tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post3988631314838000646..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: The Flaws of the Standards CommitteeIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-90905373064285537372009-10-16T16:34:41.738+01:002009-10-16T16:34:41.738+01:00Every week a new scandal, a new politcian with a n...Every week a new scandal, a new politcian with a new scam!<br /><br /><br />These benefit claimants sound very suspect indeed, I think they need the full rigour of the law to scrutinise their past actions.<br /><br />They seem to have claimed for upgrading their life style instead of necessities; claiming for stamp duty mortgage, & plasma TV, instead of just the required rents or interest.<br /><br />I think the British public wants investigations to see if their actions are tax evasion or tax avoidance, before any election.<br /><br />We would like to know who we may be asked to vote for, and as many of these law makers have set up a system where even councils can tap phones or snoop in our bins for less serious offences, I have no problem with every financial record of these suspects being investigated.<br /><br />What do you think Iain, do you the level of suspected fraudsters here, needs scrutiny by the police?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Gordon Kennedy<br />JustVotethemOut.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-35937343999541326772009-10-16T10:42:47.048+01:002009-10-16T10:42:47.048+01:00John Lyon, not Sir John -no knighthood quite yetJohn Lyon, not Sir John -no knighthood quite yetAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-38880232504418798712009-10-16T08:59:29.095+01:002009-10-16T08:59:29.095+01:00Bring back Elizabeth Filkin.Bring back <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479751/Hounding-decent-woman-Labours-brutal-campaign-destroy-ethics-watchdog-Elizabeth-Filkin.html" rel="nofollow"> Elizabeth Filkin</a>.Twighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698620636313191152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-39408311025181982412009-10-16T07:15:55.461+01:002009-10-16T07:15:55.461+01:00I think most of us can understand the odd fiver be...I think most of us can understand the odd fiver being misclaimed.But serial long term high value claims based not on the rules but an 'agreement' with the Fees Office which appears to be outside those rules is something most reasonable people cannot understand. This is fraud.I would go to prison for it probably and lose my job. What's the difference here? <br /><br />My anger is made worse by Harman's pronouncement that Parliament will be the judge and jury and nothing will be referred to the police.<br /><br />The Standards committee has failed -matters of a criminal nature should not be dealt with by that groupPutinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-78352850074504680162009-10-15T22:56:55.267+01:002009-10-15T22:56:55.267+01:00The Standards committee should be replaced you say...The Standards committee should be replaced you say, I agree lets replace them with The Police.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-52158327632854050042009-10-15T21:54:24.447+01:002009-10-15T21:54:24.447+01:00"Mr Wilshire has rightly referred himself to ..."Mr Wilshire has rightly referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner"<br /><br />Iain, I have to say that's BOLLOX, and proven to be BOLLOX.<br /><br />48 hrs ago Wilshire was on nobody's radar except the Torygraph's.<br /><br />They rightly contacted him for his 'defence'; he realised the game was up, so tried to bluff it.<br /><br />He spent most of today attempting to defend the indefensible.<br /><br />Tonight he's history.<br /><br />I thought you had your 'finger on the pulse of politics'. Please don't press too hard, it's nearly comatose.Joe Publicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-52838085525127575662009-10-15T21:53:18.990+01:002009-10-15T21:53:18.990+01:00If anyone doubted it before all this stuff this ha...If anyone doubted it before all this stuff this has just confirmed what most people thought. This is that the UK is a sewer with all the shit bobbing along above us with the newly ennobled ex-Speaker as TOP TURD.spelkenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06625113131450999649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-6727448317811969982009-10-15T21:25:36.741+01:002009-10-15T21:25:36.741+01:00Is this the same Standards Board that was devised ...Is this the same Standards Board that was devised by Parliament to flay good people in local government alive causing the growth of vexatious complaints against hard working poorly recompensed councillors, parish district and county, and other sections of the public sector?<br /><br />Serves every self serving greedy MP damned well right!<br /><br />The worm turned.True Bellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16296161522047947133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-46405319175437794282009-10-15T21:23:50.021+01:002009-10-15T21:23:50.021+01:00Well, 9.00 PM and Wilshire has decided he'll n...Well, 9.00 PM and Wilshire has decided he'll not be standing again. Now, there are some who would say that this is the honourable thing, that he has shown some decency. But isn't it the case that actually he had no other option - except for the really honourable thing which is to resign immediately? All that has happened is that he has managed to cling onto his substantial stipend for another few months, which will then be followed by the customary payoff, pension etc etc.<br /><br />Frankly, most MPs are now lame ducks, some more obviously discredited than others, and all facing the prospect of a vengeful electorate.<br /><br />Oh, and nice to see your comments on the BBC. Perhaps you could use such opportunities to express the clear and increasing rage out here in the blogosphere.Unsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08307116169498533047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-34786240915216274482009-10-15T20:41:37.225+01:002009-10-15T20:41:37.225+01:00And lo and behold the man will resign! So the repa...And lo and behold the man will resign! So the repayment will still be made?<br /><br />Things have got so far out of hand that MP's who have been cleared are offering to pay money anyway. Frankly this has become in some areas, an exercise in who can wear the hair shirt the best.<br /><br />What next? A fashion show of sackcloth and ashes? I never thought I would hear myself say on this issue - ENOUGH.Mrs Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13301098472217096123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60960099723236911572009-10-15T20:22:58.035+01:002009-10-15T20:22:58.035+01:00"David Mackintosh @12:03
FURTHER {just in cas..."David Mackintosh @12:03<br />FURTHER {just in case you seem to be having the same problem understanding THE RULES as the wee piggies in the zoo we call Westmonster had}<br /><br /> The fundamental principles required MPs personally to ensure that their use of the ACA was:<br /> (c) in accordance with the Nolan principles of selflessness, accountability, honesty and leadership;" <br /><br />Why have you quoted the Green Book for all of the other points, but slipped in c), which doesn't appear anywhere in Chapter 3 of the Green Book, that I can see?Any Colour but Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-46405476363730508072009-10-15T20:18:47.585+01:002009-10-15T20:18:47.585+01:00"Anonymous @10:13 AM
The report also stat..."Anonymous @10:13 AM<br /> The report also states that, in accordance with the Green Book, Jacqui Smith in fact spent more time in her London home, however the 'overnight test' was 'implicit' within the Green Book."<br /><br />The Green Book is not "implicit", it is explicit:<br />"The location of your main home will normally be a matter of fact. If you have more than one home, your main home will normally be the one where you spend more nights than any other."<br />It does not specify more time, it specifies more nights. That is a quote from the 2006 edition of the Green Book. It begs the question as to whether you have read the Green Book............Any Colour but Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-91240234075285800182009-10-15T17:32:26.094+01:002009-10-15T17:32:26.094+01:00Re anonymous at 11.02 and Nick at 2.56 can anyone ...Re anonymous at 11.02 and Nick at 2.56 can anyone tell me why the fees office have not been asked to account for their role in this? Or if they have what have they said? I find it incredible that they have not been asked/allowed to set out their position. If it is because of the Official Secrets Act - surely it is in the natural interest that they should be granted immunity?soleateAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-65507964946257756212009-10-15T17:31:42.856+01:002009-10-15T17:31:42.856+01:00When Court of Appeal and House of Lord's judge...When Court of Appeal and House of Lord's judges use their discretion, under case law, to change the law, it acts retrospectively. Such an action is justified because it is argued that the act, which is now criminal, was so obviously criminal that the defendants should have known that at the time. This was particularly relevant when the Law Lords changed the law in 1992 with regard to marital rape. The defendants argued in that case that it was unfair that the law acted retrospectively but the Courts accepted the argument stated above. <br /><br />Whilst it is doubtful that rules Sir Thomas Legg is applying are acting retrospectively, even if they are I cannot see why the justification the Courts use cannot be applied here. In fact, were it to ever go to Court, this justification may well be used to uphold the decisions of Sir Thomas Legg.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-79599933744107829782009-10-15T17:24:19.841+01:002009-10-15T17:24:19.841+01:00I agree with those who say Legg has changed nothin...I agree with those who say Legg has changed nothing retrospectively - he is enforcing the rules that applied at the time, and should have been enforced. The fact that there were no quantified limits to what could be spent under certain headings does not mean any claim, of any amount, was "within the rules". <br /><br />As auditor, he has two options if he believes money was wrongly claimed - outside the rules - and should be repaid. <br /><br />Either he simply says "I can't say how much exactly should be repaid, so must recommend none be repaid at all"; which would arguably be a total failure to apply the rules. <br /><br />Or he devises a method for quantifying repayments. The most reasonable way of doing this is obviously to adopt a policy involving figures that should apply equally to all MPs. <br /><br />For any MP to call that retrospectively amending the rules is an extreme, self-serving way of looking at it. It's like corporate fraudsters complaining about being prosecuted for fraud "retrospectively" when their accountants let them get away with it for ages. If there's any MP or prospective MP who fails to realise this, they certainly won't get my vote.<br /><br />As for whether Legg will stand up in a court of law: I don't see how Legg can be legally challenged. For once, I think MPs would be right to say Parliamentary privilege applies. Funny if some of them don't want it to apply in this case.Carl Gardner, Head of Legalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11623620299558039098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-15108947721446397892009-10-15T16:20:26.757+01:002009-10-15T16:20:26.757+01:00@Anon 8:33am
Um. This is Mr. Dale's blog. He ...@Anon 8:33am<br /><br />Um. This is Mr. Dale's blog. He can write about whatever he wants to. Why don't YOU do what you want HIM to do?Elby the Beserkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15060519682739666145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-19501909910919190652009-10-15T16:18:57.759+01:002009-10-15T16:18:57.759+01:00Old Holborn has pointed out that whilst MPs are sq...Old Holborn has pointed out that whilst MPs are squawking blue murder about retrospective repayments, they made no fuss about Darling's retrospective car tax in the budget.<br /><br />Short memories? Or yet another case of one rule for the little people, another for the ruling elite?Elby the Beserkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15060519682739666145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-25620822815136908862009-10-15T15:57:02.958+01:002009-10-15T15:57:02.958+01:00@Nick 2:56pm What?! That comment's just a wind...@Nick 2:56pm What?! That comment's just a wind up to provoke responses, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-27104769061891422972009-10-15T15:03:16.592+01:002009-10-15T15:03:16.592+01:00Iain,
You seem to skirt over the part where you n...Iain,<br /><br />You seem to skirt over the part where you note that "only 1 Tory MP" was at the Standards Committee meeting which decided on Ms Smith's behaviour. You also make implicit assumptions that the missing Members would have voted against Ms Smith.<br /><br />Shouldn't you be finding out why the other Tories weren't there?<br /><br />Maybe they didn't think it important enough to attend? (Surely not.) Or maybe it is because the missing Tories would have been just as likely to let Ms Smith off the hook, and so "absented themselves"?<br /><br />Never underestimate just how cosy this club is. This might be a helpful thought as you traverse the mean streets of Bracknell...Blackburn Rovers 10 - Burnley 0noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2926720118324592392009-10-15T15:02:29.386+01:002009-10-15T15:02:29.386+01:00Iain, please stop using the dreadful phrase 'f...Iain, please stop using the dreadful phrase 'fit for purpose'.<br /><br />Management consultant gobbledygook parroted by John Reid who clearly gets a lot more excited than I do about management consultants and their output.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03548952483363828857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-40446121029148115882009-10-15T14:56:19.666+01:002009-10-15T14:56:19.666+01:00It depends on how much information he gave the Fee...It depends on how much information he gave the Fees Office about the company he was paying money to. If Wilshire was open and honest with the Fees Office about the fact that he owned the company, and so would trouser the money, then it's the Office's fault. If not, it's his.Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-26485466478206738272009-10-15T14:37:47.638+01:002009-10-15T14:37:47.638+01:00When I read my Daily Telegraph this morning, I saw...When I read my Daily Telegraph this morning, I saw photos of David Wilshire and his "girlfriend" Ann Palmer <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6330262/MPs-expenses-David-Wilshires-leafy-gateway-to-100000-from-public-purse.html" rel="nofollow">on the front page.</a><br /><br />I couldn't help but think she is the image of Corporal Jones' girlfriend <a href="http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsC/3972.gif" rel="nofollow"> Mrs Fox</a> in "Dad's Army."<br /><br />How appropriate that Corporal Jones' favourite catchphrase was "nobody panic!"<br /><br />I wonder if David Wilshire is beginning to panic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-55652582041202775112009-10-15T13:50:54.756+01:002009-10-15T13:50:54.756+01:00If Jacqui Smith now accepts what everyone else alr...If Jacqui Smith now accepts what everyone else already knew, i.e. that her main home is the detached property Redditch and not her sisters spare bedroom in Putney, then on what grounds does she believe she should keep the cash?<br /><br />I demand that she returns the over-claimed amount to the long suffering taxpaying public with interest.Twighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16698620636313191152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22455931745340519042009-10-15T13:47:04.094+01:002009-10-15T13:47:04.094+01:00A lack of moral fibre should really be enough to h...A lack of moral fibre should really be enough to have him removed from the Party surely?<br /><br />There does come a point, in all this, when the MPs will have to realise that this whole issue isn't about laws or rules but about morality.Moral Majoritynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-90816832323390161432009-10-15T13:45:14.399+01:002009-10-15T13:45:14.399+01:00If the Wilshire "company" is a partnersh...If the Wilshire "company" is a partnership or if he is a sole proprietor a basic summary of the "company" accounts will have been submitted with his self-assessment to the inland revenue.<br /><br />So at the latest all the evidence will be available to the public by 31st January. (though it his likely his company's accountant will have already calculated his tax liabilities for 08-09 by now.<br /><br />Wilshire just needs to make available his self-assessment submitted to the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue can assess if fraud has taken place not a political coterie.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16286961683961861339noreply@blogger.com