Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

'lodger' Deal Earns Jacqui Smith £100,000 As She Claims Sister's House Is Main Home

Recommended Posts

I'm insufferably reasonable and am teased for it by friends.

I can see the good in almost anyone, and am passionately pro-reason, peace and love.

But I think you are just the most dreadful pr*ck

Oh dont be like that to our Pat, he is a well constructed caricature, I find him highly amusing and the forum would be a bit too serious for my liking without him :lol:

Oh and lest we forget the utter corruption at the heart of the current government...bump! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh dont be like that to our Pat, he is a well constructed caricature, I find him highly amusing and the forum would be a bit too serious for my liking without him :lol:

Oh and lest we forget the utter corruption at the heart of the current government...bump! :rolleyes:

I suppose you're right


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that the Citizen Smith that's still Home Secretary and will stay there despite the joint efforts of Tory Central Office and the Daily Fascist? (What great friends you lot keep! :lol: )

I've told you before I will be voting LDs at the next GE and which MP first got the public aware of the brazen theft of taxpayers money by parliament? Norman Baker of the Liberal Democrats. So go ****** yourself pat and your silly little world where labour equals plusgood and tory equals doubleplus bad. Smith is a thief and a vastly overpromoted one at that. I do hope her sister paid taxes on that rent, otherwise she will be looking at a minimum of 2 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so Jackie Smith has got away with it but how about:

Has her Sister paid income tax on the £100k?

The first £4200pa is allowable under the 'rent a room' rules but everything else is chargable.

Would JS (remember she is in charge of law enforcement) be allowed to lodge with a convicted tax evader?

Link to post
Share on other sites
'Yes', then 'no'.

Yes, you can get hold of the rules; no, you can't waste people's time with an action for a wrong that hasn't been committed. Simple.

(Have you enquired about Anger Management Treatment? You can probably have it on the NHS. Unless you'd rather 'go private'. The surroundings would be nicer if you go private although evidence suggest that all private medical treatment is inferior to that provided by the state.)


patprimer74, I'm a long term labour voter (I probably won't vote next election, but if I do it will either be green or liberal). Credentials out the way, do you honestly not see what is wrong with what she has done?

I'm not talking about the legality, I'm talking about whether it was right. There is a difference. Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.

Perhaps the following article from the Guardian (that well known right-wing tabloid) might help:

Not breaking rules over expenses and bonuses is all very well. But what about decency and morality?

Jacqui Smith is the latest in a long line of parliamentarians who, when their claimed expenses or allowances are revealed to the public, resort immediately to the "I didn't break any rules" defence. Nor had she. I'm sure that the juggling of housing allowances carried out by Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper had similarly abided by the rules. I won't go on about MPs and peers; they are not the only ones to take maximum advantage of lax, uncertain or ambiguous rules and laws.

In a different context, those egregious local authorities using anti-terrorist laws to spy on old people who don't put out their rubbish bins properly follow the same pattern. Their reaction, when, to their surprise, the public showed distaste for such practices, was that the law allowed them to do so.


Perpetrators of the "I'm allowed to, therefore I'll do it" philosophy often do not seem to understand why their conduct has drawn criticism. For them, the fact that they broke no rules or laws is a sufficient answer. They do not go on to justify the content of what they have done, only its legality. They will blame the rules and laws for having the capacity to be taken advantage of, rather than themselves, who have benefited from taking the advantage. What is missing is that little voice that tells them: "Yes, you may be entitled to do that, but it doesn't mean you're obliged to. There may be other factors." The public, however, does see these other dimensions, based on decency, morality and reasonableness, rather than selfishness, arrogance and greed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
Any chance we can get hold of rules on housing allowances and instigate a civil action?

Not possible, she enjoys parliamentary privilege.

Same for the Lords, they're able to openly take bribes and legally commit fraud without any form of civil or criminal sanction, in the case of the Lords there isn't even any internally disciplinary measures, such as suspension or being stripped of their titles and permanently banned from the chamber. They are in short a law unto themselves.

You will often hear crooked parliamentary behavior being defended by the sentence "no crime has been committed, no further action has been taken", but do not confuse that as a proof of no wrong doing, it's simply proof of the lack of rules at the top. However, if the little people mix up their recycling, smoke in the wrong place or park in the wrong spot, they will feel the full force of the law come down upon them.

Edited by sillybear2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When Labour are no longer in power, would it be appropriate for the Taxpayers to pop around to the houses lived in by Jaqui Smith, and have a few words with regard to how she would like to repay her debt to society ?

After all, as Gordon has said, Hard working british families deserve better from Government.

Edited by laurejon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, piss or get off the pot time.

As lots of people seem to be of the same mind, I've submitted a "single block of flats" petition to Number10 - don't see why it won't get through, I didn't use any names or defamatory language. MPFLATS if it gets published.

You do have to give your name and address to prove that you're a British Citizen, though, so it's not for the fainthearted. But faint heart never won fair maid, and all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It now seems that Jackboot and her cronies are preventing the free movement and speech of an EU MP who dare to mention that our "cultural enrichment" might not be such a good idea.

I think banning the EU MP was just a ruse to deflect attention from Gordon being in front of the Select Committee. An insurance policy to divert the media's attention incase his appearance didn't go so well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.