主播大秀

In the real world they would be in court and sentenced as quick as MP's denounce antisocial crime.... sorry off on one there, MP's don't live or work in the real world. Maybe this is what is wrong.

As long as they have 2 standards and we know about it then I will as well!

As I suggested at the time Legg evidently was determined not to be dissed as those who have produced other reports, like Hutton, at HMG's request in the past few years.

Ergo arbitrary limits on claims for gardening & cleaning which catch the PM inure him from the extremist hoi poloi who hate politicians and their compadres who just loathe Labour politicians.

Just more crude kerfuffle to the hue and cry which has become the principal means to "Justice" when politics are mentioned . . . The next inquiry will probably bring back the death penalty for using the word "intellectual" . . .

The MPs receiving a letter from Sir Thomas Legg also received a note from him explaining the several reasons why the "rules" were broken when "excesive" claims were made for cleaning and gardening.

He also explained that the fact that the Fees Office paid the claim does not mean that the claim was within the rules.

So why are some MPs claiming that their expense claims were within the rules. Have they got used to believing that spin is the same as truth?

Where they signed their expense claim it said alongside that they were claiming that their claim was for expenses "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" in carrying out their MPs duties. These is the criteria used by the Inland Revenue to define those expenses that are not liable for tax. So the words were included for tax reasons but are far tighter than other constraints placed on expense claims in the Green Book of MPs expense "rules".

Now the Inland Revenue is going to pursue many MPs for income tax (and capital gains tax on second homes), Sir Thomas Legg should be using the same definition (Wholly, exclusively and necessarily) for deciding if the expenses should have been paid at all, let alone whether they should be taxable benefits or not.

remember elizabeth filkin, she got booted out by these charletans because she unearthed some facts that were difficult to hide yet she went and they stayed on and filled their boots even more, anyone else would have said 'hang on a minute, guys, maybe we had better take it easy, that Filkin bird was onto us so we 'd better watch it' but no, because they had been brought up with a Nanny insteadf of a mother who would have given them what for if they strayed from life's difficult path they just carried on abusing, taking, stealing like common criminals ready to condemn and put the boot into any unfortunate mother who steals a bit of food out of a shop to feed her kids, they would be up there right in the front of the Whitehouse moral majority mob putting the boot in....and now it's happened to them...ain't life sweet?

If Mr Brown wants to appease the electorate without calling a general election, then I can offer the solution from the collation of the many letters submitted to the national press.

The way forward is as follows:

1. Sack all of those MPs guilty of misusing the allowances now. (Yes, I mean the likes of Kirkbride, McKay, Blears, and Smith, to name but a few.) They should also be barred from holding any public office in the future. Effectively all to be barred from reselection by their local parties.

2. All money to be returned, 鈥渃laimed incorrectly鈥� means that they weren鈥檛 entitled to the money. To retain the money is fraud, and if not returned, then issue them with a summons, and let a jury decide.

3. No further payments of any sort to be made to those sacked.

4. All MPs sacked lose the right to any pension. Any contributions made are to go to paying back overpaid allowances; these monies also to be taxed as they are no longer forming part of a pension income.

5. All non-consumable items to be returned by those MPs leaving parliament whether sacked or otherwise. The property does not belong to the individuals it belongs to their employer.

6. All capital gains to be correctly calculated by HMRC for all those that carefully dodged the payment, and tax returns to be resubmitted so that the deduction can be made.

7. No peerages to be given to any MP involved in the scandal. Those already issued should be withdrawn. (Yes, I mean the likes of Michael Martin too.)

8. Any present peer having been convicted of a criminal offence should have their peerage removed. This should be true for both Life & Hereditary. These changes should be built into the laws of the land; no exceptions. This is also to be applied retrospectively. (That includes Mandelson & Archer.)

I think that about covers everything, I鈥檓 happy for others to add to the above. If Mr Brown does 1 to 8, I鈥檒l wait patiently for the next election.

As a blogger for a popular , I've been reflecting on how the MPs expenses scandal is now harming the work of anti-knife crime and anti-violence campaigners.

By far the strongest illustration of this, as far as knife and other violent crime is concerned, is Jackie Smith. Her perverse moral leadership (claiming huge sums of taxpayers money for a second home as well as the porn video fiasco) left the 主播大秀 Office rudderless at a time when the anti-violence campaigners were building some momentum. I'm not saying that momentum has gone for good - but the behaviour of MPs like Jackie Smith has hampered the work of so many families, crime victims etc at a time when they needed people with power to help them push for required change. This is much more than letting people down.

At the same time and for the same reasons, co-ordinated attempts, communications work and PR efforts to highlight and tackle violent crime seem to have fallen by the wayside to some degree at the moment because politicians have demonstrated time and again that they are more interested in themselves, their salaries, commercial interests, etc, rather than those people suffering in the midst of a violent culture.

With the Government and opposition parties in disarray due to the corrupt parliamentarian compensation system they have been happy to be part of for years, these ego-centred MPs (I can't call them public servants - they haven't served, they have stolen) continue to demonstrate more interest in themselves than victims of crime and the issue of violent crime, sadly.

I can't really re-print my entire article here but you can read it in full, if you are interested .