Wednesday, Feb 11, 2009
A perk of the job
MailOnline: Fury over 'stitch-up' as Jacqui Smith escapes sleaze investigation into £116,000 second home claim
"Jacqui Smith will not be investigated for claiming £116,000 of taxpayer-funded Commons expenses for her family home.
Parliamentary sleaze watchdog John Lyon said there was 'not sufficient evidence for an inquiry' while the Home Secretary broke her silence to say she had 'played by the rules.'
But critics claimed taxpayers had been 'stitched up' by the decision.
They pointed out that lax regulations meant she could exploit a loophole worth £24,000 a year in order to subsidise the West Midlands home she shares with her husband and two children."
Isn't she the lucky one!
Posted by plato @ 07:32 PM (766 views) Add Comment
19 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. shining wit said...
They just don't know when they are doing wrong anymore !
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt?
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in
2. flintster1994 said...
Ironically, pigs are exceptionally intelligent, clean and are considerate with regards to where they excrete!
3. shining wit said...
They do like rolling in poo though, flintster.....and don't realise that everyone thinks they stink of ***t !
4. crashpad4me said...
Nice one, Witty. I think your photo would make a good dart board cover. And is it my imagination, or are NuLabour turning into Tories?
5. shining wit said...
crashpad4me.
They turned into tories about 1992 when that f-ing tosser Bliar won the leadership and decided that he wouldn't tell anyone that he had joined hideous widdecombe and become a catholic priestess.
Make a dartboard of the picture, but I bet even the darts won't want to actually touch Piggy Wiggy Smith and will either fly of to the left (!) at the very last moment or fall out of this thick skinned excuse for a Home Secretary. Home 'secretary' my botty, she's not qualified to be a home help.
6. drewster said...
Sorry but it all seems above-board to me. Like most MPs, she has two homes - one in London and one in her constituency. She is entitled to claim expenses for one of those homes. What's the big deal?
7. James3 said...
No Drewster - she owns one home. The other one is her sister's. She doesn't need any money for it.
It's stealing from us - the taxpayers.
8. Wiltshire said...
Drewster, have you read the article? Basically she is claiming a single room in her sisters house is her 'main residence' thus she has received over 100k in expenses for her 'second' home which is where her family is based in the Midlands. So, any expenses she has claimed for the mortgage, new kitchens, televisions, bills etc etc bleedy etc have been picked up under the 'second' home rule, whereas infact most reasonable people would consider her sisters spare room as her 'second' home which would presumably incur far less per year in terms of expenses.
,
9. wiltshire said...
Drewster, have you read the article? Basically she is claiming a single room in her sisters house is her 'main residence' thus she has received over 100k in expenses for her 'second' home which is where her family is based in the Midlands. So, any expenses she has claimed for the mortgage, new kitchens, televisions, bills etc etc bleedy etc have been picked up under the 'second' home rule, whereas infact most reasonable people would consider her sisters spare room as her 'second' home which would presumably incur far less per year in terms of expenses.
,
10. shipbuilder said...
Someone on here, I think, had a good suggestion. Buy a block of flats near parliament, they get one each and can walk to work - problem solved and millions saved each year. No wonder politicians have nothing but contempt for us when we let them away with so much.
11. the haunted said...
It may not be illegal but it is not in the spirit of the law iether, and this woman is our Home Secretary. How very re-assuring. I am giving some serious thought to forming a new political party aimed at those decent people left in this country who wish to see common sense and the betterment of society. It's about time we stood up and said "NO, we are not going to take this any more!"
12. wiltshire said...
Shipbuilder, the thing about a block of flats is that one terrorist attack could wipe out half of our MPs. Apparently some consider this a drawback?! Joking aside I think a block would be a problem but why not just have a number of properties which MPs use as necessary. At the moment they get their mortgage paid whilst they are an MP and can sell and bank any equity the property has gained (because properties used to increase in value, in the 'good old days') which they must just see as ANOTHER perk of the job. If the country owned their London residences we could save a fortune on MPs expenses.
Agree with you Haunted. If there aren't some fundamental changes to politics, banking and society in this country in the next couple of years then we're doomed. If people do not recognise that the 'system' doesn't work then we will ALL be walked all over by the 'establishment' and they will laugh in our faces for us being spineless fools. I BET you there are some serious messages going round the corridors of power right now because they must KNOW they're sitting on a powder keg that is getting more unstable with every passing day.
13. james stephenson said...
I'm not a misogynist, but I detest every Labour Babe. They are all useless.
Some of them are beyond contempt.
Yvette Cooper disgusts me every time I see her - she is a weak, insipid and dishonest character who would not last 5 minutes in the business world. She can't do a proper job so has to be a politician where she can get away with being completely useless as long as she follows the party line.
I am a pacifist and would never hit a woman, but for some reason I would happily beat the sh*t out of her and that dick of a husband with his dozy retard hairstyle.
14. str 2007 said...
shipbuilder
I think it was me who suggested their should be MP's flats/residence owned by the tax payer, someone else may of aswell (so I don't get accused of pinching ideas).
the haunted
Any jobs going for me in your new party ?
james stephenson
I also get very frustrated with (I don't know why females particulary) that spout party lines with their hearing system turned off and no possible way of processing outside information to reach a logical conclusion of their own.
I think there is a plathora of them working in local councils aswell.
15. drewster said...
Wiltshire,
Ok sorry that makes sense, now I see the problem. It's within the letter of the law but not the spirit.
Re the block of flats idea, security can't be the main concern. After all the houses of parliament themselves are a potential terrorist target, yet they are fairly secure.
I object to the block of flats plan because it would make MPs even more detached from voters, living in a Baghdad-style Green Zone. That would be bad for democracy.
16. str 2007 said...
drewster
To be honest I doubt they really 'mix' with their neighbours anyway, afterall we're paying for them to be in London to work aren't we.
I understand your point.
I think from my point of view, the fact they get very generous expenses and then cash in on the capital gain isn't IMO right. It's one or the other I think.
Over the long term I sense it would be better for UK PLC to own the property be it purpose built or not.
17. inbreda said...
10. wiltshire said...
Shipbuilder, the thing about a block of flats is that one terrorist attack could wipe out half of our MPs.
I agree - we should start building that block of flats asap.
It's not really an argument wiltshire, as a bomb under the houses of parliament would do the same. Think back to the brighton bombing. It aint that difficult to get them all in the same place. The reason a bombing rarely happens is because usually the terrorists ARE the MPs - think of the terror they have caused to the population of Iraq and afghanistan, and think of the suffering they have done little to stop, like zimbabwe or Israel and palestine. In all honesty, I think we could probably hang the majority of bankers and politicians and the country wouldn't disintegrate, and it would be a stark lesson for the next bunch of narcissists that come along.
18. lierbag said...
Has anyone noticed how, whenever the elite have been exposed blatantly abusing their privileges to rip off society (Jacqui Smith here being the immediate case in point - the 'cash for laws' Labour Lords being another recent example) strings of tv ads suddenly start appearing, urging us to rat on (invariably depicted as sink-estate dwelling) benefits fraudsters? 'Shifting the focus of attention' and 'divide and rule' are the immediate phrases springing to mind.
19. Browneconomy said...
OK, so shes got away with it
Has her sister paid income tax on the 'rent' - rent-a-room tax allowance is 4250 pa exerything else is taxable.
Would the Home Secretary be allowed to rent a room from a convicted tax evader?