Mao Cap Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Also she did a good photo shoot for the Observer woman supplement on Sunday! Improved my dreary Saturday night at work, that did And yo, Bognor - I would direct your attention to Dennis Skinner, one of the few MPs left at Westminster who is a genuine socialist, who claimed the second least in allowances in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Go fascism - it pays bucket loads! It sure does, but they don't pretend to be on the moral highground like your a-typical socialist. Even you BTF, must admit that the last people you would expect to take the **** are Labour and Lib Dem MP's? Source (Labour Party Website) In 1995 we set out our values in Clause IV of the Labour Party’s constitution: ‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’ Yeah, right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 The number of MPs and amounts involved with Labour are far greater. The "top" 6, based on the figures on the BBC site, include 5 scottish members ( 3 LAB and 2 Lib Dems ), who obviously have more work related travelling, ( one of them is the member for Orkney, and another for Ross & Skye ). The other is the Conservative Ben Wallace, member for Lancaster and Wyre. Of the next 5 on the list, all are Labour members for scottish or northern english wards. How many Labour members have claimed to have their moats cleaned, or their tennis courts maintained ? Please rely on facts rather than rhetoric, which after all is being driven by the Tory press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 It sure does, but they don't pretend to be on the moral highground like your a-typical socialist. Even you BTF, must admit that the last people you would expect to take the **** are Labour and Lib Dem MP's? Source (Labour Party Website) In 1995 we set out our values in Clause IV of the Labour Party’s constitution: ‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’ Yeah, right! Hmm I'm not quite sure how the extract you quote ties in with the discussion on the expenses fiasco. FYI Clause IV was ditched by the Labour Party many years ago (unfortunately IMO) as it was too Socialist. So that sort of blows your little name-calling tirade out of the water, doesn't it. I think the current revelations show how, like most people, MPs will use existing rules to their advantages. It's wrong but it's not illegal. The sooner the whole question is addressed the better. It's just so sweet that a lot of the Tory claims are for things that you and I could never hope to have - swimming pools, tennis courts, moats, helipads. Obviously these fascist toffs belong to the party of the common man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Here's a good one: MPs’ expenses: Andrew George claimed for £308,000 flat used by daughter as 'bolt hole’ Go fascism - it pays bucket loads! Since when is a Lib Dem MP a facist? I thought they were an alternative socialist party to Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Since when is a Lib Dem MP a facist? I thought they were an alternative socialist party to Labour. Gosh that's very clever, cutting out relevant and salient points. I wish I'd thought of doing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Since when is a Lib Dem MP a facist? I thought they were an alternative socialist party to Labour. Since when were the current Government socialist ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Gosh that's very clever, cutting out relevant and salient points. I wish I'd thought of doing that Just wanted to ensure that balanced or uninformed readers of this thread didn't mistake the said MP for a Tory. I see have have touched a nerve with the socialists on here. Come on, all of you socialists, just admit that Labour people doing this leaves a bitter taste in your mouths (even more so than the facists as this is what you would exepct of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I cannot believe that bridge too far is defending labour on here but then I'm not surprised. Typically rather than looking inwards she points to the Tories shouting "they are worse!" and round and round it goes. ANY MP who is caught abusing the system for anything are total c*nts IMO. Who gives a crap if it's for swimming pools or toilet paper, it's still money they shouldn't have and they are all wrong. I don't care which party is worse, I care about it happening in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durleyfos Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 They're all a bunch of corrupt, money grabbing c*nts, whichever side of the house they sit on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I cannot believe that bridge too far is defending labour on here but then I'm not surprised. Typically rather than looking inwards she points to the Tories shouting "they are worse!" and round and round it goes. ANY MP who is caught abusing the system for anything are total c*nts IMO. Who gives a crap if it's for swimming pools or toilet paper, it's still money they shouldn't have and they are all wrong. I don't care which party is worse, I care about it happening in the first place. I'm not - hence, in my earlier post,: There's nothing worse than ANY MP caught with his / her snout in the trough, actually and It's wrong but it's not illegal. The sooner the whole question is addressed the better. Try reading posts thoroughly instead of jumping to conclusions based on your (mistaken) perceptions about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Seeing as the current Government seem to be stumbling from one crisis to another week after week, what are people thinking the next crisis will be? Maybe they will kill the Queen or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Damage limitation IMO because his lot's claims are possibly more reprehensible than those of the Libs and Labour. Disagree on that... All parties have some pretty outrageous claims. However IMO having a large second home and claiming to have the moat cleaned, although clearly not appropriate and an abuse of the system, is different to actively managing your properties to be able to claim second home allowance to have them refurbished but then claiming the same property is actually your primary residence (and so exempt from capital gains tax) when it comes to sell it a few months later. The first is claiming for something that clearly isn't an expense incurred as a result of being a member of parliament, the second (IMO of course) is making a conscious choice to actively defraud the expenses/taxation systems. Similar is claiming second home allowance on 3 different properties in a year as I just don't believe that the MP is question could have been actively using all of the homes being claimed for at the times claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Seeing as the current Government seem to be stumbling from one crisis to another week after week, what are people thinking the next crisis will be? Maybe they will kill the Queen or something. Imagine the You Tube video apology.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Seeing as the current Government seem to be stumbling from one crisis to another week after week, what are people thinking the next crisis will be? Maybe they will kill the Queen or something. I've heard something about a canal in North Africa.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Damage limitation IMO because his lot's claims are possibly more reprehensible than those of the Libs and Labour. No such thing in this instance, BTF. Unless the Tories are claiming for money spent on kiddie pron or the slave trade any of these pseudo expenses are as bad as each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Michael Ancram claimed for something to do with his tennis court. He's a right slimy **** too - never have liked the man. A few years ago i met Douglas Hurd and he's one of the few Tories i have a lot of time for. He's genuine wheras the majority of the rest of them are just actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 13 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2009 (edited) This, i think is cringeworthy.Watch the David Davies right to reply video..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5318170/Right-to-reply-David-Davies-MP-for-Monmouth-explains-his-expense-claims.html Also i can't believe that someone(can't remember who excactly,high profile however) claimed £40 to pay for a court summons for not paying their council tax on time,fecking baffling. Edited 13 May, 2009 by saint lard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 This, i think is cringeworthy.Watch the David Davies right to reply video..... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5318170/Right-to-reply-David-Davies-MP-for-Monmouth-explains-his-expense-claims.html Also i can't believe that someone(can't remember who excactly,high profile however) claimed £40 to pay for a court summons for not paying their council tax on time,fecking baffling. Lembit Opik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 13 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Lembit Opik Afankoo. Pretty damn disgusting,i know it's only £40 but that is not the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Afankoo. Pretty damn disgusting,i know it's only £40 but that is not the point. I was very vaguely listening to him on the radio this morning and I think, but can't swear, that he said he'd missed paying the council tax because of a bereavement. I'll try that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 13 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I was very vaguely listening to him on the radio this morning and I think, but can't swear, that he said he'd missed paying the council tax because of a bereavement. I'll try that one. He's not aware of something like a direct debit or standing order then;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 It sure does, but they don't pretend to be on the moral highground like your a-typical socialist. Even you BTF, must admit that the last people you would expect to take the **** are Labour and Lib Dem MP's? Source (Labour Party Website) In 1995 we set out our values in Clause IV of the Labour Party’s constitution: ‘The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.’ Yeah, right! Atypical means different from and not conforming to the norm. Please try and use language correctly. Unless, of course, you mean that the current labour party is not in the least socialist in which case then you're right and I apologise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Oh, and any MP caught out with bogus and irresponsible expense claims are conning the public whatever their party. To suggest that the Tories are less to blame because "we expect that from them" would give some indication as to why they lost power and remain in opposition, no? I don't recall any party manifesto claiming that they would endeavour to fiddle their expenses as much as possible so this is not a party issue - it's an individual thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Some labour MP now has claimed £16,000 for a mortgage that didn't even exist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 I'm not - hence, in my earlier post,: There's nothing worse than ANY MP caught with his / her snout in the trough, actually and It's wrong but it's not illegal. The sooner the whole question is addressed the better. Try reading posts thoroughly instead of jumping to conclusions based on your (mistaken) perceptions about me. How can one MP claiming be MORE reprehensible than another one? That's the problem I have with what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Some labour MP now has claimed £16,000 for a mortgage that didn't even exist Does this one win BTF's "Most reprehensible" prize? Surely that's just a criminal offence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 (edited) Atypical means different from and not conforming to the norm. Please try and use language correctly. Unless, of course, you mean that the current labour party is not in the least socialist in which case then you're right and I apologise. No I meant it in the respect that they were more a party of the middle who moved left when the left moved centre. They may move right as the centre moves left. A typical socialist stays left and so the lib dems are atypical socialists. Please try and understand politics before contributing to this thread. Unless, of course, you mean that socialists don't know whether they are coming or going and change their morals more often than the weather, in which case you are right and I apologise :grin: Edited 13 May, 2009 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Don't know whether anyone has mentioned this angle, but of course, all the parties, and their individual caught MPs are saying that they'll pay back what they owe. Cameron is even going as far as to say that anyone who doesn't pay back their expenses will be sacked. This is all very well, and I believe the public are supposed to be impressed. But if a burglar was caught with your belongings, and offered to bring every last item back, and place them exactly where they were stolen from, would you think better of them..? And thereby hangs the outstanding problem. The MPs are suddenly showing their honesty and humility because they've been caught; in this case, bending an already over generous set of rules to breaking point. They are no better than burglars. I would like to see a published list of all those remaining MPs that I can completely trust. I wouldn't expect it to be long. I honestly think I will be voting none of the above this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 Oh, and any MP caught out with bogus and irresponsible expense claims are conning the public whatever their party. To suggest that the Tories are less to blame because "we expect that from them" would give some indication as to why they lost power and remain in opposition, no? The Tories are equally guilty, that I do not deny. I am not saying that Labour is worse, just saying that it 'looks' worse for the following reasons: 1. Socialists try to take the moral highground 1. They are supposedly for the people 2. Money is an unecessary evil to them Therefore, although the 3 parties are equally guilty, it does 'look' worse for the socialists. Add in the fact that Cameron is taking a lead on this whilst the prime minister with a majority who could do something, does nothing. Is Brown not in control of his lame duck government and lame duck party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 The Tories are equally guilty, that I do not deny. I am not saying that Labour is worse, just saying that it 'looks' worse for the following reasons: 1. Socialists try to take the moral highground Do the Tories not have morals then ? That explains a lot 1. They are supposedly for the people The Tories being in it solely for themselves.:cool: 2. Money is an unecessary evil to them A SOCIALIST understands the need for money, they just feel that it might be more evenly distributed. Add in the fact that Cameron is taking a lead on this whilst the prime minister with a majority who could do something, does nothing. Cameron is merely demonstrating he is Tony Bliar's true heir - the king of the opportunistic soundbite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 13 May, 2009 Share Posted 13 May, 2009 (edited) The Tories are equally guilty, that I do not deny. I am not saying that Labour is worse, just saying that it 'looks' worse for the following reasons: 1. Socialists try to take the moral highground 1. They are supposedly for the people 2. Money is an unecessary evil to them Therefore, although the 3 parties are equally guilty, it does 'look' worse for the socialists. Add in the fact that Cameron is taking a lead on this whilst the prime minister with a majority who could do something, does nothing. Is Brown not in control of his lame duck government and lame duck party? It's pretty pathetic to try and state that one party looks worse than another. Ultimately many of them have been at it and those that did are now kakking themselves that it will now cost them their livelihood and/or career and/or reputation at the next election. Either because they get voted out by a disgusted local electorate or because the local party deselects them beforehand anyway. Elliot Morley is the latest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8049096.stm How can most people not be aware that all of a sudden at the end of the month that an extra £800 still seems to be in a bank account? You'd probably have to be netting more than £8,000 a month not to realise and even then... Laughable if it wasn't sad! Edited 13 May, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 No I meant it in the respect that they were more a party of the middle who moved left when the left moved centre. They may move right as the centre moves left. A typical socialist stays left and so the lib dems are atypical socialists. Please try and understand politics before contributing to this thread. Unless, of course, you mean that socialists don't know whether they are coming or going and change their morals more often than the weather, in which case you are right and I apologise :grin: In what sense did the original post mention the lib dems? The one I quoted certainly didn't. Actually I do understand politics - I work for the government. That's any government that's democratically elected and without prejudice. All i'm saying is that the slogan "socialist" and particularly atypical socialist is a tired cliche that has no relevance within this thread. If it makes you feel better then fine but it doesn't make a better argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 In what sense did the original post mention the lib dems? The one I quoted certainly didn't. Actually you are right, I hold my hands up there was a mis-use of the word 'atypical'. I was just trying to come back with a witty response to your valid point that I had mis-used the English language. So a wholeheared apology. So I misused a word on an internet forum and said sorry. BTW how many MP's on either side have wholeheartedly apologised for their part in milking the system? FWIW, MP's need to show some remorse if they are to get any modicum of respect. Clown referring to independent Commitees and the Speaker shouting down MP's in the House does not look good at all. It's pretty pathetic to try and state that one party looks worse than another. As stated above, they could start with an apology. However it does look worse. Say for example a known drug dealer is caught dealing drugs along with a vicar. Both guilty of the same crime, but which one looks worse? Even that aside, as Labour have more MP's in the house they are statistically more likely to have more incidents of spurious expense claims and therefore looks worse for them (even if the rate of expenses claimed is equal to that of other parties). The Torygraph spent most of last week on Labour, two days on the Tories and yesterday on the Lib Dems. Now this probably represents the spread of MP's across the House, but it does look worse. You could say that it is pointless and irrelevant, but there are elections coming up in a few weeks and the party that 'looks' the worst will feel the wrath of the voting public the hardest. So it is very relevant to political debate. I think the level of disgust from the working man on the street, or perhaps the one that has just lost his job, will be felt when their so called representatives are caught with their hand in the till and that working man is required to place his X in the box. Labour's loss will be the BNP and UKIP's gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 The Torygraph spent most of last week on Labour, two days on the Tories and yesterday on the Lib Dems. Now this probably represents the spread of MP's across the House, but it does look worse. I think you'll find that the Telegraph started with government ministers and high profile Labour, then went for shadow Tories and well known ones, then L Dems and is now about to pick on anyone else that has ridiculous claims. That's how Benedict Brown of the Telegraph has explained the strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 14 May, 2009 Share Posted 14 May, 2009 (edited) And they keep coming. I wonder whether Andrew McKay and his wife Julie Kirkbride agreed that he should take the rap to keep her Daily Mail "journalistic integrity" clean! Having had dealings with JK previously it wouldn't surprise me at all. Full points to Jezza Paxman here though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8049177.stm Edited 14 May, 2009 by TopGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 15 May, 2009 Share Posted 15 May, 2009 Shahid Malik (MP for Bradford) has run up the highest claims of the lot of them. "His second home claims have included £2,600 for a home cinema system — which was cut in half by officials — and £65 for a court summons for not paying council tax." The house he rents in his constituency he pays for out of his own pocket for a discounted rent of £100 p.w. The landlord, Tahir Zaman (pictured right), was recently fined for letting a house that was uninhabitable. So how come this Tahir only charges £100 p.w rent? I wonder what favours he's getting in return.:mad: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5326333/Shahid-Malik-his-house-and-the-slum-landlord-MPs-expenses.html MP's accross all parties are as bad as each other and it makes me sick. I'll never vote mainstream again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 15 May, 2009 Share Posted 15 May, 2009 I'm not - hence, in my earlier post,: There's nothing worse than ANY MP caught with his / her snout in the trough, actually and It's wrong but it's not illegal. The sooner the whole question is addressed the better. Try reading posts thoroughly instead of jumping to conclusions based on your (mistaken) perceptions about me. You're right and it's all basically down to morals. That's where it all ends really because the words morals and Member of Parliament don't really work that well in the same sentence. The lot of them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 15 May, 2009 Share Posted 15 May, 2009 Someone made a good point on Question Time last night, that we should be provided the "good news" as well. For example David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, didn't claim anything on the 2nd homes allowance, and one of the Luton MPs (I forgot the name but Diane Abbot mentioned it on This Week) also goes back to their constituency every night. So far we've had about 50 names come out in public, but there are over 600 MPs - it would be nice to hear a bit more about those who have acted responsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 May, 2009 Share Posted 15 May, 2009 Someone made a good point on Question Time last night, that we should be provided the "good news" as well. For example David Howarth, MP for Cambridge, didn't claim anything on the 2nd homes allowance, and one of the Luton MPs (I forgot the name but Diane Abbot mentioned it on This Week) also goes back to their constituency every night. So far we've had about 50 names come out in public, but there are over 600 MPs - it would be nice to hear a bit more about those who have acted responsibly. Why? It should be automatically assumed that the people we elect to run the country on our behalf are acting responsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 15 May, 2009 Share Posted 15 May, 2009 Why? It should be automatically assumed that the people we elect to run the country on our behalf are acting responsibly. I just think it would be nice if the British media actually publicised good news as well as bad on all fronts: sport, politics or whatever. Seems we are obsessed with bad news, without giving credit to those who deserve it. Especially when it is sensationalised bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 15 May, 2009 Share Posted 15 May, 2009 I just think it would be nice if the British media actually publicised good news as well as bad on all fronts: sport, politics or whatever. Seems we are obsessed with bad news, without giving credit to those who deserve it. Especially when it is sensationalised bad news. I do agree, but unfortunately bad news is (in general) far more interesting than good news. On this occasion, I wouldn't class an MP acting responsibly as "good" news - it shouldn't even be news, it should be the default behaviour. It would be like writing a news article saying that I went to work today; it's not newsworthy because a) I'm a nobody in the grand scheme of things; and b) it's generally accepted that I go to work most days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 15 May, 2009 Share Posted 15 May, 2009 The 'good' guys are there as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8048215.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 15 May, 2009 Share Posted 15 May, 2009 Let's not get carried away, why some of these expenses are just disgusting, alot of them have been blown out of proportion. Remember that MP's do need to get this money from somewhere as part of their job means they have to have 2 houses, and they can't be expected to support 2 houses(one in central london, very expensive) on 50 odd thousand pounds a year.Take away this help and you make becoming an MP only for the elite who can afford it so be very careful what you wish for. We need a sensible solution, not a rushed hysterical one. Personally, I think building a large apartment block nearby to house all MP's while in London is part of this sensible solution. Either way, all details of all expenses should be released straight away to stop this stupid carnival the Telegraph is running. Then, everyone needs to take a step back, calm the **** down while it's sorted out who's cheating and who's not. For example, the way Minzies Campbell was treated on question time, do you honestly believe he is one of the cheaters? To be honest, his expenses seemed pretty sound which just goes to show this kind of stuff has the ability to grow out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Heard on the radio this morning that 1 MP claimed £8000 for a new TV. What a bunch of two faced robbing crooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 (edited) The things that rankle most, for me, is not so much the value of the expenses and allowances available to MPs; it's the fact that they have exempted their benefits from tax, ( payable by everybody else in the country ), and tried to exclude the fees system from the Freedom of Information Act. I heard a radio interview yesterday with one of the lawyers who worked with Heather Brooke, the Guardian journo, on the FOI case against the Fees Office, ( which was the real precursor for the Telegraph stories ). At the end of the High Court appeal against the disclosure order, which the Government side quite rightly lost, the question arose as to whether the Government should be liable for costs, and for how much. HMG's lawyers argued that they should not be liable for full costs. The Judge asked why, and was told that "We should not have to pay the full amount, as our case was so weak from the start the other side should have realised and convinced your Lordships to shorten the hearing". The Judge responded that this was probably the worst line of argument anyone had ever dared to present to him, and awarded full costs against HMG. Edited 16 May, 2009 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 16 May, 2009 Share Posted 16 May, 2009 Well, its fairly obvious they are all complete c u n t s. Where do I sign? I would get elected in Thurrock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 17 May, 2009 Share Posted 17 May, 2009 One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asks for his bill and the barber replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I am doing community service this week.' The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door. Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door. Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again says, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The professor is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen different books, such as 'How to Improve Your Business' and 'Becoming More Successful.' Then a Member of Parliament comes in for a haircut , and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The MP is very pleased and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Members of Parliament lined up waiting for a free haircut. And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the Members of Parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 17 May, 2009 Share Posted 17 May, 2009 Well, the above is the biggest load of b*ll*cks I think I have ever read. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 17 May, 2009 Share Posted 17 May, 2009 Making **** up, it's the new rock n roll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now