anyone on the balcony next door. Until recently, there were piles of leaves on the balcony and sheets over the bedroom windows had fallen down. “There has never been a stick of furniture in there,” she said.
Uddin has also been challenged over the question of a further £83,000 of expenses for claims prior to buying the Maidstone flat but refuses to say where this other property was.
As this previous post showed, parliamentarians are still being given the chance to cover their tracks, even though Our Dear Leader stuck his oar in and tried to pre-empt the report by Sir Christopher Kelly.
Should Kelly's report fail to produce an 'abuse-free' system, then the only alternative must be to abolish the use of the words 'Honourable', 'Rt. Honourable' and 'Noble' when addressing, discussing or writing about MPs or Members of the Lords - with one or two exceptions of course!
*Update:
The Housing Association in question is Spitalfields Housing Association and one has to question how Uddin qualifies for what is supposed to be housing provided for low-rent accommodation. From their website, if you are that intrigued, one could always contact Ala Uddin - Vice Chair, Faruque Uddin - Housing Officer or Abdus Uddin - Assistant Maintenance Officer. Must be a very common name in the Muslim community, or ...............the title of my previous post is even more relevant!
H/T: Old Holborn
No comments:
Post a Comment