MP's expenses

  carver 23:13 30 Mar 2009

Just seen BBC Newsnight and if you want to you can buy the list of MP's expenses before they are published or amended, cost upwards of £300.000.00.

It seams that MP's can ask for them back and shall we say, look over them again, in case they made a mistake.

But some one has the full list and is prepared to sell to the highest bidder.

  Spark6 23:36 30 Mar 2009

My wife, having watched newsnight, has just told me the same story which I found doubtful to say the least. Your post appears to confirm she was correct.

The current state of parliamentary affairs should make us all less dubious of what our, so say leaders and representatives, are able to get up to in our name.

Personally, I do not pretend to know where we are supposed to go from here, maybe Guy Fawkes was right after all! I shall retire to my bed feeling annoyed and dispirited again. Good night.

  Stuartli 00:40 31 Mar 2009

I would respectfully suggest that you mean MPs' expenses...:-)

Unless, of course, you are merely referring to a current Minister in the spotlight.

By the way, I have absolutely no quibble whatsoever with what people do or watch in their private life (it's nobody's business but their own), but I do object in the strongest possible terms to being expected, as a taxpayer, to foot the bill...:-(

  carver 07:07 31 Mar 2009

What are you talking about, this is the news item I posted click here

Or here click here

And see how much your MP claimed click here
That article is interesting when you compare office running costs with the amount spent on stationery.

And may I respectfully suggest that you read a post before trying to be clever and poor scorn on it.

  newman35 07:39 31 Mar 2009

I took Stuartli's primary comment to concern positional matters in your usage of the dreaded apostrophe in your title.

As it stands your title means the 'expenses of only one MP', whereas he presumes you mean, as the article says, more than one MP - and hence MPs' would have been correct grammatically.
The wee smiley after it said he was intending no scorn!

  ened 07:52 31 Mar 2009

If carver intended the apostrophe to be there then perhaps he should have used the word Minister.

We are told this Country is facing a grave threat from terrorists, there is no doubt we are in the middle of a recession which could already be a depression.

If a person is in charge of our security and then a facet of their personal life becomes a bigger story than her message then she should resign.

Of course all this is detracting from the evidence of our illustrious premier's disastrous handling of the economy. So it suits him to keep her there in the same way that he was mithering about the rules of succession!

  newman35 07:59 31 Mar 2009

"If carver intended the apostrophe to be there then perhaps he should have used the word Minister."

Same rule applies - Ministers' if he means more than one, Minister's if he meant just one.

In this case the article refers to a lot of MPs, which one can take to probably mean more than one Minister, as well?

  brindly 08:22 31 Mar 2009

I thought we were discussing MPs expenses not someone's grammar, what a pedantic lot you are. It doesn't seem to matter what they claim for when compared to anyone else they are getting special treatment and there is no excuse for this greed.

  newman35 08:29 31 Mar 2009

If 'someone' is demanding £300k for this list, then there must be other greedy people at Westminster besides MPs.

As laurie53 says, elsewhere, if we could all claim the expenses, wouldn't we??
They have had opportunity, that's the only difference between them and the rest of us.

  newman35 08:32 31 Mar 2009

You forgot the apostrophe after MPs - tut, tut..! (;-))

  carver 08:35 31 Mar 2009

It's very funny that for some people you have to be grammatically correct, other wise they try to correct you at every opportunity.

Personally I couldn't give a #### if you find my grammar incorrect, all I know is that a majority of MP's would not like this list to be published before they have had a chance to amend certain things.

Other wise you will have 2 lists, one showing every thing they wanted to claim for and one showing what they think is acceptable to the public.

Unless you believe it's acceptable to fiddle your expenses.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

Is this the future of VR and AR?

Best iPad buying guide 2017

Comment regarder le Bureau des Légendes en ligne ?