What is ransomware and how do I protect my PC from Petya?
if found guilty they should be sacked and prosecuted irrespective of party.
whats your view its abuse of their trusted position therefore in the public interest to prosecute.
if your claiming for family working for you when they are not and claims oustide the rules on second homes are what i am talking about.
There was a thread here some time ago that said MPs were `self employed` or considered as such. I am unaware of any self employed person other than MPs who get pensions paid, staff, accommodation food and the many other `perks`. In my experience anyone who is self employed provides these out of the charge agreed for the job. Perhaps the only extension of payment would be an unforeseen need which came out of the job.
Further, self employed people either quote for a job in a time frame or for a specific number of hours to be worked in a defined period - travel time does not count as working time. Given the short working day and long holidays our MPs have, perhaps a dose of being truly self employed would wake quite a few of them up to the real world. Additionally if a few of them were charged with some of the offences, it has been recognised they have committed, and jailed it would deter others from being `economical` with their legal and moral obligations.
Much has been said and written about the `monied` gentry who were MPs of old, but maybe, just maybe, because they had their own money they knew how to protect that belonging to the state. Certainly they appear no more lacking in moral values than the current crop.
In an earlier thread I suggested that MPs should be paid a set salary, by their own constituency. After this, no expenses could be claimed, except by submission of receipts to their local constituents.
The initial pay and expenses would then be accountable locally. Different constituencies could offer different amounts - possibly reflecting size, rural/urban etc.
At election time each costituency would advertise their rate of pay and anyone wanting to be the MP would know what they were going to get for the next 'session' - so no trouble about inflationary pay rises in between.
Tha 'salary' would, obviously have to be more than the present - but if no MPs wanted the money then the locals would have to consider if they wished to up it, or do without an MP.
Prospective candidates then know what they are being offered, and how they would be monitored, and could take the choice.
Take the expenses 'problems' (as that seems to be the problem) out of the Westminster hands and do it locally. Much better, and all governments tell us deciding things locally is better democracy, anyway.
It seems as though everyday, there is some report or another about politicians of all parties, breaking or bending the rules in their own favour. The thing that seems very evident, is that each party seems to condemn one another, instead of showing the public that they are going to prevent this behaviour in the future.
"Do what I say, but not what I do" comes to mind!. No wonder there are poor turn-outs at election times. Hold the faith apparently as nothing to do with it.
On the face of it this seems a good story for the Daily Mail but as far as I can see they are careful enough no to print a list of all the 100 MPs that they hint at breaking the law in some way.
Could this be because they know that if they print something that is latter proved to be libel they will be taken to court, or could it be that too many of the 100 MPs are members of the political party the the Daily Mail supports and we all know which political party that is.
The Mail or, indeed, any other newspaper would be very wary of publishing names until there is concrete evidence available.
My own view is that the number of MPs could more than likely be at least halved - the Americans manage quite comfortably, yet have a vastly larger population.
MPs are so valuable, in fact, that they are able to enjoy a three month break in the summer...:-)
The Mail is as hard on any Tory misbehaviour as it is on those from any other party.
Today's Mail (Page 10), for example, has these two stories.
So your somewhat misplaced comment about the Mail's allegiance was unnecessary.
Using the same logic I could nominate the Mirror, People etc as supporting a particular party, no matter how disastrous that party proves...:-)
"My own view is that the number of MPs could more than likely be at least halved"
but they still say that it is a shortage of time that does not allow them to get new legislation through parliament. So if we have less MPs would it not take even longer for them to get anything through parliament?
I think that most MPs are basically honest enough people or at least as honest as most people. If the rules allow us to get away with a bit of extra cash in our pay packets then I think it is very few of us who would not take advantage of such a rule.
There are many professions where you are allowed to claim expenses. I bet most of us would claim for every possible penny we could get out of the system. It is not the MPs who are to blame but the system under which they claim expenses.
Yes I know that the system needs to be changed but as it is the MPs themselves who would have to vote for such a change they are in no hurry to do so. Lets be honest would you vote for a system that would mean a cut in your wages?
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.