Bill Splashes 'Our' Cash!

I have to say that, I have always liked Bill Cash, not in a politacal way, but I have alway thought he was a good MP, one of them firebrand Torys who would not tow the party line at times, spoke out for what he thought right, and he had morals. It apears I was misstaken on the last thing, to see him on the TV whiping out what now is the most used one liner in Westminster ' It was within the ruels at the time' was very sad indeed, but another ones up for the chop, he's got to go.

I've never liked Bill Cash. He has a reputation for being independently minded and yet his excuse for this outrage is the standard line that we, the taxpayers and funders of Parliament, are getting very very irritated by "I was simply following the rules." So much, for being independently minded and a champion for common sense! I see the Telegraph have identified the exact failing with his moral compass

"The Telegraph reported that Mr Cash indicated he would repay any money if asked to do so by the Conservative Party"

Why only if asked to (by the Conservative Party)? You've been caught with your hands in the till, Bill. Pay up and get out, you're corrupt and corrupting our parliamentary democracy.

‘ It was within the ruels at the time’

As far as I'm concerned, if it was within the rules at the time then there is no case to answer. YES the rules should be changed so that it can't happen again, and thats all well and good. But how on earth can we punish someone for keeping within the bounds of the law?

How would any of us like it if parliament tomorrow decided to make one of our own pasttimes or activities illegal-and then decdied to backdate the new law so that anyone who was conducting that perfectly legal activity at the time found themselves prosecuted?

We have a convention in this country that changes in the rules or the law are generally NOT backdated so that innocent people become criminals. Why are MPs treated differently?

I have to say that what had began as a perfectly reasonable public outrage over excessive expense claims has now well and truely turned into a witch hunt. just look at how that poor woman Julie Kirkbride has been hounded until she agreed to stand down even though she has not actually done anything wrong-yes I know thats an unpopular thing to say, but I'm afraid the general public have lost the plot on this one and now need to be told some home truths!

Why is it that allegations are being raised against individual MPs, pursued daily until they agree to stand down and only then are new allegations against another individual brought forward? Are these stories being cynically timed so that they don't overlap? All week the spotlight has been on Mrs Kirkbride but since she announced that she would be standing down yesterday, the focus is today on Bill Cash. And what happens if he agrees to stand down? Who will be next? Why can't we just have ALL of the allegations out in the open in one go and then all those who need to stand down can do so?

And then we have the farce of the so called 'independent' celebrities who are seeking to benefit from this affair. First we had Esther Rantzen suggesting that she 'may' stand against Margaret Moran in Luton South at the next election. Then she said that she 'would' stand 'if Margaret Moran doesn't stand down'. Now she seems to be saying that she 'will' stand even though Margaret Moran HAS stood down! Similar candidates are now coming forward from such bizarre figures as Simon Heffer and Terry Waite.

Lets be quite clear about what these people are trying to do. They are cynically trying to jump on a populist bandwagon to further their OWN personal interests. Esther Rantzen had some credibility when she first suggested standing in Luton South, but she has completely lost that credibility the moment she said that she would stand even though the accused MP had stood down. From that moment it became quite clear that she was going to stand there come what may, and that the activities of the MP were merely an excusewhich she hoped would give her a bandwagon.

The rules are wrong, the rules need to be changed; and there are some MPs who have clearly gone outside the rules anyway and need to be removed. But you can't morally punish someone for doing things that the rules allow and which we with hindsight decide is not acceptable. Once we start going down that road, any one of us could soon find ourselves as wanted criminals for committing activity that was perfectly legal and acceptable at the time.

Shaun, the big difference is that the MPs wrote the rules, rules that if applied outside of Parliament could conceivably result in a criminal prosecution.

Hmmmm, I think Shaun is mostly right with his evaluation of the populist bandwagon and the celebrities jumping on it.

I doubt that cleaning out a moat or buying a duck island would be a prosecutable offence and considered an embezzlement offence against the public purse.
Buying a box of tea bags is now being offloaded from acceptance to unacceptance, why?

If the rules were wrong, then why all the fuss now?
When were they wrong and when were they considered wrong?

Spouses have come out the worse for wear on these principles. For some reason, only one expenses should be claimed. Why?
I do think that classing one home as first but second by the spouse and vice versa, to be stretching it a little.

To answer Shaun's point I think that it is being cynically promoted by those with the best outcome opportunity.

Cameron is doing the dirty work for his own ends and he's settling scores by dismissing those who've given him a hard time.

For a case to proceeed to court, it would have to be in the public(s) interest.
A duck island certainly makes the grade but the cost of the case outweighs the outcome of paying it back.

There is a rule and law in this Country, Shaun, that is called 'clawback' and any proceeds from crime can be reigned in by the Treasury.

Have our MPs comitted crimes or are they innocents who acted within the rules?

I hear of no court case to prove either and therefore they must remain innocent as a decent |Democratic society demands.

The outcry from the people who MPs claim to represent indicates that the system is wrong and the people responsible for mending the system have failed - MPs have failed us in their lack of judgement and responsibility towards the taxpayer, and subsequently their arrogance and failure to judge the public mood has condemned them to what might be considered to be "jumping on the bandwagon". Something has to give, just as they persued Speaker Martin last week, the people (who form our democratic society) have the right to persue the wrongs of their representatives. I have no problem with MPs being entitled to recompense for appropriate expenses (I doubt few do), but the abuse that has taken place is irrefutable. The excuse that it is the system was never satisfactory and should not be continued to be wrung out by the likes of Cash three weeks into the Telegraph's expose.

Gary I agree with most of what you say but...
"For a case to proceeed to court, it would have to be in the public(s) interest.
A duck island certainly makes the grade but the cost of the case outweighs the outcome of paying it back."

OK, but take a look at this case...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/29/mother-accused-fraud-ove...

There are very many other examples of cases taken where the cost of prosecution outwieghs the financial gain of conviction but we still prosecute.

There are also many more serious cases than a duck house or a packet of tea bags. There are at least 2 MPs who claimed mortgage interest payments that they weren't paying. There are other instances where claims have been made on phantom costs.

OK there is a celebrity bandwagon developing, even David Van Day has jumped on that one, but don't let this distract from the very real scandal that has been brought to the publics attention.

MPs behaviour may or may not be criminal, and as you say, there have been no court cases, yet. But to allow this to calm down before we have a real acceptance from all those in power that, irrespective of the rules, what they have been doing is morally unacceptable, is dangerous and will lead us to an end result of a few minor tweaks in appeasement of the great unwashed and a return to the Good Olde Days.

I've heard it reported that Steven Fry said that in the grand scheme of things the amounts disputed are trifling and would make no effect on society if they hadn't been claimed. He's correct of course, but society is made up of individuals and the amounts claimed could have had a significant effect on the lives of individuals.

Take the lass who had cancer drugs refused because of the £58k per annumm cost, there are many others in that situation. I remember a soldier dying in Iraq because there wasn't enough body armour to go around and he gave his to a collegue. There are many other stories where a lack of resources has a direct and occasionlly deadly impact on individuals lives.

Whether the amounts claimed by MPs, had they not been claimed, would have found there way into the relevent budgets and provided those resources is of course debatable but the principle is there. We pay taxes to provide services not plasma TVs, not duckhouses and certainly not so that MPs can play the property markets.

This is why we must keep this "bandwagon" rolling until there is real acceptance, not just media soundbites and the odd lynching, that this behaviour is repugnant and morally unacceptable. The British public is often derided for our apathy. I don't think that is a charge that can be levelled at them now. This scandal has awakened the sleeping dragon.

'His main home is a mansion in Shropshire.'

Should an MP not live in the middle of his constituency, among the people he represents, and be a part of the local communities that he serves?

What Cash as been up to is small change to what someone has been up to at the City Council.
Someone is trying very hard to bury bad news??????

Some time ago we had a VAT inspection where the inspector could find nothing amiss with our accounting, except that we had not paid VAT on commision earned on football pools. She accepted that this was a genuine error, and we agreed to payment being back dated to the day we bought the business(6 years) 3 years later we had another VAT inspection where once again no problem was found except, "why are you payng VAT on pools commision, you should not be." ok anyone can make a mistake, pay us the money back. Sorry it can only be back dated 3 years when the government owes us. So because a government agent told us we willingly paid 9 years of VAT contributions, but when their mistake was discovered they only paid one third of it back.
So Shaun you must be able to see why it is so galling for some of us when we are robbed by the rules that Bill Cash helped to make and which he then uses to rob us again.

I bet town hall is loving this as it distracts attention away from their ineptitude running of our city.

Webb Monkey, they are exstatic over this as it detracts attention away from the mysterious dissappearance of £93 million from the city's finances.
What baffles me is why no one is interested.
I asked Mike Barnes this question, no answer.
Craig posted the details to all councillors, and only got 3 replies, but no answers.
Something stinks.
Come on councillors prove me wrong, and if you do I will retract all of it.
Over to anyone!

Shaun Bennett: ‘ It was within the ruels at the time’As far as I’m concerned, if it was within the rules at the time then there is no case to answer. YES the rules should be changed so that it can’t happen again, and thats all well and good. But how on earth can we punish someone for keeping within the bounds of the law?

Shaun,

Where are this man's morals in all this? He either decided to bury his conscience in exchange for money or he simply didn't consider a bit of slick trickery quite acceptable as long as it was 'In the rules.'

Either way he's shown himself to be completely unworthy to hold any position that requires the most basic of decent principles.

I wonder how much in total he's swindled out of us Taxpayers over the years?

I do not know the full story about Bill Cash. Or how accurate it is (the Telegraph appears to have made a few errors). Friends of mine who live in Stone tell me that Bill Cash is a good constiuency MP who is regularly seen in Stone and Cheadle and who lives in a very large house (possibly a mansion) in Staffordshire just outside Stone. What does amaze me is that he is a multi Millionaire so why he would want to fiddle a few grand is beyond me.

I think the general point is both acknowledged and missed, all in one go.

Duck islands, moat cleaning and tree planting may be absurd but is it downright fraudulent?
I say that a court case would throw it out and the defence would be that: 'There's the rule book, prove otherwise'!

Paying a mortgage into an account of a payee who has no mortgage, is another matter. I believe that case could result in prosecution and no rule book will or would allow such transactions.

The failure of the public is to demonise almost all MPs with both types of accusations and I will go to my grave upholding the principles of the Magna Carta that DEMANDS that all are innocent until proven guilty.

Walking doesn NOT prove guilt it may imply BULLYING either by an ill informed mob or a plot from upon high within party circles.

How interesting that an Independent would only by challenged by a mob.

The rule book should be re written and details checked by a selection of public or pubished by the press for all to view and comment on before coming into operation..

We are often asked to report benifit cheats all they are doing here is cheating the MPs benifits (expenses)

Shaun says " ‘ It was within the ruels at the time’

As far as I’m concerned, if it was within the rules at the time then there is no case to answer. YES the rules should be changed so that it can’t happen again, and thats all well and good. But how on earth can we punish someone for keeping within the bounds of the law?
"

You have obviously never even seen a copy of the rules under the Green Book then Shaun... say no more.

PS iggnorance is no excuse for breaking the rules, nor is being thick, stupid, niave or a tory. ---- but of course Shaun thinks that the Tories are the saviour of the moment... go on Shaun tell us how Camoron is going to clean up the great house, even though for five years the whipping system in your party has voted WITH the governemnt to try and keep MPs expenses secret.

HAs any one added up who bent the rules the most yet.... bet you find the tories come out in the lead on that one!!!! MOats, Badgers, Duck islands, Whisterier from chineys and husband wife teams playing tag with houses ect ... never mind whats her face from Bromsgrove... youve got the Winertons too.!!!! Anyone fancy adding it up for SHaun and his tory "within the rules " excuses ?

PS... i am assuming Gary hasnt read or seen sight of the green book rules that everyone is using as defence neither then?

I will publish a full copy of the book next week..... then we can all see how none of the claims were actually within the rules.

He lives in a mansion in Shropshire.

So you suggest Nick Clegg has broken the rules?

Quite possibly most MPs have broken the rules - from all parties!!!!

The system isnt broken, its just been ignored and taken to the nth degree!!!

If you cant afford to buy your own lunch when you are earning a minimum of £64,000 a year then pity upon you is what i say.

"There is a rule and law in this Country, Shaun, that is called ‘clawback’ and any proceeds from crime can be reigned in by the Treasury."

Yes Gary, and any MP who has actually broken the law or deliberately falsified their claims should be prosecuted like anyone else.

But the vast majority have NOT broken the rules, they have stuck to the letter of the law. That means that it is the RULES that are wrong and should be changed.

But you can't punish someone for doing something which was legal but which we later decide is not acceptable.

Web Monkey, Pooter and others; yes I do fully understand the anger that people feel. I'm not trying to defend anyone who has broken the rules. But I'm just saying first, don't punish the main parties for it as though they are institutionally corrupt whereas independents are not-you will be sadly dissapointed by the result.

And second, however much you don't like it, you CANNOTT punish someone for doing something which we decide only with hindsight is unacceptable. How would you like it if we made it illegal to do something that you have done and then backdated the new law to apply before it was enacted? Would you expect to be prosecuted for having committed an act that was legal at the time? Woudn't you quite rightly offer the defence that you 'did nothing wrong under the law of the time'?

Lets all calm down a bit on this issue and be a bit more understanding. We are throwingout the good MPs as well as the bad, and we are letting cyncial 'independent' celebrities use it as a populist cause for their own advancement.

Since when was Julie Kirkbride a good MP?

Since when was anyopne with a moat or a duck pond representative of the good people off this land?

Again David is choosing to cynically focus on individuals. Actually I think that Julie Kirkbride has been an excellent MP over the last 12 years and I'm very sad that she has been hounded out by an overzealous media and constituents who are unwilling to listen to her side of the story. But Bromsgrove is all the poorer for it, so thats their choice isn't it.

"Since when was anyopne with a moat or a duck pond representative of the good people off this land?"

You don't get out much into the real world do you David? If you did, then you would know that there are ALL SORTS of people, places and socio-economic groups in our great land that makes it impossible to make such generalisations about what is 'representative'. The moat I can just about agree with you on, but do you REALLY think that the MP concerned is the only person in the country who owns a duck pond? Would it have been better if he'd claimed for a goldfish pond instead? Of course not.

David has found a bandwagon to jump on, he's a parliamentary candidate that wants to smear everybody except for him, and thats fine; we all know where he's coming from.

But when the election is over and he has been inevitably defeated in Stoke North, I just hope that he is able to think about some of the silly and cynical positions that he has taken over the years and perhaps think about how he can improve his campaign before he tries to foist his 'services' onto other unsuspecting parts of the country.

No SHaun see once again you try and divert the attention away from the wrong doings of your tory friends... well maybe not friends, have they let you back intot he meetings yet or are you so Tory boy boring even the tories dont let you attaned the meetings still.

Takes all sorts???? What a piss poor answer trying to justify a moat around ones house.... bet your socialist labour card carrying mom and dad love you for thet?

Julie Kirkbride should be rposecuted, try and deny that then Shaun.

I'm getting a little sick of your personal jibes against me David. Just for the record, can you please tell us what gives you the right to comment on the either my upbringing, or my family life-all of which you have seen fit to mention over the months. Perhaps you could tell us just what you know about ANY of those subjects that makes you such an authority on it?

On the subject of Julie Kirkbride, you tell me why you think she should be prosecuted and I'll tell you whether or not I agree.

The facts are loud and clear - read the green book, its available through Hansards and then you tell me how building an extension or claiming on other homes that her husband was claiming on as well as having modelling photos done was anything to do with representing her seat in parliament. - not to mention all of the other expenses abuses..... but then its a case of Monkey See, Monkey Say, but monkey no do wrong in the Tory party recently - hypocrits.

Of course if Camoron had got his way then the expenses would never have been made public, now i wonder why he wanted that then?

I'm afraid I can't be bothered to go and read any green book, David. If what Julie Kirkbride did was openly breaking the rules then she deserves to go and she deserves to be prosecuted. If her claims were within the rules however, it is as I have been saying, the rules were wrong and need to be changed.

Your constant attempts to jump on this bandwagon and make out that one party is any more guilty than any other is very telling of your strategy. Only the Liberal Democrats have tried to claim that they are totally beyond implication when it comes to these claims-even to the extent that they continue to dispute that they were wrong to claim even when the abuses were published!

I'm not saying that my party is whiter than white. Clearly that would be nonsense. But neither should you be trying to use this issue for your own cynical purposes.

P.S. your now compulsory useage of the Camoron jibe is getting a little tiresome and shows yet again what a 'professional politician' you really are.

SHaun obvioulsy believes that rules are open to interpritation..... dont they all when they are caught out.

Camoron is hiding behind the fact that he has been caught out... sitting with extremists in Europe like the Polish party who think Gays are sub human and a Czech group are racsists in the extreme.... oh, and no clear policy other than lip service and rhetoric to back it up...

Look at what was said on newsnight last night when asked about the treaty referendum..... pure loss for words... what will a tory goevrnment (god help us) do if a the treaty is retified before they come to power and then run a referendum to see if the people want to remain in it? No answer came the reply....... wheres the substanmtive p[olicy here then???

just had a quick look at MP Joan Walleys 2 stood out

Contribution Wigs £6039.00

Are MPs required to wear special wigs like Barristers?

Replacement Balcon furniture £1483.00
more bedroom furniture!!! £1483.00
LCD TV + DVD Recorder £1676.95
Ikea cleaning equipt' £270.98
maple desk £1399.00

Thank you.... it thought it was just me who thought she was abusing the system.

Her arguement for it all was 'well i am on 375th on the list of highest spender'

SO maybe the case but that means there were some 300 plus less expensive too, and Joan... its not a competition.

Look at the food bill.... thats one of the digustiong things aboout the whole affair... food should come out of your salary... everyone incurrs that expense so how being an MP makes it any different i dont know.

dont think food under 250 a month needs no receipt either seen joan clamed 250 one month 232 another.

Plus even a claim for TV Licence ¿

I think its the small things like food Tv Licence, Toaster, vacum cleaner are more annoying then the large baltant claims

Absolutely Ian... its the everyday expenses that we all incurr that they have claimed for that does annoy everyone.... after all what do they do with their salary then?

Exactly, Yes I know and will admit my employee pays for my food, cleaning, furniture, TV, phone and bills but thats called my wages, why cant I claim the above as my expenses of working?

Goto http://mps-expenses.guardian.co.uk/ and help out

ian norris: Exactly, Yes I know and will admit my employee pays for my food, cleaning, furniture, TV, phone and bills but thats called my wages, why cant I claim the above as my expenses of working?
Goto http://mps-expenses.guardian.co.uk/ and help out

Ian,

Have you been drinking? If so I hope it was several pints of 'Titanic', our own brewery right here in Burslem or am I wrong? Hope not.

Just think folks, Fatwas, nonsense threats, blowing us all up, us lot will continue to be a lost cause!!!

And of course, our Ian, with his daft posts is rapidly gaining his place at 'The Round Table'. (Just remember Ian, I'm in charge at all times.)

Ps; I've also pointed this out to (sir) Tony too..

pooter go to that site and read Joans expenses claims, its public info

Ian. Sorry. And I'll do that.

Like I said in another post, the trouble is with here is that you haven't got the option to wipe a daft, ill considered post off.

Notice however, that certain posts are instantly banned in the blink of an eye...

Once again Ian, I apologise and if it were possible I'd delete the previous post.

Ian i am doing better than that, i am ploughing me way through allof Joans expenses and putting them into a data base so that everyone can see exactly what she has spent on which items in total over the last four years. I have nearly completed two years so far and will be publishing the results by the end of the week on me own website first and hopefuly followed by PitsnPots editorial thereafter.

David, please keep on, you're digging is doing all of us a service and I look forward to reading what you come up with.

To think I was fooled into admiring this woman.

pooter: your well random LOL, love it... and no thats not a proposal

ian norris: pooter: your well random LOL, love it… and no thats not a proposal

Ian, blame it on the Weather! Over and out before I make an even bigger fool of meself.

Just a primary taster guys but here we have the first results.

Over 24 months with five months expenses ‘missing’ between 2006 and 2007 Joan spent;

expense
mortgage 6377.48
food 3578.94
utilities 941.83
council tax 949.79
telephone personal use 659.53
cleaning 1301
service and maintenance 6848.68
service and maintenance 2 496.84
TV licence 265.5
repairs and insurance 861.44
table ware 51.9
Kitchen equipment 313.52
hotel costs 99
luggage 118.2
cleaning items 247.24
bedroom items 60
air conditioner 191.94
small furnishings 410.62

sum total month 23,773.45

I am intregued as to what the bedroom items were for 60 pounds!!:-) ANd i do hope the 118 on luggage was for a good quality matching fabric set!

sorry 'sum total month 23,773.45'

should read 'sum total 19 months 23,773.45'

Ian it wasnt contribution wigs it was the end of a paragraph... basically she has made a contribution to an organisation hows address and details are redacted (i mean blacked out!!!:-) )

SHould read '.......contribution was $6039'

I shall be asking the question via the mail... exactly what have you given of our taxes to whom?

WOW no wonder shes poplular if you can just wander around giving £6039 aways and then just claim it back, i'd prefer to see a £6000 wig tho how grand would that be.

I've been going through Rob Fello's just logging it to website thou, so cant post your great break down, did notice he spends a lot on soft furnishings tho.

Think this proves it time TV licence was scrapped for sure if even MPs cant afford it

WELL DONE DAVID.