cht Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Don't know if this has already been posted, but Smith's husband is paid 40k a year out of expenses to be a 'researcher'. Whilst Smith's sister not only receives huge dollops of taxpayers cash in the form of rent, she also works for the BBC. So we are paying for the whole ******ing family. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Don't know if this has already been posted, but Smith's husband is paid 40k a year out of expenses to be a 'researcher'. Whilst Smith's sister not only receives huge dollops of taxpayers cash in the form of rent, she also works for the BBC. She's worth every f****g penny too, not a mention of this on the 10 o'clock news. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pezerinno Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Because I thought politicians were supposed to do what's best for US. I'm glad I soon won't be paying any tax. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
South Lorne Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Don't know if this has already been posted, but Smith's husband is paid 40k a year out of expenses to be a 'researcher'. Whilst Smith's sister not only receives huge dollops of taxpayers cash in the form of rent, she also works for the BBC.So we are paying for the whole ******ing family. ...easy decision...all unnecessary waste..!..get rid ..!..just saved tax payers small fortune...next lot please..!.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bootfair Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) old news but pertinent QUOTE: The husband of Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has been unmasked as the author of letters to a local newspaper defending the work of the Government....In the letters, Mr Timney fails to declare that he is married to Ms Smith or that he is paid £40,000 a year to act as her Parliamentary assistant. Ms Smith has kept her maiden name . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ve-letters.html Don't know if this has already been posted, but Smith's husband is paid 40k a year out of expenses to be a 'researcher'. Whilst Smith's sister not only receives huge dollops of taxpayers cash in the form of rent, she also works for the BBC.So we are paying for the whole ******ing family. Edited February 9, 2009 by bootfair Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bob Loblaw Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Don't worry, karma will sort it all out, NuLabour won't know what's hit them May next year, they've already been destroyed at the local level, whenever people are given the chance the message is clear. The point is that Cameron has been silent on the matter so far as they are all at it. A vote for the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats is to vote for more of the same. This is not a Labour issue, its an issue with politicians as a whole. We need an assurance from whichever candidate we vote for that they will be open and honest with their expenses claims. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
South Lorne Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 The point is that Cameron has been silent on the matter so far as they are all at it. A vote for the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats is to vote for more of the same. This is not a Labour issue, its an issue with politicians as a whole. We need an assurance from whichever candidate we vote for that they will be open and honest with their expenses claims. ....claims which breach the rules should be treated as fraud...immediate sacking ..it's our money...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bob Loblaw Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Interesting snippet on the Guardian Website - A source close to the home secretary said Smith paid market rates to stay at her sister's home and spent "the bulk of her time" in London. She also has claimed that its her main residence as she spends the majority of time there. The story on the BBC News Website says - Ms Smith stays at her sister's home when she is London - normally Monday to Thursday - the Mail on Sunday reports. If we take last year as an example MPs get 91 days holiday, or 18 working weeks off. They defend these long holidays as they are used for constituency work which would mean her returning to her 'second home' for these periods. MPs often respond to criticism of their lengthy spells away from Westminster by saying that they devote much of these periods to constituency work. So how many days would she have spend at her main home assuming she was there Monday to Thursday as claimed? Well Parliment last year sat for 7th January - 6th February = 19 Days (Mon to Thu) 19th February - 3rd April = 27 Days (Mon to Thu) 21st April - 22nd May = 20 Days (Mon to Thu) 2nd June - 22nd July = 30 Days (Mon to Thu) 6th October - 17th December = 43 Days (Mon to Thu) Days Parliament sat 2008 So by her own admission she spent just 139 days of the year, or 38% of her year, in her 'main' residence, with the rest of the time spend in her second home. What a corrupt, greedy, dishonest way to run the country. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkG Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 What a corrupt, greedy, dishonest way to run the country. While I doubt the Tories are much better, you can't elect a lefty and expect them not to be corrupt, greedy and dishonest; the left are thieves by the very nature of their philosophy... anyone who believes in stealing money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive is a thief at heart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oliver Sutton Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 While I doubt the Tories are much better, you can't elect a lefty and expect them not to be corrupt, greedy and dishonest; the left are thieves by the very nature of their philosophy... anyone who believes in stealing money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive is a thief at heart. The Tories wern't much better, you can't elect a righty and expect them not to be corrupt, greedy and dishonest; the right are thieves by the very nature of their philosophy... anyone who believes in stealing money from productive workers and giving it to the unproductive owners is a thief at heart. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Freeholder Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 While I doubt the Tories are much better, you can't elect a lefty and expect them not to be corrupt, greedy and dishonest; the left are thieves by the very nature of their philosophy... anyone who believes in stealing money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive is a thief at heart. Quite right. Non socialist politicians might be thieves, left wing politicians are always thieves. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Icantbelieveitsnotbutter Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Do you think her sister has declared the full market rent to the IR? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
interestrateripoff Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Do you think her sister has declared the full market rent to the IR? I hope the tax man investigates. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EndToBoomandBust Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 The point is that Cameron has been silent on the matter so far as they are all at it. A vote for the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats is to vote for more of the same. This is not a Labour issue, its an issue with politicians as a whole. We need an assurance from whichever candidate we vote for that they will be open and honest with their expenses claims. Well Labour apologist how do you explain this? http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7845210.stm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cht Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I hope the tax man investigates. I hope the taxman is as keen in checking her finances, as he is in checking mine. But I doubt it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I hope the taxman is as keen in checking her finances, as he is in checking mine. But I doubt it. Tut, tut, cht. Remember THEY are above reproach. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
guitarman001 Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) It's all disgusting - I'm giving a vot eof no confidence next time round, though I expect to see a rise in BNP & Green votes - anything except the main parties! Britain sucks - the people will never do ANYTHING about this sort of thing, unlike European counterparts. I can't wait to get away from this cesspit and the braindead idiots who live here. Edited February 9, 2009 by thomasross20 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tricksters Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I hope the tax man investigates. ============================================================================ You can hope all you like. Nothing will happen even if there is an investigation. That is why they can afford to be so smug and shameless. They know they are safe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tricksters Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 The point is that Cameron has been silent on the matter so far as they are all at it. A vote for the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats is to vote for more of the same. This is not a Labour issue, its an issue with politicians as a whole. We need an assurance from whichever candidate we vote for that they will be open and honest with their expenses claims. ============================================================================ So you still believe that voting for a candidate who gives you assurances will make it all better. Well they all give you assurances. All of them. Since I was a kid, I have thought that the concept of grown men and women voting for someone to be their "leader" is both comical and infantile. Many decades later, I become more and more convinced of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bob Loblaw Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Well Labour apologist how do you explain this?http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7845210.stm errm Sorry you are way off the mark with that! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ExecutiveSlaveBox Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 It's on their website at least:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7877422.stm Yep, nothing to do with her sister working for the BBC. Very quiet on all this indeed. Nothing like a bit of impartial broadcasting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SarahBell Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Email sky and the sun Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bagsos Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Throw her in the cells, but not before taking her DNA (no proof of conviction needed) and tazering the b1tch You think she is living? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ExecutiveSlaveBox Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Throw her in the cells, but not before taking her DNA (no proof of conviction needed) and tazering the b1tch Amen to that brother. Orwell was only out a few years and these f*ckers have used his written word as a how-to book on undermining democratic values. Pigs at the high table indeed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
interestrateripoff Posted February 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 You can hope all you like. Nothing will happen even if there is an investigation. That is why they can afford to be so smug and shameless. They know they are safe. I'm sure your right, it will probably all be an official secret meaning the taxman can't investigate. Can the taxman get around D notices? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.