Something to look forward to
"According to the BBC she will defend her skinny 2,716 majority in Redditch at the next election"
This should be fun; her very own "were you up for Portillo" moment
11 posts • joined 28 Nov 2008
Oh yes you have.
I would remind those MPs (and defenders of MPs) who say no rules have been broken that the 'Green Book' criteria for legitimate claims are "additional costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred".
"Wholly": that means no little extras like dog food that you 'forgot' to exclude from the claim - unless HMRC are accepting, "sorry but I'm a bit careless" as an excuse this week.
"Exclusively": The expense was incurred only to allow you to fulfil your duties, which seems to exclude using the money to do a 'Sarah Beeny Property Ladder' on the taxpayer as a lucrative little sideline.
"Necessarily": Meaning that if you hadn't spent this money you wouldn't have been able to function as an MP. Not sure I understand how not having mock-tudor beams on your house would stop you doing your job. Equally, if you already own a flat in Westminster I would need to be convinced that it was "necessary" for you to rent another one from your daughter at the taxpayers expense.
Most MPs claiming they haven't broken the rules actually have infringed at least one of the 'Green Book' conditions. Some have gone for the full set. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that telling deliberate lies for monetary gain was fraud. If it isn't, it bloody well should be!
As to the Stephen Fry tendency, who say this is all a storm in a teacup, and trivial when compared to the 'real' issues such as illegal wars, I would respond that the 2 things are not separate. It's a question of integrity. MPs whose primary motivation is personal gain and advancement are unlikely to rock the gravy boat when doing so would exclude them from the patronage they seek. "Who cares if a load of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers die - I'm going to be a junior minister, with a car, a driver and everything!". It boils down to a question of whether these people are in it for us or for themselves. Corruption and illegal wars are 2 sides of the same coin IMHO. Stephen's a very clever bloke but I think he's wrong about this one.
Here endeth the rant.
"...of 2,060 people showed 55% believe in heaven, while 53% believe in life after death and 70% believe in the human soul."
So more respondents believed in "heaven" than believed in life after death? How does that work?
Kind of suggests that survey wasn't worth the paper it was written on, doesn't it? Or was Belinda Carlisle telling the truth when she sang "Heaven is a Place on Earth"
Cracking article BTW.
"This is another reason why I'm pro Euro, the government needs someone to answer to."
The bloody government is supposed to be answerable to us, not some unelected cabal that we don't elect and can't sack! It's called 'democracy'. It used to be very popular in this country...
Have a look at Julie Bindel's profile on the Guardian website - it lists many of her other articles, including one charmingly titled "Marriage is a form of prostitution" and another bemoaning the shortage of lesbian foster-carers.
You don't suppose that she is pursuing an agenda, by any chance?
Interestingly, in her article "Revealed: the truth about brothels", she says "a Mori poll of more than 1,000 British adults on attitudes to paying for sex [found that] the majority would support a law that criminalised paying for sex", yet in "Penalising the punters" she says, "Some anti-prostitution activists in the UK are disappointed that Smith has not followed Sweden and criminalised paying for sex in all circumstances. I ask why she has taken what might look like a half measure, and she cites a recent Mori poll which found that the majority of people do not support a blanket ban". These 2 statements seem contradictory - perhaps someone will be able to explain how they can be reconciled?
Publishing information which exposes the Government's deceptions? If that's not terrorism I'd like to know what is!
Switching the sarcasm off for a mo... If ever you wanted proof positive that the "Anti Terror" excuse will be (mis)used whenever it is convenient to stifle dissent, avoid minister's embarrassment or generally subvert the democratic process, here it is. Welcome to Britain, 2008. Papers, please.
Absolute f******* disgrace.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021