kalmar wrote:
Mr Chris wrote:
I'm not sure any of the "exposed" things are either fraudulent or against the rules, are they?
Possibly, and the movie thing is clearly a mistake.. but it reveals a culture where all and every expense of daily living is routinely charged as an expense.
Sorry, but at some point, that's what your massive wages are for.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, these are "allowances", not "expenses" - a crucial difference from their point of view. They were introduced to up their income without having to vote for payrises for themselves, with all the attendant bad publicity that would go with it. Instead they introduced these allowances, which covered as many different things as possible so that they would all be able to take advantage of the full allowance. They really did get parliamentary officials calling them up and asking them if they didn't want to claim for some other things to take them up to the allowance limit. It's an entitlement.
What does need to happen is either (a) scrapping the allowance and upping their salaries a bit (which the media/public is not going to like) or (b) say that for being in Westminster they can claim
only for the price of a hotel room at the Novotel round the corner in Lambeth.
Quote:
And it's Jacqui Smith so putting the boot in a bit is clearly allowable.
Well, true.
I *do* hope it was gay porn her husband was watching. With her researcher. Oooooh, this could get good.