Friday, 12 March 2010

Expenses Prosecutions

Much has been made in the media and blogosphere about the four politicians and their appearance in court.  One can only ask: why just these four?

With the news that Uddin has escaped prosecution - due it would seem to the fact that "Keir Starmer said the definition of "only or main residence" under the House of Lords' expenses scheme was "critical" to any possible criminal proceedings. But he said the phrase was not defined in the scheme itself or in any legislation, leaving prosecutors with a problem." - and is now to be 'investigated' by Lords sub-committee, we are faced once again with 'like' judging the actions of 'like'.

Personally I am at a lost to know how payments for cosmetics, cushions, chairs, tables, bedding, new kitchens, re-decoration, gardening, curtains, duck houses, mowers, food and all the other paraphanalia that has been claimed are actually necessary to enable an MP to carry out his/her duties. How the Keens get away with a 'fine' of £1,500 defeats logic! If it is for the reason Starmer gives then one has to ask whether this was a deliberate act on the part of those who drew up and approved the 'rules'.

FFS, we are paying their bloody mortgage interest payments and then we have to feed them, furnish their homes and maintain their gardens? Any MP who has made a claim that is obviously outside what one would reasonably accept (and that includes nearly all of them) should be in the dock with the other four. If Philip Hollobone can do his job with what is, in comparison to others, minimal claims, then so can the others!

This stinks and if the electorate had any sense they would withhold their vote from such candidates!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"if the electorate had any sense"

They all have sense but are shit scared of using it, in my experience.