Best phone camera 2017
Jacqui Smith As we all know made a false claim & all that she gained as punishment was a slap on the wrist & to pay back £400, she wrongly designating her main home from 2004 to 2009 & Smith claimed £22,110 from the second home allowance in 2006-07, £22,948 in 2007-08 and £19,182 in 2008-09 =£116.000 over six years! (click here )
A pensioner that we all may of seen on the tv who is belived to be making a similar false claim for Motability allowance has been forced to pay back "ALL" of the £3000 he claimed for.? click here
Is this me or is this not acceptable.? Why is a pensioner that has hardly any financies been forced to pay back his wrongly claimed money Whereas JS gets away with it.?
You are slightly wrong. She is not required to pay any money back in relation to her second home because she was told it was OK by the Commons authorities in 2007.
She had already paid £400 in relation to other expenses including her husbands porn. The Commissioner found she should actually have only paid £185.20.
In every respect I agree with you that she should have been made to pay the full £65,000 back as she was not entitled to it.
What is a bit annoying about all this, is she was deemed not to have made any money out of swapping main house with second house etc. etc., if thats the case, one might ask the simple question, "then why did she do it"?
Because Ministers and MPs still haven't cottoned on to the level of public anger over the matter of their expenses claims.
They believe, rightly or wrongly, that they were entitled or encouraged to make certain types of claims and that they were OK if approved.
I think you'll find that Motobility is a registered charity.
As such they are required by law to attempt to recover any monies due to them, otherwise they may lose charitable status.
No such restrictions or sanctions apply to politicians.
Motability is a charity, set up by the Government in 1977.
It is, in fact, the largest car fleet purchaser in the UK and works in conjunction with the motor industry to supply the disabled with suitable transport.
So the Home Secretary of the UK cannot decide which is her main home and when trying to claim that she spent more time in London than Redditch, she forgot that Plod keep records and hers seem to be strangely different to theirs..to her financial advantage. As she is custodian of our security this really does not fill me with confidence especially as she trousered £116k when it is abundantly clear that she was being more than economical with the truth....... I do hope that her advisor's are a lot cleverer than her as she appears to be dizzy.
I find it unbelievable that some deluded people in this country actually tried to back her and still do and I'm sure that the cry of 'you only know a small part - she has better advisor's than you' will be screeched but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is an excellent chance that it is a duck especially when I can smell the bull excrement.
by appearing as a break dancer on Britain's got talent while at the same time he was claiming disability allowance for a 'bad leg', in addition to Motability allowance.
Motability has no choice about reclaiming the money, for the reason given by morddwyd. Motability is a charity, but the cars are provided by Motability Operations, which is a not-for-profit company owned by the five clearing banks - Barclays, HBOS, Lloyds TSB, HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Motability Operations is controlled by Motability, but it doesn't just handle cars for the Motability scheme. The company sells many thousands of second-hand cars a year, and buys six out of every hundred new cars sold in Britain - it's a very big business.
The Home Secretary, at best made a huuuuuge error and at worst lied about her time spent in her sister's flat in London, so that she could (coincidentally of course) extract the maximum amount of expenses (quelle surprise). Simple fact. I am slightly concerned that the bint in charge of UK security cannot get simple things correct.
Tom Sutcliffe might be one of those few people in this country trying to defend a bunch of MPs whose snouts were firmly in the trough, who blocked, en masse, independent assessment (until recently and even that is debatable) and actually broke the rules in the green book that stated 'for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence'. Moat revitalisation, wisteria cleaning, spending £20k on your boyfriend's house and duck houses do not fall under this quite clear ruling. If MPs cannot interpret that I do suspect that a late night motion, placed before them, would be a cerebral struggle of enormous proportions.
Tom Sutcliffe et al, can always blame the public 'for lack of knowledge in these matters' but the public's trust in this bunch is rightfully waning. Like the huge mistakes made by our ever so 'clever' banking system, this must be panicking the old guard in Suburbia, knowing that after our banks (in spite of their sagacious advisors) and the leaders of UK PLC are losing the respect and trust of the public which in turn quivers their ordered world - bit of a double whammy especially as Brown is flogging off the family plastic now.
A public court can sometimes get the ruling/judgement spot on when certain people try to wriggle massively. Thomas Legg let this lot off lightly for the beanfeast known as expenses. I still fail to understand why gardeners are considered as expenses when most of us do the weeding ourselves and why food is an expense - I thought it was a necessity. There is a long way to go yet to bring MPs onto a fairer level with their paymasters. Tom Sutcliffe and his acolytes deserve all they get, personally I demand something much better and fairer from people that I vote and pay for...others may want to accept much less.
ps...click here a better article than Tom 'I want a lordship at least' Sutcliffe's attack article, covertly stating that the public are ill-informed and are unable to make up their own minds.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.