going down.. going down.. going down

Originally Posted by Jizza Jazza

All of the deselected ones will be (re)selected by their parties for the next MEP elections so they can get their snouts in the euro troughs instead... at least that one is mostly funded by the Germans

oh, i thought it cost us in the UK, £40 million a day

still....it wont be the forthcoming election, too soon..... and hopefully the gravy train will be halted by the time the next one comes along.........

Originally Posted by MrBishi

It's a real shame for democracy that newspapers are privately owned.

Yeah, cause a state funded newspaper would have really chased this

Originally Posted by Jizza Jazza

Why is speaker martin being singled out ?

Yes he handled the situation badly, but there are hundreds of MPs who have had their snouts in the trough. Why haven't the party leaders and the party whips been punished for letting this happen ... it can't be only the fault of the speaker can it.

They should prosecute every MP who has made a dishonourable claim, select a new bunch and call a general election.

Fixed you post for you.

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Yeah, cause a state funded newspaper would have really chased this



Fixed you post for you.

Yup, I'm ok with that

Originally Posted by denis lawless

scapegoat....word of the day

hes as deep in the trough as many of the others.....

as for the rest of them, this is not over yet......i expect to see some of the worst offenders (yes Throbs tory as well as labour) .... in court and others not returning after the next election......but the scale of it all means it will take some time.

%@#$&!s

'Throb's tory' whatever the £#%&! that means, bought the furniture off Cameron's mother-in-law. any other time you'd be outraged at this and be in no doubt at all that either he is complicit in fraud, or that his family are corrupt, or if he didn't know what was going on in his own £#%&!ing family then he can't be fit to run the opposition

and you're saying that the speaker isn't a scapegoat .... ycnmiu

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

%@#$&!s

'Throb's tory' whatever the £#%&! that means, bought the furniture off Cameron's mother-in-law. any other time you'd be outraged at this and be in no doubt at all that either he is complicit in fraud, or that his family are corrupt, or if he didn't know what was going on in his own £#%&!ing family then he can't be fit to run the opposition

and you're saying that the speaker isn't a scapegoat .... ycnmiu

1-1 (after i mis-quoted you last night

Throbs ffs man.......i missed out one of these , i would have thought a man of your intellect would have sussed that out

let me re-phrase it for you

(yes Throbs[SIZE="6"], tory as well as labour)

does it make more sense now ?

i said that i expected to see ALL politicians on BOTH sides of the house KITC if they had offended.....and what do you do....instantly go off on a blind rant how i never slate tories

how many times do i have to repeat myself that i think theyre all a bunch of @#%&!s.....i thought that was already well documented on here

Originally Posted by denis lawless

1-1 (after i mis-quoted you last night

Throbs ffs man.......i missed out one of these , i would have thought a man of your intellect would have sussed that out

let me re-phrase it for you



does it make more sense now ?

i said that i expected to see ALL politicians on BOTH sides of the house KITC if they had offended.....and what do you do....instantly go off on a blind rant how i never slate tories

how many times do i have to repeat myself that i think theyre all a bunch of @#%&!s.....i thought that was already well documented on here

Oh come on Denis, everyone knows how much you love the euro MPS

Originally Posted by Jizza Jazza

Oh come on Denis, everyone knows how much you love the euro MPS

the power of the comma should never be overlooked

I was merely setting you up DL - Brown says no-one found to have been guilty of abusing the expenses will be allowed to stand, meanwhile cameron's mother-in-law is flogghing furniture and being paid for it by the taxpayer. I thought it was funny tbh - will Cameron be allowed to stand?

now answer my point on that particular tory MP, Cameron himself, Cameron's mother-in-law and the furniture (without mentioning any other MPs) and I'll leave you alone

Originally Posted by Billy Baroo

can someone please explain why that MP that claimed all that for his mortgage isn't being done for fraud

i understand many of them have manipulated the system but that one stood up as straight out thievery and he should be prosecuted, no?

Something which I have been wondering myself.

You have to blame the system partly if it allows shit like having your moat fixed and the like. That is what is commonly known as 'chancing your arm'. Put an iffy expenses claim in and if it gets paid, well that is the fault of those allowing it and those who made the rule just as much as the person putting the claim in..

Claiming for a mortgage that no longer exists, that is theiving. That @#%&! needs to be in court grovelling and begging for all to see.

what gets me about these expenses is the way they think fixing the way they are claimed will solve everything

they need to change the way a 2nd home is registered completely, based on the size of house actually required to meet the purpose, namely how many bedrooms. the government has changed the rules on Housing Benefit so that even if you live in a 17 bedroomed mansion you still only get money for the maximum number of bedrooms you need. surely it should be a similar set-up with this 2nd home money spinner?

Originally Posted by Fat Al

Something which I have been wondering myself.

You have to blame the system partly if it allows shit like having your moat fixed and the like. That is what is commonly known as 'chancing your arm'. Put an iffy expenses claim in and if it gets paid, well that is the fault of those allowing it and those who made the rule just as much as the person putting the claim in..

Claiming for a mortgage that no longer exists, that is theiving. That @#%&! needs to be in court grovelling and begging for all to see.

My thoughts precisely.

On my next tax return I might try claiming for a non-existing office and then saying 'sorry'. I'm sure they'll let me off.

Originally Posted by Fat Al

Something which I have been wondering myself.

You have to blame the system partly if it allows shit like having your moat fixed and the like. That is what is commonly known as 'chancing your arm'. Put an iffy expenses claim in and if it gets paid, well that is the fault of those allowing it and those who made the rule just as much as the person putting the claim in..

Claiming for a mortgage that no longer exists, that is theiving. That @#%&! needs to be in court grovelling and begging for all to see.

well...to be honest im not familiar with the story, only heard you mention it....but here goes.

Cameron should be investigated and depending on the severity of the offence, dealt with accordingly

his mother-in-law should not be allowed to stand in the next general election

and the furniture should be put on ebay

Lawless for new Speaker

Originally Posted by red red robbo

Yeah, cause a state funded newspaper would have really chased this

Christ no. I'd regard being run by a trust as the ideal. That's one thing you can say for the BBC and the Guardian, you know there isn't a billionaire pulling the strings.

Originally Posted by denis lawless

well...to be honest im not familiar with the story, only heard you mention it....but here goes.

Cameron should be investigated and depending on the severity of the offence, dealt with accordingly

his mother-in-law should not be allowed to stand in the next general election

and the furniture should be put on ebay

Lawless for new Speaker

the severity of the offence is that whilst he's trotting out all his guff about leadership to a media baying for an election, in the background his own £#%&!ing family are defrauding the electorate.

How can the speaker (who should be sacked anyway for not being able to read something out coherently from a piece of paper) be a "scapegoat" when other people are going to be losing their jobs over this debacle?

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

How can the speaker (who should be sacked anyway for not being able to read something out coherently from a piece of paper) be a "scapegoat" when other people are going to be losing their jobs over this debacle?

maybe because the people who are motioning for his removal are not motioning for the removal of the others who should also be removed?

Originally Posted by Tumescent Throb

maybe because the people who are motioning for his removal are not motioning for the removal of the others who should also be removed?

No need to - they are going to be dealt with by their own party.

He's not a scapegoat - that would indicate that he's taking all the blame when a good number of MPs are going to be declared culpable and forced to stand down.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

How can the speaker (who should be sacked anyway for not being able to read something out coherently from a piece of paper) be a "scapegoat" when other people are going to be losing their jobs over this debacle?

Because the media coverage over the past few days has been about whether he'd get sacked, and MPs were saying to him directly in Parliament that he should go. But none of them stood up and called for other MPs to go despite their fraud.

What'll happen is something else will take over the main headlines, this will remain as a sub-story long enough for there to be a public enquiry, which will take ages and by the time it's finished, those worst implicated will have already stepped down as MPs. Investigations into those still standing won't go anywhere.

Oh, and there'll be token rule changes to crack down on abuse expenses, but the system will still be there for MPs to claim allowances on all their living expenses, despite them also having a wage.

A scapegoat is generally somebody who is innocent of the charges being levelled at him, instead taking the blame for those who are guilty. The speaker, however, is as culpable as the rest of those @#%&!s - so scapegoat he ain't.

Originally Posted by MrBishi

Because the media coverage over the past few days has been about whether he'd get sacked, and MPs were saying to him directly in Parliament that he should go. But none of them stood up and called for other MPs to go despite their fraud.

What'll happen is something else will take over the main headlines, this will remain as a sub-story long enough for there to be a public enquiry, which will take ages and by the time it's finished, those worst implicated will have already stepped down as MPs. Investigations into those still standing won't go anywhere.

Oh, and there'll be token rule changes to crack down on abuse expenses, but the system will still be there for MPs to claim allowances on all their living expenses, despite them also having a wage.

Nonsense.

Brown indicated that guilty MPs would not be selected for the next election before Martin resigned.

They've announced changes to MP's expenses tonight and the Kelly Committee will report back after the Summer.

Fact is the liberal use of the word "scapegoat" is the sort of simplifying and factually incorrect analysis of the situation, that a tabloid could have used it.