Sir Thomas Legg
- Thread starter magick
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
If real fraud has occured, people should be prosecuted for it.
People should not, however, be hounded for expense claims made in 2005 which were entirely permissable under the rules in force at that time. Instead, the rules should be changed for the future.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,442
- Location
- The Orion Spur
I agree, those that have committed real fraud should be pursued, those that just abused the system but didn't actually break the rules (or rather guidelines) shouldn't be.
Last edited:
Making vast profits from property was not the intention of parliamentary expenses. Nor was it intended that people designate their main homes as second homes in order to claim hundreds of thousands of pounds on them.[TW]Fox;15090695 said:
Of course people shouldn't be retrospectively charged for expense claims that were reasonable or within the rules, to a certain extent I feel. People who claimed tens or hundreds of thousands should at least be asked to consider paying some back.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
[TW]Fox;15090494 said:
Just because they are allowed to do it doesn't mean they should. We employ them to show integrity, judgement and morals. This whole saga shows they aren't fit for the job. They all have free will, they should use it with some judgement.
They shouldn't do what's within the rules, they should do what is proper and justifyable. Their expenses claims have proved they were playing a system that they should have changed a long time ago.
Bear in mind all the decent MPs that haven't needed to repay anything because they had the conscience not to claim for improper expenses. The ones that are complaining are the ones who know they can't justify their claims and these people deserve no sympathy.
He decided that having no rules for items such as gardening / cleaning expenses wasn't right, so made some, then wrote to MPs asking they pay back any expenses claimed above the level he just decided on.
The amounts are mostly trivial considering the salaries they are on but I can understand some wanting to tell him where to shove it (if they aren't standing again).
They should really be looking at the wider issue of second homes and mortgage payments - this isn't.
The amounts are mostly trivial considering the salaries they are on but I can understand some wanting to tell him where to shove it (if they aren't standing again).
They should really be looking at the wider issue of second homes and mortgage payments - this isn't.
Not all MPs chose to follow the rules to their absolute boundaries. My local MP claimed for some stationary and 1 trip to london for a meeting that had been rescheduled. There were 3 or 4 items blacked out, but i find it unlikely these were strippers or duck houses.
This suggests, to me at least, that there is some moral divide amongst the MPs themselves about "taking the Pee" with regards to expenses claims, even before this whole mess.
Given this, I believe those who took it too far should be made to at least contribute back towards the funds from which they dipped too far. Public lynching, though, is hardly the correct approach. Sustained police investigations should be held for those who could be accused of fraud, and the MP's with more extravagant claims should sacrifice further subsidies or benefits as a gesture of goodwill.
Naming and shaming is not necessary, although those who step forward will probably find it easier to redeem themselves in the eyes of the public.
This suggests, to me at least, that there is some moral divide amongst the MPs themselves about "taking the Pee" with regards to expenses claims, even before this whole mess.
Given this, I believe those who took it too far should be made to at least contribute back towards the funds from which they dipped too far. Public lynching, though, is hardly the correct approach. Sustained police investigations should be held for those who could be accused of fraud, and the MP's with more extravagant claims should sacrifice further subsidies or benefits as a gesture of goodwill.
Naming and shaming is not necessary, although those who step forward will probably find it easier to redeem themselves in the eyes of the public.
One of the things I heard the other day was that the rules they were operating under allowed for them to claim for things based in part on "common sense"/reasonable (or words to that effect), rather than hard and fast rules for what was allowed or not.
If that was the case then it's very different to if the rules were clear.
However some of the claims have stretched the definition of reasonable, or common sense to the point of breaking (reasonable is paying to have the garden maintained in a normal manner, it shouldn't include major changes/decorative features etc), and in many cases it looks very much like they've claimed for everything they possibly could, just because they could.
However it's the "flipping", and designation of second homes etc that I suspect is the bigger problem, and I look forward to some of them getting prosecuted for fraud (since when would anyone count their sisters spare bedroom as "main" accommodation when they have a family house where their partner/kids live, and they also spend a lot of time).
P,S,
I personally have zero problems with the geniune claims for reasonable expenses, it's the amount of fairly obvious mickey taking that winds me up - just because the rules don't specifically say something is wrong, doesn't (or shouldn't in people with any integrity) mean that everything else is fine.
If that was the case then it's very different to if the rules were clear.
However some of the claims have stretched the definition of reasonable, or common sense to the point of breaking (reasonable is paying to have the garden maintained in a normal manner, it shouldn't include major changes/decorative features etc), and in many cases it looks very much like they've claimed for everything they possibly could, just because they could.
However it's the "flipping", and designation of second homes etc that I suspect is the bigger problem, and I look forward to some of them getting prosecuted for fraud (since when would anyone count their sisters spare bedroom as "main" accommodation when they have a family house where their partner/kids live, and they also spend a lot of time).
P,S,
I personally have zero problems with the geniune claims for reasonable expenses, it's the amount of fairly obvious mickey taking that winds me up - just because the rules don't specifically say something is wrong, doesn't (or shouldn't in people with any integrity) mean that everything else is fine.
[TW]Fox;15090494 said:
This
While I consider most MPs to be lower on the evolutionary scale than the average rodent, the fact is that it goes against natural justice for them to claim WELL WITHIN the rules at the time, and then RETROSPECTIVELY change those rules and declare them to be at fault. If any employer in the real world did this, they would be crucified by any court or employment tribunal.
It is much like if you were driving within the speed limit, then the authorities decided to retrospectively lower the speed limit and declare you guilty of speeding. It would never stand up in court because it would be grossly unfair.
And this
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
If that's the case, then I think it's fair for an independent auditors to say what is reasonable or not, even if it is retrospective.