Who makes the rules ?

Two bites of the expenses cherry but all within the rules……………….

Any MP forced to quit over the expenses scandal will be in line for pay-offs of more than £100,000 and pensions of up to £30,000 a year.

Gordon Brown has warned that no MP who has “defied the rules” on expenses will be allowed to stand at the next election.

MPs embroiled in the scandal remain entitled to two pay-offs so long as they serve until the general election, rather than resign immediately. All MPs who step down, or are defeated, at an election are paid a “resettlement grant” designed to compensate for loss of salary. It ranges between six months’ and one year’s pay depending on age and length of service in the Commons.

Please read this bit carefully.

An MP aged between 55 and 64 who has been in Parliament for 15 years will be paid a year’s salary – £64,766 at current rates. The first £30,000 is tax-free. In addition, all MPs can claim a maximum of £40,799 for “winding-up costs” to pay off staff and end office leases. Politicians also benefit from a generous final salary pension scheme heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.

Lets see:

MP.

Rip the arse out of expenses, all within the rules.

Apply for resettlement grant at taxpayer’s expense, all within the rules.

Apply for winding up expenses grant at taxpayer’s expense, all within the rules.

Keep pension pot at taxpayer’s expense, all within the rules.

Any other employee.

No taxpayer funded expenses.

No taxpayer funded resettlement grant.

No taxpayer winding up expenses.

No taxpayer funded pension pot.

If you lose your job or resign from your job you will not be able to claim back similar expenses from the taxpayer within the rules, unless you sign on and claim what you can from the benefits system, all within the rules of course.

Perhaps having a social conscience should be put back into the rules.

Expenses trimmed.

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies, ‘I cannot accept money from you. I’m doing community service this week.’

The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a ‘thank you’ card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later the same day, a copper comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, ‘I cannot accept money from you. I’m doing community service this week.’

The cop is happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a ‘thank you’ card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, ‘I cannot accept money from you. I’m doing community service this week.’

The professor is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a ‘thank you’ card and a dozen different books, such as ‘How to Improve Your Business’ and ‘Becoming More Successful.’

Later that day, a Member of Parliament comes in for a haircut , and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies, ‘I cannot accept money from you. I’m doing community service this week.’

The Member of Parliament is very happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Members of Parliament lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between a lot of the citizens of our country and the attitudes displayed by some Members of Parliament.

Is that seat taken?

At the CTCC we are struggling to fill several vacancies within the specialist support units. The management have re-directed several specialists to other units to give their own kind of support to the really big plan. At the same time they wonder why the remainder are not producing the goods. There are no spare bums to go onto the seats on the merry-go-round.

It seems that the same problem of spare places is in vogue at the NPIA, who also have vacancies.  They have the advantage of being able to advertise to fill as well as the finance available to fill.

Sadly, in the real world, we are struggling as ever to get Police officers on the streets.

Perhaps if life in the canine world comes to an end I might prefer a go at being an Engagement Manager. I don’t understand what they do but the pay is pretty good. 

I feel so much better knowing that the NPIA are there, in the background, supporting me.

30 plus a few less.

The CTCC has run the 30 plus scheme for several years to get the best use from sound experienced officers who can perform valuable roles and retain both skills and experience that would otherwise be lost by retirement. Many officers has successfully applied for inclusion in the scheme, offered good value for money and given benefit of their skills base, achieved over many years. Loss of valuable skills, taken many years to accumulate, would take many years to replace. The scheme would help with succession planning and prevent the sudden loss of vital experience and performance.

The scheme was designed exactly for this purpose, the retention of  valuable skills and experience. Officers had to register their interest in the scheme and apply to the CTCC in writing, provide evidence of their skills and experience that would benefit the Force, be assessed to be fully competent, judged to be in satisfactory health and committed to further service. Participants in the scheme would be reviewed after 12 months to see if their particular brand of expertise was needed for consideration of a further 12 months. 

It was likely that demand for inclusion in the scheme would rise but that operational need for the scheme would fall. The important thing was the scheme was to concentrate on skill retention and not the potential popularity of the scheme.

The CTCC decided to finish the 30 plus scheme across the board. Perhaps a way of slashing costs and making some small part of the budget targets achievable and allowing for someone to hit their own performance targets.

This could be further workplace modernisation, or making the Police service more affordable at the CTCC, more financially viable for the next review period, there could even be a performance bonus in it for someone.

One thing is for sure, reducing the costs of policing by reducing the number of police officers is not good for business. The loss of valuable skills will not continue to be handed down, passed on to the next generation of police officers or offer good value for money.

But then again, we are constantly told that we are investing more than ever before our police service. We have more police numbers than ever before.

Where are they ?  They aren’t on response where the average service experience seems to be about 18 months. Nor are they on the front line operational support departments.

They certainly aren’t on the 30 plus scheme, not any more.

New Sentencing Policy.

The CTCC has been in consultation with the CPS and Government to discuss a radical new sentencing policy for offences of fraud and deception. Upon conviction the new recommendations concerning sentencing will not justify custodial terms if new guidelines of acceptable mitigation are identified.

Mitigation suggestions will be dealt with and considered on a case by case basis but are likely to include the following circumstances.

1. I have done nothing wrong.

2. I have made an error of judgement.

3. It was within the rules.

4. I am sorry. I will pay it back.

5. I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.

6. This was an oversight, I was very busy at the time.

7. It was the fault of the system.

Could these be a different way of stating the usual ?

1. I haven’t done anything.

2. You can’t prove a thing.

3. No comment.

A new and more radical sentencing policy would be by way of a paper distribution to all registered voters. These voters can then decide by placing their mark, by way of a large X, in the appropriate box to show if the suspect is worthy of selection. The suspect with the least numbers of X’s is deemed to be unworthy and slopes off into obscurity. The suspect with the most X’s will claim to be of pure descent, honest and true and assume the mantle accordingly.

This is hardly the population acting as emperor giving the thumbs down towards the pit of the Colosseum to decide the fate of the chosen one, but as near as makes no difference.

An interesting thought though. Perhaps we should engage with our communities to see what they want. They could ring their local officer to pass on their views about community sentencing.

Dear Mr Darling.

Dear Mr. Darling.

Please find below my suggestion for fixing Britain ‘s economy.

I am a UK taxpayer having worked all of my adult life to keep you and your less than honourable associates in the manner to which you clearly believe you have earned, is your right and is within the rules.

I have been taxed to the hilt by the obvious tax regime and the stealth taxes you have imposed over successive governments. What you claimed to have given me with the one hand I can see, you have more than taken away behind my back with your other, unseen hand.

My tax contribution has allowed me to drive on roads that are, in some cases dangerous and cannot be repaired or maintained because of finance restrictions or lack of funds, despite paying my annual road fund licence and the tax on fuel. I am unable to have dental treatment and examination on the national health and have been forced to pay for private dental treatment cover despite a proportion of my taxes going to the maintenance of the national health service.

My taxes are used to support foreign aid payments as well as support those who cannot or do not want to work, earn a salary and pay their own taxes. I concede that some are unable to seek or obtain work but far too many simply do not want to because they are too lazy and are paid too much not to work.

You have given Billions of taxpayers money to the financial institutions already. Instead of giving billions of pounds more to banks that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

You can call it the Patriotic Retirement Plan: There are about 12 million people over 50 in the work force.

Pay them half a million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Twelve million job openings – Unemployment fixed

2) They MUST buy a new British CAR. Twelve million cars ordered – Car Industry fixed. Some may buy two cars or cars for their children.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage – Housing Crisis fixed.

4) Buy £50 of alcohol and/or tobacco a week there’s your money back in duty / tax etc  If you add the huge levy you put onto fuel then this will swell your tax coffers even more.

It can’t get any easier than that!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members of parliament pay back the claimed expenses and second home allowances.

Regards………………..W.E.B

Book of Revelations

The Daily Telegraph appears to have the edge on its media rivals with the daily updates as to which MPs have been abusing the tax payers non-negotiated generosity in supporting their genuine expenses and expense abuses.

With the others playing catch up, the Political gravy train has come under the spotlight as never before. For too many years the details were a closed book with no one knowing what was claimed, for what reason and for how much. Every stone is being turned to get accurate information or suggestions of impropriety and to show those MPs who lack honesty, integrity and conscience.

Now we have seen in only a few days, that hands are going up because they realise that efforts to deflect opinion, dispute allegations and deny wrong doing and responsibility have failed miserably. All this coming to the surface after tax payer funded attempts to do whatever is necessary to prevent expenses details from coming into the public domain.

As details come forth into the public arena on a daily basis, like the next episode in a TV soap, the public, tax payers and political knockers rub their hands together like kids in a sweet shop on a free sweet day.

It is no wonder that the collective political machinery wanted this information kept quiet because the public backlash was always going to be immense and totally negative.

At the same time that the hypocritical mutterings of honesty, transparency and accountability rang through every department in every public sector support  service, those who made the policies and made policy decisions clearly abused the trust they had and exploited the luxury of  an wide ranging and extravagant claim culture  within their expenses, fortunately awarded to them.

Some of them tried to blame another entity, it was somehow not their fault.

Some of them have been caught for what they are.

Some of them have little or no moral conscience for what they see as their right and a way of fleecing the tax payer to make their own existence financially better off.

Some of them are crooks and have shown lack of regard and lack of respect for those who put them into positions of trust that they have abused with apparent impunity. It is not just MPs but also the parliamentary machinery that has tried to quash details from becoming public.

As page after page of the book turn, as new revelations come into the public arena, it seems that by saying sorry will allow all this to be forgotton, to be brushed under the carpet and they can all get back into their way of being honourable members again.

And so the pages turn.

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!

So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

You say, ´I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

A is for Aga

A is for Aga:

One conservative MP charged £160 each year to have his Aga serviced.

B is for bread bin:

£20, bought by a Labour backbencher in 2007.

Barbecue:

£6.14, from B&Q, claimed by a female Labour backbencher based in the home counties.

C is for Cat Food:

One animal-loving female Conservative MP claimed 78p for two tins of Cesar Chicken and Turkey pet food and £3.69 for Iams Senior pet food.

Chocolate Santa:

59p, charged by a Welsh Labour MP in 2006.

D is for Dyson:

Animal vacuum cleaner, £299.99, claimed by a meticulous LibDem MP in 2005.

E is for Elephant Lamps:

two for £134.30, bought by a well-known Tory frontbencher.

Eyeliner:

£2.50, from Boots, bought by a female LibDem MP in 2005.

F is for Farrow and Ball paint:

charged by a Tory shadow minister as part of a £1,775 interior house painting claim for his home in the country.

Farley’s Rusks:

£1.59, bought by a Conservative backbencher in 2006

G is for ginger crinkle biscuits;

67p, bought by a peckish Labour backbencher in 2007.

H is for horse manure:

One particularly wealthy Tory MP charged £10 for a bag of manure for his country retreat.

Hardware:

A no-nonsense Labour backbencher bought a cordless hammer drill from Woolworths for £15 and a tape measure for 43p.

I is for Ikea carrier bag:

5p, claimed by a Labour MP in his Scottish constituency.

Ice cube tray:

£1.50, bought by a former Labour Cabinet minister from M&S in 2008.

J is for Jaffa Cakes:

£1.60 for two packs, charged by an outspoken junior minister in 2004.

Jellied eels:

£1.31, claimed by an Essex-based MP

K is for Kit Kat:

£2.50, bought from the minibar of the Sherlock Holmes Hotel in London by one of Labour’s best-known female MPs.

L is for loo seat:

One particularly heavyweight Labour MP bought two in the space of a year for his constituency home.

M is for illuminated make-up mirror:

£19.95, by Revlon, bought from John Lewis by a middle-aged female Labour MP.

Moles:

One Tory grandee charged £35 per quarter for a mole catcher at his country home.

N is for nappies:

Two packets of Pampers at £5.65 each, charged by a junior Labour minister after he became a father.

O is for odd jobs:

A LibDem frontbencher charged for the cost of a handyman to replace a rope on his swinging chair, at a cost of £77, together with several other small jobs.

P is for Pizza Wheel:

£3, bought from a Bodum shop in Oxfordshire by Tory backbencher; piano tuning £40, claimed by a former Tory minister in 2004; pouffe, £199 from DFS, bought by a self-styled Labour hard man in 2008.

Q is for quiche flan dish:

Part of a 110-piece dinner set bought on ebay for £155 by the wife of one Labour backbencher.

R is for rats:

One well-heeled Labour member claimed £199 per quarter for regular visits from Rentokil to deal with a rat and mouse infestation at her London home.

S is for shampoo:

£1.65, claimed by a balding Labour backbencher in 2007; swimming pool – one Tory grandee charged £98.63 for a service on his swimming pool boiler at his country home.

T is for Tampax:

Two packs at £1.11 each, claimed by a Conservative MP who lost his seat in 2005.

Toilet brush holder:

£9.99 from Homebase, bought by a fastidious male member of the LibDems;

Corby Trouser Press, in mahogany.£119.00, bought from John Lewis by one of the wealthier LibDem MPs.

U is for utensils:

Potato peeler, £4.50, claimed by a member of the Tory front bench.

V is for Vileda supermop:

£4.99, claimed by a moustachioed Labour MP in 2005.

W is wine rack:

£14.99 from Homebase, claimed by a Labour MP for his west country home. Weed killer, £3.49, from Focus DIY, bought by a Labour MP and part-time handyman.

X is X-rated movies:

Ordered by the husband of a Labour frontbencher, two for £10.

Y is for Yucca plant:

£9.99 from Homebase, bought by a home-loving LibDem member for his constituency home.

Z is for Zanussi Oven:

£337.18, bought by a knighted Conservative MP from B&Q in 2007.

I wonder what comes after A to Z.

There is more here, here and here and here.

As much as I detest copying links without giving at least some information, it is worthy of a look at exactly how much our elected political master have been taking the piss big time with their expenses claims at the loss to the British taxpayers. I have posted about this before and the never ending attempts to cover up the true scale of the expenses gravy train at the cost to the tax payers defies belief. The secret cloak and Living under the cloak are two examples.

They can threaten legal action, bluff and bluster in denial but they have been caught red handed with their hands in the taxpayers till. Now they will twist and writhe as they posture that they have done nothing wrong and it is the system at fault. They will state that they were going to change the system and that we must put this behind us and move forward. Sadly conscience does not form part of the system for some.

 

52,400 steps

Major Phil Packer was greeted by hundreds of well-wishers lining the final mile of the course.

Reaching the finishing line is a personal triumph for the Royal Military Police Officer, who suffered catastrophic injuries during a rocket attack in Basra, Iraq, in February 2008.

This man displays some commendable qualities and deserves recognition for his dedication, commitment and determination to succeed. At the same time he is humble enough to recognise the prominent support role others have played in his recovery.

He should be applauded for his efforts. For someone who was likely never to walk again, to complete the marathon distance proves many things, to his friends, his family, his supporters but most of all to himself and to those who may have doubted him.

You can read more here.

A big boy did it and ran away.

As politicians defend their expenses as being within current rules, there continue to be revelations as to exactly how much and what they are entitled to claim within the existing rules covering allowances.

The one thing for certain is that for too long they have been able to take huge benefit and financial recompense for many things that the rest of society, who work pay taxes and have to fund their own life, are not able to claim for. The luxuries appointed by the MPs to themselves for themselves seems to have progressed from the times when MPs were the landed gentry who had all the power and influence they needed to run the country along the lines of how they saw it. The people wearing the political coats may have changed but the coat still seems to be the same.

Now as the heat begins to rise and details of how and what they have been claiming they suddenly want to clear the air and say things must change or take the other side of the coin and arrogantly claim to have done nothing wrong, only acting within the rules.

This is only about expenses they claim and does not include how much they earn outside of their MP role performing other jobs.

The rules have been made by them for their own benefit because, unlike every other case, they are open to the privilege of making their own rules and policing themselves.

The prime minister has stated that it is all part of  “the system” and it is somehow not their fault. Like this is someone else’s fault and they only found out about this by accident.  A bit like the credit crunch after years of hearing the word ‘prudence’ at budget time. A big boy must have done it ran away before we knew what was going on.

It appears that there may be “reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed” following on from an alleged leak, more like someone or other has got a bit fed up with the depth of the trough. As a result the Metrolpolitan Police have been “asked to consider the matter”.  Lets see how this one is no crimed or who’s head goes onto the scapegoat block over this. Being in the public interest is clearly not within their allowance criteria.

Rest assured that they will have known exactly what they are entitled to claim under their own allowances rules. Also rest assured that they will have claimed what they can because it is within their own rules.

There is also likely to be one or two abstainers from this expenses claims fiasco who will not have claimed all they might be able to, this should be recognised.

But, and it is a big but, far too many appear to be claiming for things that should really not be under the rules of their expenses. Some appear to have no conscience in claiming  and show a complete disregard with their arrogant swaggering and smug defiance to public opinion. Some of the televised MPs do not seem to show any remorse for claiming what they do and spit in the eye of decency.

Their ‘entitlements’ may be within their own appointed rules but it simply downright greedy and selfish and paints every MP in a very bad light.

The rules have been passed on from generation to generation in political terms with few ever appearing to have real jobs or live in the real world. They enter a world of privilege and are only ever held accountable once every 5 years at the ballot box. At the same time they force workforce modernisation and expect every other decent working person to trust their decisions and abide by their rules whilst at the same time the cream off expenses out of the public purse with no conscience, come back or the same accountability they expect everyone else to display.

To try to blame it on “the system”, a system that they are all clearly aware of, is both hypocritical and deceitful.

Trust them ?  I wouldn’t piss on them if they were on fire.

Buckle your belts boys and girls, it could be a bumpy ride.