So the EU Commission fights tooth and nail for three years not to reveal its expenses

[Burney]

and, when it finally releases a tiny part of them for just a couple of months, it turns out they have been absolutely tearing the arse out of it. Who'd have guessed, eh? :hehe:

Needless to say, they don't want to reveal any more because of the 'unnecessary administrative burden' telling people how their taxes are being spent would cause. :clap:

Písstakers.

[Peter]

and, when it finally releases a tiny part of them for just a couple of months, it turns out they have been absolutely tearing the arse out of it. Who'd have guessed, eh? :hehe:

Needless to say, they don't want to reveal any more because of the 'unnecessary administrative burden' telling people how their taxes are being spent would cause. :clap:

Písstakers.

Typical isn’t it. Bloody snouts in the trough.

Thank god we are out of it. You would never get this sort of thing at Westminster……:)

[Burney]

Typical isn’t it. Bloody snouts in the trough.

Thank god we are out of it. You would never get this sort of thing at Westminster……:)

Well there are some differences, of course. a/ the figures for our MPs were tiny in comparison b/ they were forced into the open relatively easily c/ some MPs were actually prosecuted as a result and d/ the taxpayer actually had redress against the worst MPs in the form of being able to vote them out if they so chose.

[Ash]

Well there are some differences, of course. a/ the figures for our MPs were tiny in comparison

I was hoping to post the picture of Neil Hamilton holding up a biscuit, but couldn't find it.

I miss supermac. :-(

[Peter]

Well there are some differences, of course. a/ the figures for our MPs were tiny in comparison b/ they were forced into the open relatively easily c/ some MPs were actually prosecuted as a result and d/ the taxpayer actually had redress against the worst MPs in the form of being able to vote them out if they so chose.

Different in a number of other ways as well, namely a) It had been going on for decades and was openly unaddressed b) it wasn’t fiddling but blatantly flouting agreed rules c) pretty much everyone was doing it, despite what the revelations may have said and d) despite court cases, elections and various other measures of accountability it is STILL going on and will continue to do so.

Trust me, you do not even know the half of it. Of course, for your average backbench MP it is pretty much essential. The salary is seen as your basic wage and the expenses your ‘on target earnings’. They don’t get paid a hefty wage, they are forced to maintain two homes, they struggle to access many common financial products because by definition they don’t have a guaranteed long term salary and, as they do so little work, they have a lot of free time with a lot of people offering them money. There is need and temptation.

Still….. fraud is fraud.

[Burney]

Different in a number of other ways as well, namely a) It had been going on for decades and was openly unaddressed b) it wasn’t fiddling but blatantly flouting agreed rules c) pretty much everyone was doing it, despite what the revelations may have said and d) despite court cases, elections and various other measures of accountability it is STILL going on and will continue to do so.

Trust me, you do not even know the half of it. Of course, for your average backbench MP it is pretty much essential. The salary is seen as your basic wage and the expenses your ‘on target earnings’. They don’t get paid a hefty wage, they are forced to maintain two homes, they struggle to access many common financial products because by definition they don’t have a guaranteed long term salary and, as they do so little work, they have a lot of free time with a lot of people offering them money. There is need and temptation.

Still….. fraud is fraud.

Oh, I feel that our legislators are grossly, grossly underpaid and the expenses thing is a tacit acknowledgment of such. However, you can't have the büggers thinking they're immune from scrutiny and that's what the 'scandal' was really about - reminding them who they work for.
I don't think anyone was really outraged by most of it. I think it was more about the fun of watching MPs squirm as they tried to explain why they'd watched a dirty movie than it was about genuine outrage.

[World's End Stella]

and, when it finally releases a tiny part of them for just a couple of months, it turns out they have been absolutely tearing the arse out of it. Who'd have guessed, eh? :hehe:

Needless to say, they don't want to reveal any more because of the 'unnecessary administrative burden' telling people how their taxes are being spent would cause. :clap:

Písstakers.

Meh and twas ever thus.

Small price to pay for having access to the common market imo. So forming all those countries into an economic union will require some bureaucracy and some of those bureaucrats will take the piss on expenses.

Who'd a thought that, eh? :rolleyes:

[Burney]

Meh and twas ever thus.

Small price to pay for having access to the common market imo. So forming all those countries into an economic union will require some bureaucracy and some of those bureaucrats will take the piss on expenses.

Who'd a thought that, eh? :rolleyes:

:hehe: We've established that you have no meaningful principles and that anything's a small price to pay for access to the common market as far as you're concerned, WES. That's fine, but it does rather disqualify you from meaningful contributions on the subjects of probity, ethics and democratic accountability.

[Peter]

Oh, I feel that our legislators are grossly, grossly underpaid and the expenses thing is a tacit acknowledgment of such. However, you can't have the büggers thinking they're immune from scrutiny and that's what the 'scandal' was really about - reminding them who they work for.
I don't think anyone was really outraged by most of it. I think it was more about the fun of watching MPs squirm as they tried to explain why they'd watched a dirty movie than it was about genuine outrage.

Yes, the genuine outrage (mostly from the left) would come from really finding out how these guys make money and what they do with it. Its nothing to do with expenses but would give you a good indication of who they actually ‘work for’ and who they really represent.

Still, that is democracy, innit. An oil company is just as entitled to be represented in parliament as you or me- even more entitled given how much they pay for it :)

[Peter]

:hehe: We've established that you have no meaningful principles and that anything's a small price to pay for access to the common market as far as you're concerned, WES. That's fine, but it does rather disqualify you from meaningful contributions on the subjects of probity, ethics and democratic accountability.

Dennis Skinner never fiddled a penny in expenses.

Earnest **** :mad:

[Luis Anaconda]

:hehe: We've established that you have no meaningful principles and that anything's a small price to pay for access to the common market as far as you're concerned, WES. That's fine, but it does rather disqualify you from meaningful contributions on the subjects of probity, ethics and democratic accountability.

We've established you are a Conservative so you certainly shouldn't comment on the first too

[Ash]

Dennis Skinner never fiddled a penny in expenses.

Earnest **** :mad:

Jezza also, IIRC.

[Peter]

Jezza also, IIRC.

Its just making everyone else look bad. ****ers.

[Burney]

We've established you are a Conservative so you certainly shouldn't comment on the first too

Sorry? What evidence do you have as to my probity? Are you libelling me, la? :-(

[World's End Stella]

:hehe: We've established that you have no meaningful principles and that anything's a small price to pay for access to the common market as far as you're concerned, WES. That's fine, but it does rather disqualify you from meaningful contributions on the subjects of probity, ethics and democratic accountability.

Oh yes, I'm a very practical man, Burney. It's amazing how few moral, ethical or philosophical issues there are when people are gainfully employed and financially secure.

BTW, are you now a fan of democracy? I could have sworn it wasn't that long ago (pretty much every day, actually) that you were proposing that certain people not be allowed to vote. Common people and students, as two examples.

[Peter]

Oh yes, I'm a very practical man, Burney. It's amazing how few moral, ethical or philosophical issues there are when people are gainfully employed and financially secure.

BTW, are you now a fan of democracy? I could have sworn it wasn't that long ago (pretty much every day, actually) that you were proposing that certain people not be allowed to vote. Common people and students, as two examples.

Yes, but then common people starting agreeing with him.

[Luis Anaconda]

Sorry? What evidence do you have as to my probity? Are you libelling me, la? :-(
Only in jest, b (digs out media law notes from JTC days, just to be sure)

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

Is there a point to this post?