Sir Thomas Legg

[magick]

I hope this man gets a Peerage for his honesty and the politicans don't undermind his recomendations that they pay the taxpayers money back they've looted.

Gordon Brown really ****** on this one. He probably thought Sir Thoams was going to come out with the typical whitwash and things would quietly return to normal. Ha Ha not this time Gordon.

I just hope the establishment aren't planning a Dr.Kelly on him.

Yesterday Sky News chased Sir Thomas Legg around Whitehall with a camera crew, trying to get comment from him. He politely demurred from giving them an interview or answering any questions. This is a mistake. It frustrates the broadcast media when they can’t get access to the players. Legg needs to fight his case in the media or the political class will succeed in doing to him what they did to Elizabeth Filkin, the former Parliamentary Standards Commissioner hounded out of office by Speaker Martin, aided and abetted by that ridiculous blowhard Sir Stuart Bell. MPs have got where they are by deviousness and their ability to crush opposition. Sir Thomas has taken on hundreds of these vipers…

Guido suspects that Legg is being overwhelmed by the backlash – as far as Sir Stuart Bell is concerned he clearly didn’t understand the brief given to him by Gordon Brown – he was supposed to produce a whitewash which illuminated only “a few bad apples”. He wasn’t supposed to hose down the whole porcine political class. They are squealing because you are making them pay for their years of troughing at the public’s expense.

Only a few months ago MPs from all sides were claiming they “did not understand the rules” and they were blaming their misdemeanors on “the system”. Now that Legg is enforcing the rules within reasonably generous parameters, they claim he is retrospectively changing the rules. The same MPs who only a few months ago claimed they did not understand the rules now suddenly have a detailed understanding of the expenses criteria. Bull****.

They also claim that the Fees Office approved everything. The Clerks in the Fees Office had no authority to exercise fine judgement on the rules – MPs jealously kept that right only for themselves. The Clerks just rejected some of the most ridiculous claims. This argument is specious, MPs signed every month that their expense claims were made “wholly, exclusively and necessarily”. The Fees Office merely took them at their word and on their honour.

Public opinion is behind Legg. MPs still don’t get it: they should never have been claiming for groceries, moats, ironing, porn, duck houses, Sky sports, digital cameras and all the rest in the first place. If you want to stand at the next election, deliver the repayments.

Sir Thomas has one fearsome weapon at his disposal. If MPs won’t pay the public purse back, tell the public. You can name and shame miscreants. Do it to them before they do you in…

http://order-order.com/2009/10/14/some-media-advice-to-sir-thomas-legg-dont-get-filkinned/#comments

 

[antijoke]

I'm split on this one.

 

[magick]

I'm split on this one.

Why?

 

[antijoke]

Part of me thinks they should pay the money back, but then part of me also thinks that if they did this under the rules and it was allowed, however wrong it is, to then change the rules and say pay it back does seem a little wrong.

What should be deemed as totally unacceptable is the art of 'fipping' and those that made large sums of money from this practice should be investigated a lot.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

They 'mps' took advantage of a weak system with little oversight, not unlike abuse of a company credit card or even DWP benefits by those who care to take advantage.

They should lead by example and pay back what they should not have taken, in the event of everyday people doing the same they would be in court by now.

 

[magick]

Part of me thinks they should pay the money back, but then part of me also thinks that if they did this under the rules and it was allowed, however wrong it is, to then change the rules and say pay it back does seem a little wrong.

Rules the MPs made and governed themselves. If you pulled these types of expenses claims in the private sector you would be fired and have all the expenses deducted out of any salarie owed to you. Also the police would be called in and your boss/company would try and prosecute you.

You try defrauding the tax office of the amount of money they've been defrauding the tax payer and see if you get to walk away scot free with just having to say "Im sorry" and "We've learned our lesson" and not paying anything back or facing jail-time.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Rules the MPs made and governed themselves. If you pulled these types of expenses claims in the private sector you would be fired and have all the expenses deducted out of any salarie owed to you. Also the police would be called in and your boss/company would try and prosecute you.

You are wrong. Most of the claims were within the rules. It is arguably the case that the rules were wrong, but this is irrelevent - they were the rules. To now retrospectively review the rules is ridiculous and pandernig to public jealousy.

 

[antijoke]

Rules the MPs made and governed themselves. If you pulled these types of expenses claims in the private sector you would be fired and have all the expenses deducted out of any salarie owed to you. Also the police would be called in and your boss/company would try and prosecute you.

You try defrauding the tax office of the amount of money they've been defrauding the tax payer and see if you get to walk away scot free with just having to say "Im sorry" and "We've learned our lesson".

Agreed, I am not condoning what they have done at all. I think it is disgraceful they claimed for Sky/groceries etc, but they were the rules back then and to now change them and say pay it back does seem wrong to me.

 

[Things change I've changed]

For once I agree with Fox, if it was within the rules then they shouldn't have to pay it back, all that can be done now is reform the rules (which I think has now been done ?) and make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[magick]

You are wrong. Most of the claims were within the rules. It is arguably the case that the rules were wrong, but this is irrelevent - they were the rules. To now retrospectively review the rules is ridiculous and pandernig to public jealousy.

Agreed, I am not condoning what they have done at all. I think it is disgraceful they claimed for Sky/groceries etc, but they were the rules back then and to now change them and say pay it back does seem wrong to me.

But the rules were deliberately set-up in a way that to allowed them to be abused and several times the house of commons voted against reforming them and tried to make themselves exempt from FOI so there corruption wouldn't see the light of day.

 

[Strife212]

You are wrong. Most of the claims were within the rules. It is arguably the case that the rules were wrong, but this is irrelevent - they were the rules. To now retrospectively review the rules is ridiculous and pandernig to public jealousy.

Yes - rules they made themselves.

Now it's come to light the whole ****pile has come tumbling down. You seem to think contracts and rules govern the entire world.

 

[Things change I've changed]

But the rules were deliberately set-up in a way to allow them to be abused and several times the house of commons voted against reforming them and tried to make themselves exempt from FOI so there corruption wouldn't see the light of day.

I think it's more a case of people abusing them, but not breaking them, from what I've read they said that they didn't expected MP's to take advantage but many did so the rules had to be tightened so that they weren't open to abuse.

 

[scorza]

For once I agree with Fox, if it was within the rules then they shouldn't have to pay it back, all that can be done now is reform the rules (which I think has now been done ?) and make sure it doesn't happen again.

This is about moral leadership, just because the rules were inadequate doesn't mean you have to exploit them to the fullest advantage. This is the argument MPs use when talking about tax avoidance schemes and excessive rewards for failed bankers. MPs must pay the money back if they wish to have any respect from the public in future.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Yes - rules they made themselves.

The current MP's didn't all sit in a room one day and say 'Right lads, lets make up some rules shall we?'. The system allowed the gradual creation of the rules over a long period of time.

 

[Things change I've changed]

This is about moral leadership, just because the rules were inadequate doesn't mean you have to exploit them to the fullest advantage. This is the argument MPs use when talking about tax avoidance schemes and excessive rewards for failed bankers. MPs must pay the money back if they wish to have any respect from the public in future.

Yes I agree, but obviously there are people in government that can't be trusted to not take advantage, you can't force people to pay money back just because they were 'morally' wrong even though they were legally allowed to make the claims at the time, I just think that the government was being ignorant in putting trust in MP's not to abuse the system.

 

[Strife212]

The current MP's didn't all sit in a room one day and say 'Right lads, lets make up some rules shall we?'. The system allowed the gradual creation of the rules over a long period of time.

That is true but surely there needs to be a point at which it is stopped. It's not a private business where they can use their money as they see fit, they are paying themselves with tax money after all.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That is true but surely there needs to be a point at which it is stopped.

I agree. The system needs to be revised.

What doesn't need to happen is a retrospective witchhunt fuelled by the demands of the jealous but fundamentally clueless population. Most of us hate politics and always have, most have little understanding of it, etc etc.

 

[magick]

I agree. The system needs to be revised.

What doesn't need to happen is a retrospective witchhunt fuelled by the demands of the jealous but fundamentally clueless population. Most of us hate politics and always have, most have little understanding of it, etc etc.

What a load of rubbish. Tell me what little understanding do the simple clueless population have about MPs troughing it with public money?

 

[[TW]Fox]

What a load of rubbish. Tell me what little understanding do the simple clueless population have about MPs troughing it with public money?

I'm not sure there is any need, I feel your choice of wording has demonstrated my point quite well.

 

[magick]

I'm not sure there is any need, I feel your choice of wording has demonstrated my point quite well.

[TW]FOX are you a MP yourself as you seem awfuly good at ducking questions?