Another side to scrounging.

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 1:54 PM   I have no need to fool anyone ;-).............your'e the one who judges everyone by the size of their wad or what school they went to...........................I just treat people in the same way they treat me :D

I judge people on how they live their lives and how they contribute to society, at any level.

And as for treating people equally that is the biggest joke that you've ever made. You constantly denigrate those in good jobs, simply because you are envious of their success.

I first came across you when you stated that the Caravan Club is run purely for the benefit of the directors. A more ludicrous statement has never been published on this forum.

You continued the thread by complaining about their fat salaries but, when you were finally nailed down, you had to admit that you had no idea what those salaries were!

Since then you have voiced similar sentiments at regular intervals and you seem obsessed with anyone who is a paid a decent salary and goes to work in a suit.

Despite your over-use of emoticons, despite the persona that you try to project of a laid back individual who just wants life to wash over him, you continually prove that you are in fact wracked with envy, and even hatred, of all those 'money muppets', who are better off than you.

You don't fool anyone I'm afraid.

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 2:18 PM

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 1:54 PM   I have no need to fool anyone ;-).............your'e the one who judges everyone by the size of their wad or what school they went to...........................I just treat people in the same way they treat me :D

I judge people on how they live their lives and how they contribute to society, at any level.

And as for treating people equally that is the biggest joke that you've ever made. You constantly denigrate those in good jobs, simply because you are envious of their success.

I first came across you when you stated that the Caravan Club is run purely for the benefit of the directors. A more ludicrous statement has never been published on this forum.

You continued the thread by complaining about their fat salaries but, when you were finally nailed down, you had to admit that you had no idea what those salaries were!

Since then you have voiced similar sentiments at regular intervals and you seem obsessed with anyone who is a paid a decent salary and goes to work in a suit.

Despite your over-use of emoticons, despite the persona that you try to project of a laid back individual who just wants life to wash over him, you continually prove that you are in fact wracked with envy, and even hatred, of all those the 'money muppets', who are better off than you.

You don't fool anyone I'm afraid.

As expected you've reverted to your usual default mode Francis......................so I think we will have to agree to disagree...................... :DI've got cook the dinner now..............slow roast shoulder of pork..........and my trade mark crackling..........As you say I don't have much to boast about, but my crackling is one of them :-D

[Robinhood]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 2:17 PM

 

I think your find the difference is the money I spent on the camera was never anywhere near the "pot".........much like the money I spend on fuel, tools, materials, this laptop etc etc............they are all legitimate expenses....................Where as I do not think the PM's wisteria was ;-)

 

 

.....now there's another example - the laptop.

 

Given the amount of time you spend posting on here (presumably from said laptop) it must be questionable whether that would also pass HMRC rules as a legitimate business expense.

 

.....but, with a bit of "bending of the rules" or being "economique avec la vérité", all is probably fine. :-S

 

....and, by the way, the PM has repaid his bit - over to you. ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Robinhood - 2012-02-19 2:29 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 2:17 PM

 

I think your find the difference is the money I spent on the camera was never anywhere near the "pot".........much like the money I spend on fuel, tools, materials, this laptop etc etc............they are all legitimate expenses....................Where as I do not think the PM's wisteria was ;-)

 

 

.....now there's another example - the laptop.

 

Given the amount of time you spend posting on here (presumably from said laptop) it must be questionable whether that would also pass HMRC rules as a legitimate business expense.

 

.....but, with a bit of "bending of the rules" or being "economique avec la vérité", all is probably fine. :-S

 

....and, by the way, the PM has repaid his bit - over to you. ;-)

 

Have you ever tried running a web business Robin without a Computer/laptop? :-S............perhaps I could drive down to our local library to check my emails *-)

 

Maybe I ought to buy two of everything one for business one for private..........not very ecologically sound is it? :D

[RogerC]

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 1:58 PM

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 1:45 PM  There is a huge difference between using money that I have earn't through my own labour in the private sector........and using money provided by the taxpayer to trim the Prime Ministers wisteria *-)

No there isn't, fiddling is fiddling, full stop.

Taxpayers pay tax in order to pay for public services. Do you object to paying the wages and expenses of police officers, fire fighters, servicemen and nurses for instance? Or is it just MPs that you have this silly obsession with?

Your determination to deliberately avoid paying tax puts you in the same camp as Philip Green and the other tax exiles and those who milk the benefits system for all it's worth.

 

Does that include the use of the following machinations/manipulations to allow MP's and their Lordships to do the following:

• Nominating second homes: The Green Book states that "the location of your main home will normally be a matter of fact". MPs and peers were able to ensure that their second home was the one which enabled them to claim more expenses. In at least one case  the nominated home was near neither constituency nor Westminster.
• Re-designating second homes: MPs were able repeatedly to switch the designation of their second home, enabling them to claim for purchasing, renovating and furnishing more than one property. This practice became widely-known as "flipping".
• Renting out homes: MPs were able to claim for their “second home” while they were, in fact, renting other homes out. In most cases the rented homes were ‘third’ properties, but in Elliott Morley’s case, a second home was rented to another MP who was claiming the rent on expenses.
• Over-claiming for council tax on second home: MPs were able to round up actual amounts due, claiming for 12 monthly instalments where only 10 were due or by claiming up to £250.00 per month with no receipt required until those rules were changed. Over 50 MPs were alleged to have over-claimed council tax.
• Subsidising property development: The Green Book rule that MPs could not claim for repairs "beyond making good dilapidations" was not enforced and consequently MPs were able to add significantly to the value of a property. By implication some “second homes” were effectively businesses (not homes) since they were renovated on expenses and then rapidly sold.
• Evading tax and inappropriate attempts at avoiding tax: MPs either evaded tax, or inappropriately deemed themselves not required to pay tax on reimbursements when it was likely tax was due. This covered two areas:
• Capital Gains tax: MPs were able to designate a property as their second home with the parliamentary fees office so as to claim the cost of renovating it on expenses, but a number of MPs had concurrently described a property as their second home to claim expenses, and to the UK tax authority HMRC as their primary residence in order to sell it without capital gains tax. Some also designated a property as a primary or secondary residence for tax or expenses benefits which was apparently little if at all used by them in that role.
• Income tax: A number of MPs were criticised for non-payment of income tax for benefits in kind or for reimbursed expenses considered under UK tax law to be of a personal nature. As of 31 May 2009, some 40 MPs had been identified as claiming for personal expenses such as preparation of their tax returns, despite UK tax law and ministerial guidance both of which had stated such expenses were not claimable for tax purposes; of those claiming, only a minority paid tax on the benefit in kind.
• Claiming expenses while living in grace and favour homes: Ministers with "grace and favour" homes in Westminster as well as their existing primary residence were able to claim for a further "second home" in addition.
• Renovating and furnishing properties when standing down: MPs were able to claim for renovations and furniture even when they had already announced their intention to resign from Parliament.
• Furnishing of other homes: MPs were able to claim for items of furniture that were actually delivered somewhere other than their second home.
• Exploiting the 'no receipt' rule: MPs submitted a large number of claims for just below £250, the ceiling under which they were not required to produce receipts, without being challenged as to their legitimacy.
• Over-claiming for food: Under a rule permitting up to £400 for food each month (without receipts), MPs were simply able to claim the whole £400 every month, even when Parliament was not sitting.
• Overspending at the end of the financial year: MPs were able to submit claims just before the end of the financial year, so as to use up allowances, without being challenged as to their legitimacy.

So yes the system was/is deeply flawed....yes there was corruption....yes there were cases of fraud. 

 

In essence if a member of the public had done half of the financial wheeling/dealing/sailing close to the edge that these money grabbers have done they would without doubt be having their 'collar felt' pretty damn fast.

 

I am an ex serviceman with 28 years service completed and I can tell you that if any member of HM Armed Forces had done anything close to that which was carried out by those disgraceful 'public servants' they would be facing a court martial, dismissal in disgrace from the service (never to serve again unlike some 'Honorable members') and possibly find themselves subject to civilian court proceedings.

 

Dress your arguments in whatever terms you like FG...the public view is that there is 'corruption and/or widespread misuse' of public funds by members of Parliament.  Whether that is blatant or as a result of a system not fit for purpose is neither here no there.  The end result is the same....an abuse of 'public funds'.

 

[Robinhood]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 2:35 PM

 

Have you ever tried running a web business Robin without a Computer/laptop? :-S............perhaps I could drive down to our local library to check my emails *-)

 

Maybe I ought to buy two of everything one for business one for private..........not very ecologically sound is it? :D

 

.....but you confuse the argument. ;-)

 

It is not about whether you can run your business without a laptop (or a digital camera for that matter), it is about what proportion of their cost, if any, you can rightly claim as a legitimate business expense.

 

(You are declaring an element of private use in your returns, aren't you? (lol) )

 

Of course, if you DID buy two of everything, then you would probably be in a position where you could practise their use in a way that it was quite legitimate to claim the full value of ONE of everything as a business expense.

 

....but, of course, then there'd be no private use subsidised by the taxpayer, which is rather where we came in isn't it? :-| (lol)

[Guest pelmetman]

Robinhood - 2012-02-19 3:12 PM

 

....but, of course, then there'd be no private use subsidised by the taxpayer, which is rather where we came in isn't it? :-| (lol)

 

To be subsidised means I have received monies from the the taxpayer to buy the camera.............well obviously I haven't been given any tax payer dosh to go and buy it so your argument is a non argument ;-)

 

BTW have you been peaking at my website Robin? :D..................What did you think?

 

Useful tool google analytics it even tells me what pages you looked at.........Beware big bruver is watching you Robin (lol) (lol)

[Guest pelmetman]

Robinhood - 2012-02-19 3:12 PM

 

 

It is not about whether you can run your business without a laptop (or a digital camera for that matter), it is about what proportion of their cost, if any, you can rightly claim as a legitimate business expense.

 

(You are declaring an element of private use in your returns, aren't you? (lol) )

 

 

How do I work out the cost of taking a photo for private use when compared to business use then Robin :-S

Its not like I have to buy film nowdays ;-)

 

Before you set the HMRC on me perhaps you can enlighten us to how Tony Blair who earn't 12 million last year only paid 300k tax 8-).................I know I ain't very smart but I'm sure that kinda turnover should put him in the 50% tax bracket.................but I expect he's got some very clever people to work out how much tax he has to pay on his camera (lol) (lol)

[francisgraham]

RogerC - 2012-02-19 2:37 PM  

So yes the system was/is deeply flawed....yes there was corruption....yes there were cases of fraud. 

 

In essence if a member of the public had done half of the financial wheeling/dealing/sailing close to the edge that these money grabbers have done they would without doubt be having their 'collar felt' pretty damn fast.

 

I am an ex serviceman with 28 years service completed and I can tell you that if any member of HM Armed Forces had done anything close to that which was carried out by those disgraceful 'public servants' they would be facing a court martial, dismissal in disgrace from the service (never to serve again unlike some 'Honorable members') and possibly find themselves subject to civilian court proceedings.

 

Dress your arguments in whatever terms you like FG...the public view is that there is 'corruption and/or widespread misuse' of public funds by members of Parliament.  Whether that is blatant or as a result of a system not fit for purpose is neither here no there.  The end result is the same....an abuse of 'public funds'.

Yes, I agree with much of what you say and there was an abuse of public funds and those who broke the law have been or will be punished. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone who did break the law has been treated any differently than an ordinary member of the public and we have seen members of bother houses imprisoned.

But you haven't grasped the nub of my argument, which is, that MPs are no more dishonest or corrupt than any other sections of society. They were introduced to a system of expenses that had existed for decades and told that it was the norm, apart from the blatantly dishonest of course.

If you think that the members of this forum for instance, or any other 'ordinary' British citizens would have behaved differently then I'm sorry, but you are sadly deluded! It is my opinion that, if we had put 1400 'ordinary' members of the public in the same position, the criminal convictions would be considerably higher than it has been, and the examples of milking the system for all it is worth would have been far greater.

And I speak as someone with a lot of experience of the morality and honesty of the great British public. So please, continue if you wish, to believe that MPs are somehow more prone to dishonesty and corruption than anyone else, but I can assure you, they are not!

And that is what sickens me. People who will milk their own particular system as much as they can but have been swept up in this lynch mob hysteria about MPs simply doing what they were told was acceptable. Except of course, as I have already said, those who were dishonest and they are a very small number and deserved everything they got.

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 3:39 PM

Robinhood - 2012-02-19 3:12 PMIt is not about whether you can run your business without a laptop (or a digital camera for that matter), it is about what proportion of their cost, if any, you can rightly claim as a legitimate business expense.(You are declaring an element of private use in your returns, aren't you? (lol) )

How do I work out the cost of taking a photo for private use when compared to business use then Robin :-SIts not like I have to buy film nowdays ;-)Before you set the HMRC on me perhaps you can enlighten us to how Tony Blair who earn't 12 million last year only paid 300k tax 8-).................I know I ain't very smart but I'm sure that kinda turnover should put him in the 50% tax bracket.................but I expect he's got some very clever people to work out how much tax he has to pay on his camera (lol) (lol)

Easy, you put a percentage of the cost of the camera and laptop onto your P11D as a benefit in kind. What you appear to be saying though is that it's acceptable to cheat as long as you don't cheat too much.

As for Tony Blair, he didn't earn £12 million. A company that he runs had a turnover of £12 million but its net profit was just over £1 million on which he paid the full rate of corporation tax.

Assuming that he has somehow, presumably legally, maximised the company's expenses, you must be aware that this can only be a temporary relief as that surplus is still on the firm's balance sheet and ultimately tax must be accounted for. Sorry to disillusion you.

Any salary that he draws from the company will be paid at whatever the rate of income tax is, no one who is domiciled in the U.K. can escape that.

But once again you prove my point about your obsession with anyone who earns a lot of money and is richer and more successful than you. Forget about the 'money muppets' as you call them and get on with running your own business and you may be much happier. I promise you, not having to worry if your motorhome suddenly suffers a massive engine failure means that you have a much more contented and peaceful life.

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 3:47 PM

 

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone who did break the law has been treated any differently than an ordinary member of the public and we have seen members of bother houses imprisoned.

 

The sentencing certainly seem'd very lenient........... when you compare an MP who stole 30 thousand and released after just serving a quarter of his 16 month sentence 8-)..................and a rioter who got 6 months for stealing a bottle of water *-)......................

 

MP's treated like any other person...............I dont think so Francis ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 3:55 PMAs for Tony Blair, he didn't earn £12 million. A company that he runs had a turnover of £12 million but its net profit was just over £1 million on which he paid the full rate of corporation tax.

Assuming that he has somehow, presumably legally, maximised the company's expenses, you must be aware that this can only be a temporary relief as that surplus is still on the firm's balance sheet and ultimately tax must be accounted for. Sorry to disillusion you.

Any salary that he draws from the company will be paid at whatever the rate of income tax is, no one who is domiciled in the U.K. can escape that.

But once again you prove my point about your obsession with anyone who earns a lot of money and is richer and more successful than you.>

No Francis my problem is with hypocrites.....................funny how old Teflon Tony's expense claims disappeared ;-).........................Oh I forgot they were shredded by accident (lol) (lol)

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 4:05 PM

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 3:47 PMHowever, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone who did break the law has been treated any differently than an ordinary member of the public and we have seen members of bother houses imprisoned.

The sentencing certainly seem'd very lenient........... when you compare an MP who stole 30 thousand and released after just serving a quarter of his 16 month sentence 8-)..................and a rioter who got 6 months for stealing a bottle of water *-)......................MP's treated like any other person...............I dont think so Francis ;-)

Oh God I give up, your arguments just get more and more stupid.

It's not a bottle of water that matters, it's the fact that he raided a shop and probably terrified people. And how much of his six-month sentence did the rioter serve? You conveniently forget to mention that!

And where is your evidence that MPs have been treated more leniently by the courts? I have seen examples of men and women who have embezzled more than this and been given suspended sentences. If anything, judges have come down as hard as possible on the MPs who were found guilty as they were responsible for a huge breach of trust.

These conspiracy theories of yours are very sad. Don't you have anything positive in your life? If you carry on like this you really will make yourself ill.

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 4:12 PM  No Francis my problem is with hypocrites.

Do you mean like people who have obsessions about MPs fiddling and themselves charge items for personal use to their company, so that they can claim back the VAT and offset the cost against profits?

Yes, I hate hypocrites as well!

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 4:27 PM

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 4:12 PM  No Francis my problem is with hypocrites.

Do you mean like people who have obsessions about MPs fiddling and themselves charge items for personal use to their company, so that they can claim back the VAT and offset the cost against profits?

Yes, I hate hypocrites as well!

The difference is I dont stand up in Parliament telling the rest of the country how to live there lives, whilst quietly helping myself out of the public purse *-)You Francis along with our MP's seem surprised that the voting public have such a dim view of them.........well there is none so blind as those that will not see ;-)I only follow the lead set by my betters....................where's my shredder..........Oh haven't got one.........Note to self order one from Viking..........PS dont forget its a business expense (lol) (lol)

[Robinhood]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 3:21 PM

 

 

To be subsidised means I have received monies from the the taxpayer to buy the camera.............well obviously I haven't been given any tax payer dosh to go and buy it so your argument is a non argument ;-)

 

BTW have you been peaking at my website Robin? :D..................What did you think?

 

 

Your idea of subsidy in the context of taxation seems somewhat different to the general view, for example:

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/tax-subsidy

 

Since you had mentioned it, I did look at your website - what did I think?

 

Hmmm, well.............. not many photographs! :-S

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 3:39 PM

 

How do I work out the cost of taking a photo for private use when compared to business use then Robin :-S

Its not like I have to buy film nowdays ;-)

 

 

...well Francis has given you an answer, which might be apposite if you were an employee accounting for BIK (i.e. the P11D).

 

In your case, however, it's always been my impression that the correct tax position simply depended on you only claiming a proportion of the expenditure (i.e. that proper to the business use) for relief.

 

Whilst that might be a difficult calculation for your accountant (or ultimately your Tax Inspector) to achieve without personal knowledge, frankly, the maths looks a simple matter for you to do.

 

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 4:46 PM

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 4:27 PM

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 4:12 PM  No Francis my problem is with hypocrites.

Do you mean like people who have obsessions about MPs fiddling and themselves charge items for personal use to their company, so that they can claim back the VAT and offset the cost against profits?

Yes, I hate hypocrites as well!

The difference is I dont stand up in Parliament telling the rest of the country how to live there lives, whilst quietly helping myself out of the public purse *-)You Francis along with our MP's seem surprised that the voting public have such a dim view of them.........well there is none so blind as those that will not see ;-)I only follow the lead set by my betters....................where's my shredder..........Oh haven't got one.........Note to self order one from Viking..........PS dont forget its a business expense (lol) (lol)

If I were you I'd stop digging. The MPs who were dishonest have or will be prosecuted, a tiny number, fewer than ten. The others were not dishonest but played the system and were encouraged to do so as that was the ethos at the time.

You, by your blatant dishonesty, in buying things for personal use, charging them to your business and reclaiming the VAT, simply prove that, if you'd been in Parliament, you would have been one of the few now in prison. What you are doing is not pushing the boundaries, it is dishonest and illegal. What else are you charging to your business that you are using personally I wonder?

This has been an interesting thread in the last few hours and has proved that, of any member of this forum, you have the least moral grounds for criticising anyone who milks the system!

Shame on you you total hypocrite. Not that you are capable of shame I suspect. However, what I have learned about you is that whatever you do you will convince yourself that it is justified because you've had such a raw deal in life. I mean, the Inland Revenue had the temerity to examine you! How dare they?

Mind you, there's no smoke without fire and your comments in the last few posts about your blurring of company and personal expenditure lead me to believe that they may well have had a case.

If I were you I'd start adding a few things to your P11D, you never know who may have a quiet word with the local HMRC office!

[Guest pelmetman]

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 5:15 PMThe others were not dishonest but played the system and were encouraged to do so as that was the ethos at the time.

You, by your blatant dishonesty, in buying things for personal use, charging them to your business and reclaiming the VAT,

Eh?...................well thanks for the excuse Francis...............But I woz "encouraged by my lords and masters at the time" Mr Taxman sir (lol) (lol) (lol)BTW I'm no longer VAT registered.......................I dont turnover enough ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Robinhood - 2012-02-19 5:14 PM

 

Since you had mentioned it, I did look at your website - what did I think?

 

Hmmm, well.............. not many photographs! :-S

 

.

 

Well you did only look at 7 pages ;-)

[Lord Braykewynde]

What a miserable day. In fact I'm even in a worse mood now >:-(

I've spent a cold day on the river bank fishing and have caught sweet fanny adams and what do I find on here?

Dave has caught two .. arghhhhhhh >:-)

OK Dave, reel the buggers in slowly and I'll gaff 'em. I need the practice :D

[francisgraham]

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-19 6:00 PMWhat a miserable day. In fact I'm even in a worse mood now >:-( I've spent a cold day on the river bank fishing and have caught sweet fanny adams and what do I find on here? Dave has caught two .. arghhhhhhh >:-) OK Dave, reel the buggers in slowly and I'll gaff 'em. I need the practice :D

Oh God, the fat one from Dumb and Dumber's arrived. Time I was off! Goodbye for a while.

Ps Why am I not surprised that you're the type of idiot who sits by a river all day waiting for something to nibble his maggot?

[Guest pelmetman]

pelmetman - 2012-02-19 5:34 PM

 

Robinhood - 2012-02-19 5:14 PM

 

Since you had mentioned it, I did look at your website - what did I think?

 

Hmmm, well.............. not many photographs! :-S

 

.

 

Well you did only look at 7 pages ;-)

 

Correction you only looked at 4 pages but 3 of them twice ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-19 6:00 PM

 

What a miserable day. In fact I'm even in a worse mood now >:-(

I've spent a cold day on the river bank fishing and have caught sweet fanny adams and what do I find on here?

Dave has caught two .. arghhhhhhh >:-)

OK Dave, reel the buggers in slowly and I'll gaff 'em. I need the practice :D

 

Thanks your Lordship but it was only Francis again *-)..............although I did flush out the hooded one :D

[Lord Braykewynde]

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 6:12 PM

 

Why am I not surprised that you're the type of idiot who sits by a river all day waiting for something to nibble his maggot

 

Maggot? I must have taken my maggot out of my fly :-)

 

Salmon old bean. Salmon ;-)

 

Only peasants of the lower order like yourself go for tiddlers (lol)

 

There is a vacancy on the beat for a gillie but somehow I don't think you're the type to have ever had dirt under your finger nails :-)

[RogerC]

francisgraham - 2012-02-19 3:47 PM

RogerC - 2012-02-19 2:37 PM  

So yes the system was/is deeply flawed....yes there was corruption....yes there were cases of fraud. 

 

In essence if a member of the public had done half of the financial wheeling/dealing/sailing close to the edge that these money grabbers have done they would without doubt be having their 'collar felt' pretty damn fast.

 

I am an ex serviceman with 28 years service completed and I can tell you that if any member of HM Armed Forces had done anything close to that which was carried out by those disgraceful 'public servants' they would be facing a court martial, dismissal in disgrace from the service (never to serve again unlike some 'Honorable members') and possibly find themselves subject to civilian court proceedings.

 

Dress your arguments in whatever terms you like FG...the public view is that there is 'corruption and/or widespread misuse' of public funds by members of Parliament.  Whether that is blatant or as a result of a system not fit for purpose is neither here no there.  The end result is the same....an abuse of 'public funds'.

Yes, I agree with much of what you say and there was an abuse of public funds and those who broke the law have been or will be punished. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone who did break the law has been treated any differently than an ordinary member of the public and we have seen members of bother houses imprisoned.

But you haven't grasped the nub of my argument, which is, that MPs are no more dishonest or corrupt than any other sections of society. They were introduced to a system of expenses that had existed for decades and told that it was the norm, apart from the blatantly dishonest of course.

If you think that the members of this forum for instance, or any other 'ordinary' British citizens would have behaved differently then I'm sorry, but you are sadly deluded! It is my opinion that, if we had put 1400 'ordinary' members of the public in the same position, the criminal convictions would be considerably higher than it has been, and the examples of milking the system for all it is worth would have been far greater.

And I speak as someone with a lot of experience of the morality and honesty of the great British public. So please, continue if you wish, to believe that MPs are somehow more prone to dishonesty and corruption than anyone else, but I can assure you, they are not!

And that is what sickens me. People who will milk their own particular system as much as they can but have been swept up in this lynch mob hysteria about MPs simply doing what they were told was acceptable. Except of course, as I have already said, those who were dishonest and they are a very small number and deserved everything they got.

 

The nub of my argument (and possibly that of the 'thinking' public) is based on old fashioned values........

 

In positions of what is now called 'power' (it used to be 'in office' which should be a more accurate reflection of their lofty positions) it is, or should be incumbent upon those 'Honorable members' to have better judgement and be seen to exercise the same in the face of opportunities which will undoubtedly come their way in the course of their duties.

 

In simple terms:

 

As was part and parcel of holding a senior rank in HM Forces you are expected to 'set an example'.  If you fail in that endeavour there are repercusions.  If you fail in that endeavor whilst pursuing 'dubious' personal financial gain' the punishment should be, and is severe.  Bringing the Service into disrepute is a very serious matter and is dealt with suitably harshly.

 

Positions of greatness (which is what those occupying seats in Parliament should appreciate they occupy)bear great responsibility.  That responsibility is to be seen to be 'above reproach' which is what those with their grasping attitudes seem to have forgotten.

 

Those that have abused the system in whatever shape or form for personal financial gain have brought the 'House' into severe disrepute and should IMO should never again be permitted to sit in there or 'the other place'.