Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dave Beans

James Clappison Mp - Strip Benefits For Rioters

Recommended Posts

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2011/08/james-clappison-mp-.html

It bears repeating that this month’s riots were the worst breakdown of public order in the United Kingdom - and we are still one country: take note, BBC – for thirty years.

Those of us not caught up in them can scarcely imagine the terror of law-abiding citizens who found their persons, businesses and homes at the mercy of criminals. I have been surprised by the number of commentators who have tried to find some justification for the actions of the rioters. This was a criminal riot by the criminally minded. Many people – many more people - living in exactly the same circumstances chose not to riot and many of them suffered from the actions of the rioters; as the acting Met Commissioner Tim Godwin put it to the Home Affairs Select Committee - thousands rioted, but millions did not.

The immediate priority must be to take whatever steps we can to minimise the risk of further riots taking place in the days or weeks to come. We can infer that the rioters have no regard to what happens to others as a result of their actions, but I believe they do care about what may happen to them; they need to know that any type of participation in a riot will leave them facing detection and a prison sentence.

The police are doing a good job in bringing so many rioters before the courts - 2,700 arrests as I write this – and the courts are showing signs of responding through their propensity to deal with offenders by way of custody.

All of this may sound harsh but it is necessary. I am sad to see so many people go to prison, especially as there seems to have been two broad categories of rioters - weak minded, opportunistic, impressionable people who perhaps got carried away, and more serious, more sinister rioters who took a more professional and calculated approach and who may have played a part in the planning and orchestration of the rioting. Both categories should face prison sentences but if the courts are able to determine that rioters fall into the latter category, they should face especially long sentences, as should particularly violent rioters and arsonists (longer still).

Should convicted rioters face other sanctions? One of the heartening reactions to the riots has been that of the public in seeking to convey their disgust and disapproval of the rioters, and the media has helped in this. The idea of shame seems to be undergoing rehabilitation. This is a sanction in itself. Many members of the public have channelled this sense of disapproval into the E-Petition asking that Parliament should debate taking benefits away from rioters. We need a full debate on this – one important consideration is that rioters serving prison sentences do not generally receive benefits anyway. However, I have been surprised by the response of those who have sought to rule this out without any debate, as if the receipt of benefits was a human right or withdrawal of benefit was an impossible and unthinkable step. Receipt of some of the benefits in question is not and should not be unconditional. There are circumstances in which benefits can currently be withdrawn; the benefits sanctions regime has been tightened progressively over the years, and the current Welfare Reform Bill proposes sanctions of up to three years loss of benefits for failing to satisfy work search requirements, as well as strengthening the sanctions regime for those found to be committing benefit fraud. Should rioters also lose benefits? I approach this question with a belief that loss of benefits for a significant period might be a deterrent to some rioters, irrespective of whatever other punishments the courts may rightly impose. If we want to minimise the risk of further riots, we want to ram home the message to potential rioters that the consequences of rioting could be disastrous for them in many different ways in their own lives. I suspect that law-abiding recipients of benefits - the vast majority - would be amongst those who would welcome such a message being sent out.

Recent events do not weaken the case for the reforms being brought forward by the government to mend our broken society. These reforms are vital to the future of our country and David Cameron is right to re-state the importance of them. The problems being addressed by these reforms are deep seated and great perseverance over a long period will be needed. In the more immediate future we must take every possible step to minimise the risk of any further breakdown in law and order.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5324625/James-Clappison-claims-100000-but-owns-24-houses-MPs-expenses.html

James Clappison, a work and pensions spokesman, used taxpayers’ money to buy petunias, geraniums and busy lizzies for his “second home”, part of a property portfolio that includes a farm and a cricket club.

Mr Clappison, the MP for Hertsmere, claimed the expenses for a semi-detached house worth about £375,000 in St Albans, Herts, where he lives with his wife Helen. He also spends time at a house in Leeds, which is worth about £360,000 and is registered to his wife. Neither property is mortgaged. As well as his homes, he rents out 22 houses in North Humberside, five of which are registered jointly with his wife. The properties are spread around the villages of Withernsea and Patrington, where Mr Clappison owns a farm and 75 acres of surrounding land inherited from his father, who was a farmer.

He also owns the ground of Patrington village cricket club. He sits on the club’s committee as “president and proprietor”. He has built up his property interests steadily since being elected in 1992, when he took over the safe Tory seat from Cecil Parkinson, the former cabinet minister and close ally of Lady Thatcher. According to the Commons register of members’ interests, he had five houses by 1998 and 14 four years later.

Since 2001, Mr Clappison has claimed a total of £102,241 in second home expenses. Because he owned the house in St Albans outright, he was unable to claim interest charges on mortgage repayments, as many MPs do on their second homes. Instead he made regular claims for maintenance, groceries, utilities bills and his television licence. He typically claimed £300 per month for food, £100-£125 per month for a cleaner and £31 per month for his cable television bill.

He has also claimed a total of £3,166 for regular work on his garden since 2004.

Detailed receipts submitted to the Commons fees office show that last year, he claimed £316 for gardening services, including the planting of a wide variety of flowers. Over two months, his gardener invoiced him for a box of geraniums, five boxes of petunias, one bottle brush shrub, one and a half boxes of busy lizzies, three trailing geraniums and five trailing petunias. In letters to Mr Clappison, the gardener wrote: “Today I worked two and a half hours but there is still a lot more to do.”

Between 2004 and 2005 he claimed £628 for gardening. He also claimed £20 for a Kenwood kitchen blender in July 2004. From 2005 to 2006 he claimed £578 for a washing machine and £719 for a new bed from Marks & Spencer.

During the same year he also claimed £970 for gardening, including £320 to have a cherry tree and laurel bush cut back.

Between 2006 and 2007, he spent £567 on gardening. The same year he claimed £892 on a renovations bill spanning repainting, reflooring and window cleaning. The work included the supply and fitting of a new lavatory seat in his bathroom. He also claimed £297 for a VCR. The following year, he claimed £3,541 for roof repairs and £1,990 for redecoration including the refurbishment of brass fittings to his front door. He also claimed £686 for gardening and £298 for television and DVD player.

Mr Clappison said yesterday that he had voluntarily submitted his expenses claims to the fees office for review last month.

“They found that my claims were not only entirely within the rules but also within the spirit of the rules,” Mr Clappison said. “The only exception was one claim for £38.50 for bedding plants, which I immediately repaid.

“This was an honest mistake on my part.”

James Clappison

Job: Conservative work and pension spokesman

Salary: £64,766

Total second home claims

2004-05: £10,656

2005-06: £12,376

2006-07: £12,161

2007-08: £15,916

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looting is ok as long as you do it discretely, it's the senseless violence and torching of buildings that makes it despicable... :blink:

In essence that's the message our overlords are sending out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“They found that my claims were not only entirely within the rules but also within the spirit of the rules,..

Well he would be one of those who wrote the rules so he should know.

Hypocrisy run riot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“They found that my claims were not only entirely within the rules but also within the spirit of the rules,” Mr Clappison said. “The only exception was one claim for £38.50 for bedding plants, which I immediately repaid.

Well he could certainly afford to repay the £38.50 after all the money he'd made out of expenses claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well he could certainly afford to repay the £38.50 after all the money he'd made out of expenses claims.

He's right you know. The spirit of the rules is for already rich men to buttfu*k the poor taxpayers, and he's certainly running his affairs along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they arent piggies, pigs are rather self sufficient, they are parasites and lawbreakers of the very same laws they put in place to protect them, they steal your effort and sweat, effort that could have been spent on your friends,your family, your children and 20 million brits are still subserviant enough to vote for it, oh yes massus, dont wupp me musses, i be a good *****, in fact its so admired one is elected to run the country, unless someone can point to the paragraph in the green book that covers wisteria within work related expenses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah like that would help!

How about an alternative? Suspend of their right to vote until the debt has been repaid. If you act against society... then you should be removed from choosing how it should be run.

Same vote suspension + allowed to run for public office (inc Quangos) should apply to any MP/or anyone of public office found to be diddling (These debts would take far longer to be re-paid!)

Crazy how 100's of people arrested for stealing, when a couple of dozen bankers who cost the country WAY MUCH MORE get to retire on fat pensions while the rest of us pay the price.

Totally against the riots, but the Dawn police raids should have happened back in 2007 on bankers at homes/offices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looting is ok as long as you do it discretely, it's the senseless violence and torching of buildings that makes it despicable... :blink:

In essence that's the message our overlords are sending out.

Given that you are demanding consistency (quite reasonable IMHO) do we :-

1) Let both the looters and expense fiddling MPs off scoot free.

or

2) Punish both sets of criminals so severely that neither will ever offend again.

Myself I like 2), so let's jail both, and then ban them from ever again receiving state benefits or employment. Simple. consistent, and reduces the deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about an alternative? Suspend of their right to vote until the debt has been repaid. If you act against society... then you should be removed from choosing how it should be run.

Not an alternative, but a useful add-on.

This was the point of Margaret Thatcher's "no such thing as society" quote; that society is not a thing, but the end result of all of us giving and receiving. If everyone just takes, there is no real society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that you are demanding consistency (quite reasonable IMHO) do we :-

1) Let both the looters and expense fiddling MPs off scoot free.

or

2) Punish both sets of criminals so severely that neither will ever offend again.

Myself I like 2), so let's jail both, and then ban them from ever again receiving state benefits or employment. Simple. consistent, and reduces the deficit.

Don't forget seizing assets ten times the economic value of the crime. Other than that, spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have visions. A multiple gallows, bankers, "MPs", children laughing, a picnic............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a quick copy and paste Rant. Which has yet to appear.............Just for the Record, I'll post it here as well.

LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE CENSORED, BY THIS TORY *****, AS I HAVE MENTIONED HOUSE PRICES.

The root cause is economic, even if the rioters do not have an ideology or leadership, or education, or a manifesto.

First we had feudalism, then Capitalism, which failed because of greed. People just accept our society as normal, when in fact it is extremely unfair. Now it seems we are heading rapidly backward in this country.

As middle class professional's, all we wanted was a job, and the ability to be able to pay for a small house.

Instead we have been forced to work for nothing for over a decade. No Capital. Forced to waste tens upon tens of thousands in rent. To a liar loan landlord. Paying for his mortgage and retirement. He does'nt have to work. There are millions priced out of housing, because a bubble was purposefully fraudulently inflated.

What will you do when the unrest spreads to the indebted middle classes? Parliament has no moral authority. The crooks at the top make the ones at the bottom look positively angelic.

The Government, and fractional reserve banking are mainly to blame.

Lets hope these recent lootings, and riots, turn into real revolution.

The snippet of information below is taken from Kevin Cahills 2001 book

'Who Owns Britain'

-------------------------------------------------------

A tiny minority exploits Britain at the expense of the rest of us.

Just 6,000 or so landowners -- mostly aristocrats, but also large institutions and the Crown -- own about two thirds of the UK. They have maintained their grip on the land right throughout the 20th century.

Just 1,252 of them own about 60% of Scotland.

[They pay no land tax. Instead the government gives them £2.3 billion a year and the EU gives them a further £2 billion. In subsidies.]

The poor are forced to subsidise the super rich.

By contrast, 57.5 million of us in the UK pay over £10 billion a year in council tax, land tax, over £550 per household.

60 million people live in 24 million "dwellings". These 24 million dwellings sit on just 7.7% of the land.

As of 2001 landbanks to a value of 37 billion pounds were known to exist, with capacity to build an additional 3-4 million homes.

This reserved land is almost wholly owned by aristocrats; with none of it on the land registry.

[This land is coming out of subsidised rural estates, land held by off-shore trusts and companies, and effectively untaxed.]

Throughout the 18th century enclosures, the landowning class stole eight million acres of Common land from the people.

The thieves were mainly tyrannical Parliamentary Landlords.

When certain Commoners questioned this. The State had them horrifcally murdered, to make an example of them.

86 years after the creation of the Land Registry, up to 50% of the land in England is still not registered.

Landowners' wealth is a parasite on Britain. Their wealth comes not from farming, nor even from renting, but from a trickling of land onto the urban housing market.

The clearing banks and building societies stripped our industries of investment capital, then supported their clients, the landowners, by running the rigged and overpriced land market.

These are statistics from a Banana Republic. A third World dictatorship.

------------------------------------------------------------------

More and more you can expect to see people asking questions like, Why should i pay for common land which should be mine by birthright?

When that land was stolen?

Why should I work as a slave for thirty years, to pay off a mortgage, when two thirds of that is interest, going to a bank, which is owned by the taxpayer?!

When a corrupt system of planning laws, are forcing me into debt slavery?

The Free market does not exist. We are in a planned economy, designed to keep us in slavery.

The Government exist to support century after century of criminality, and theft.

Bring on the Revolution I say.

I would imagine the first port of call will be MP's

I hope you have large Gates Minister.

As Cahill trenchantly makes clear, the most unchanging feature of rural Britain is the near-monopolisation of land ownership.

This is still very much the same as it was nearly 1,000 years ago, held tight in the hands and deeds of a tiny hereditary aristocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that you are demanding consistency (quite reasonable IMHO) do we :-

1) Let both the looters and expense fiddling MPs off scoot free.

or

2) Punish both sets of criminals so severely that neither will ever offend again.

Myself I like 2), so let's jail both, and then ban them from ever again receiving state benefits or employment. Simple. consistent, and reduces the deficit.

And hey presto Sierra Leone style super crook is born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's YOU who is the problem Mr Clappison....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that you are demanding consistency (quite reasonable IMHO) do we :-

1) Let both the looters and expense fiddling MPs off scoot free.

or

2) Punish both sets of criminals so severely that neither will ever offend again.

Myself I like 2), so let's jail both, and then ban them from ever again receiving state benefits or employment. Simple. consistent, and reduces the deficit.

Look up false dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a quick copy and paste Rant. Which has yet to appear.............Just for the Record, I'll post it here as well.

LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE CENSORED, BY THIS TORY *****, AS I HAVE MENTIONED HOUSE PRICES.

Stolen again... and again!

Farnborough heath .. seized in WWII for Military purposes (770 acres) Sold off for a cool £1 million in 2005 to the TAG group... PRICE Only published after many FOI requests!

£1,000,000 for 770 acres?

Building land in the same area valued at 500,000 per acre.

So simple maths 770x500,000 = £385,000,000. A good deal in any ones book!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The looting by the Rioters was more frightening than that done by MP's. It has been over sentenced already though and many appeals will be successful I suspect. The few MP's presecuted got things like 18 months for stealing many thousands of pounds over years and years. Rioter and looters who caused fires and destroyed buildings need no sympathy. Those who were opportunistic thieves of a few electricals should not be given more than the guidelines already set out. Some have been given up to 4 years even if they stole nothing and their incitement to riot came to nothing! David Laws stole £40k by claiming rent falsely because he did not want it publicly known he way gay. I don't care if he's gay but if you or I stole £40k it would be prosecuted and we'd get 18 months to 2 years. We would not be able to just repay it and cite personal circumstances.

Whilst I condone nothing about rioting, there is a different set of rules for some isn't there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted a quick copy and paste Rant. Which has yet to appear.............Just for the Record, I'll post it here as well.

LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE CENSORED, BY THIS TORY *****, AS I HAVE MENTIONED HOUSE PRICES.

As Cahill trenchantly makes clear, the most unchanging feature of rural Britain is the near-monopolisation of land ownership.

This is still very much the same as it was nearly 1,000 years ago, held tight in the hands and deeds of a tiny hereditary aristocracy.

Oh dear. A dawn raid and your front door broken down by 20 coppers in riot gear for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. A dawn raid and your front door broken down by 20 coppers in riot gear for you!

The plod looking over our shoulders on this forum, know well enough who the real ringleaders are Mr Steed.......<_<

If I 'resist' [raise my voice, or ask a question] will I be executed via taser?

In 2009 When the Telegraph first broke the expenses scandal.

Gordon Brown and LABOUR forced a three line whip, to try to exempt MP's second home expenses from the Freedom Of Information act.

From being made public.

Sir Ian Kennedy, chairman of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) ruled that Ministers should repay profits on thir second homes.

However, that only applies to gains from November 2009!

So profits from massive House Price Increases UP TO November 2009, were locked in.

HPI was all cream for our elected officials.

[Profits from second homes needed to be backdated to 1997, or the beginning of an MP's tenure.]

The truth is that there was never any political will to enable the average person earning average wage to be able to afford an average house in a rising unregulated market, under a secret expenses system, where MP's were all flipping houses, making hundreds of thousands in personal profits.

Not one MP represents the average wage earner.

It is not just that they used our money to profit, and paid no tax on the gains, it is also that it created a dangerous conflict of interest that meant that voting for policies which fed the house price bubble, for so many years, such as keeping IR too low for too long, lowering CGT etc, etc etc, also generated guaranteed personal profits for them, in secret.

In any other profession this would be a criminal offence. It is market manipulation. Far worse than insider trading.

And under the Tories nothing has changed. [Whilst MP's like Clappison are allowed to profit in this fashion, we will never see a tax on BTL. We will never see affordable housing]

If MPs had not been making personal profits on first, second, even third homes for all those years, in secret, then rising house prices, the tripartite system, would have been examined a lot more closely.

Probably 13 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I have been surprised by the response of those who have sought to rule this out without any debate, as if the receipt of benefits was a human right...
...Mr Clappison owns a farm and 75 acres of surrounding land inherited from his father, who was a farmer.

That land was once stolen from the people using violence far greater than anything seen in the recent disturbances. If it's right that title to land can be inherited then surely it's right that compensation for being deprived of the use of that land should also be inherited?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Mr Clappison owns a farm and 75 acres of surrounding land inherited from his father, who was a farmer.

The good news is that the rioters he leaves destitute will soon be rolling up at the farm to get some food. Payment may be a problem however- but I'm sure this has been well thought through. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 335 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.