MPs' expenses

[cjp]

Yet a gain a politician has been coaught with their fingers in our till.

Maria Miller, Basingstoke MP has over-claimed on her expenses by more than £40,000

If you or I could make off with thousands I suspect our collars would be felt since we are only little people and we pay taxes.

One rule for them other rules for us.

Make your feeling known here

or here
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/maria-miller-mp-resign-as-basingstoke-mp-and-culture-secretary#share

 

[SS4]

Typical, did this ever get to court?

 

[meridian2]

I think you need to realise that this is always going to happen. Honest politicians are an oxymoron.

 

[PermitToTravel]

She should be imprisoned >:(

 

[table38]

Typical, did this ever get to court?

Presumably Miller could always go for the "Margaret Moran defence" and say she is too depressed to go to court

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238372/Disgraced-MP-Margaret-Moran-spotted-pub--despite-ill-stand-trial-fraud.html

 

[NSEFAN]

Out of interest, what was the money spent on?

 

[TheKnightWho]

As scandalous as this is, I wish we'd stop focussing on it. Even if every MP took £1m for themselves, it would be 0.1% of the welfare budget alone.

 

[cjp]

As scandalous as this is, I wish we'd stop focussing on it. Even if every MP took £1m for themselves, it would be 0.1% of the welfare budget alone.

What level of help yourself to money you are not entitled to should we choose to ignore?
My original point was how dare they have one treatment for themselves who steal (make a mistake to finance another home's mortgage which they sell up for an large profit and a gentle tap on the wrist and not having to pay back even the amount the committee recomended
and a different treatment for others who break rules and make off with over £75,000.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Typical, did this ever get to court?

Of course not.
A committe of MPs suggested she ought to pay pack some £45,000 but in the end she was called upon to say sorry and she has to pay back less than a quarter of the recommend amount.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26897070

Our taxes pay for her taking that which she was not entitled to - our tax money

 

[SS4]

As scandalous as this is, I wish we'd stop focussing on it. Even if every MP took £1m for themselves, it would be 0.1% of the welfare budget alone.

I can just imagine the uproar/action if one of those people on welfare had done what this MP has done. If someone in work had done this from their employer they'd be facing charges or at least be sacked.

It's not even about the money - it shows she (and possibly other MPs) have either learnt nothing or maliciously ignored the previous scandal. These people are chosen by the public to represent them and expect some integrity.

I also believe Schnapps (the Conservative Party chairman) said that would/should(?) be the end of the matter according to what I heard on 5live (it's oddly difficult to find it on BBC News...)

 

[transmanche]

I can just imagine the uproar/action if one of those people on welfare had done what this MP has done.

The government seems to think that benefit fraudsters should face up to 10 years in jail. I don't see a why MP's expenses fraud should be treated any differently to benefit fraud.

 

[SS4]

The government seems to think that benefit fraudsters should face up to 10 years in jail. I don't see a why MP's expenses fraud should be treated any differently to benefit fraud.

I don't either but Satan will be skating to work before an MP is jailed. They seem to be above the law when it comes to white collar crime

 

[transmanche]

I don't either but Satan will be skating to work before an MP is jailed. They seem to be above the law when it comes to white collar crime

Actually five MPs and some peers have been jailed since the expenses scandal broke. I just don't think that the penalties are strong enough.

• Elliot Morley (16 months, served 4)
• David Chaytor (18 months, served 6)
• Eric Illsley (12 months, served 4)
• Jim Devine (16 months, served 4)
• Denis MacShane (6 months)
• Lord Taylor of Warwick (12 months, served 3)
• Lord Hanningfield (9 months, served 9 weeks)

 

[SS4]

Actually five MPs and some peers have been jailed since the expenses scandal broke. I just don't think that the penalties are strong enough.

• Elliot Morley (16 months, served 4)
• David Chaytor (18 months, served 6)
• Eric Illsley (12 months, served 4)
• Jim Devine (16 months, served 4)
• Denis MacShane (6 months)
• Lord Taylor of Warwick (12 months, served 3)
• Lord Hanningfield (9 months, served 9 weeks)

I stand corrected, I still wonder just how long an ordinary person would have got for the offence

 

[transmanche]

I stand corrected, I still wonder just how long an ordinary person would have got for the offence

According to the article I linked to above, 5% of those convicted of benefit fraud received custodial sentences - the average being just under 8 months.

Of course we don't know the amounts involved. But if the government is considering increasing the maximum sentences for such offences to 10 years - then the same should be done's for MPs who commit expenses fraud.

 

[Butts]

How many people on here have never fiddled their expenses ....

 

[PermitToTravel]

Of those here that can claim some form of business expense, definitely >0%, and I would be willing to bet >50%.

At any rate, it's significantly more reprehensible when it's taxpayer money. I can choose not to buy anything from a company if their prices are inflated due to employees stealing from them. I can't choose not to pay tax if government employees will steal it.

The £40,000 stolen by one person is 20% of the amount all of South Yorkshire's pensioners and disabled people have had their free train travel taken away from them to save. I don't necessarily agree with free train travel being an untenable right, but can definitely understand why people are enraged to the point of protesting if this is the way the saved money will be spent.

 

[Butts]

Of those here that can claim some form of business expense, definitely >0%, and I would be willing to bet >50%.

At any rate, it's significantly more reprehensible when it's taxpayer money. I can choose not to buy anything from a company if their prices are inflated due to employees stealing from them. I can't choose not to pay tax if government employees will steal it.

The £40,000 stolen by one person is 20% of the amount all of South Yorkshire's pensioners and disabled people have had their free train travel taken away from them to save. I don't necessarily agree with free train travel being an untenable right, but can definitely understand why people are enraged to the point of protesting if this is the way the saved money will be spent.

So that would include any Civil Servants or those of a similar ilk that are employed either directly or indirectly by the state

 

[PermitToTravel]

Yes, of course! I'd draw the line at a profit-making company contracted by the state, as they could theoretically contract a more efficient company.

It's of course immoral to steal from your employer or from anybody at all, but it's still a step down from stealing from society as a whole.

 

[meridian2]

How many people on here have never fiddled their expenses ....

More precisely, how many people have fiddled their expenses to the tune of a couple of thousands of pounds?

TheKnightWho is right. Despite it being quite a reprehensible thing to do, the amount that's claimed is only a fraction of the overall budget. The media pick up on it purely because of the size of the claims, and for what they've been claimed for (remember duck shelters?), and, moreover, because they're politicians ergo they're supposed to be in a position of up-most responsibility ()
I'm not defending politicians, but this is a practice that's not going to go away so long as new loopholes are exploited on virtually a daily basis.

 

[SS4]

How many people on here have never fiddled their expenses ....

Does that make it OK?

 

[Oswyntail]

To be fair (and I know that's less fun), the case was about how much allowance was permitted when mortgage interest rates changed. She carried on claiming at one interpretation, the rules people clarified with a second interpretation. It was a much more technical infringement than some of the others.
What is really stirring up the howls of (mock) outrage, of course, is that she is the minister responsible for press regulation, and the press, who don't want any regulation, sense they might be able to get their revenge.

 

[SS4]

What is really stirring up the howls of (mock) outrage, of course, is that she is the minister responsible for press regulation, and the press, who don't want any regulation, sense they might be able to get their revenge.

Leveson published his report in November 2012, it's pretty clear the government intends to do sod all about it

 

[transmanche]

How many people on here have never fiddled their expenses ....

I'll admit to being creative in order to get back the cost of a sandwich; but that's more than offset by the things I haven't claimed for (such as phone calls, parking meter charges and so forth). And I always take the tube, bus or tram; in situations when colleagues would take a cab. Or I stay with relatives rather than an expensive hotel. So no, I don't feel guilty for blagging a free sandwich or two.

Plus, I think most people would really have to go some in order to fiddle £40k on expenses!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I can just imagine the uproar/action if one of those people on welfare had done what this MP has done.

Just being curious as to the logic here, if people are claiming welfare benefits legitimately, would their benefit pre-assessment not have revealed the similar capital sum when the benefit level was in the process of evaluation ?

 

[Minilad]

I think the difference is that MPs should be above reproach. They are our representatives. They are not there to feather their own nests

 

[455driver]

They are not there to feather their own nests

Oh yes they are!

 

[SS4]

Just being curious as to the logic here, if people are claiming welfare benefits legitimately, would their benefit pre-assessment not have revealed the similar capital sum when the benefit level was in the process of evaluation ?

I was thinking of the media outrage that would happen if a benefit claimant committed fraud and I also suspect they'd not get away with a mere apology

 

[Oswyntail]

Leveson published his report in November 2012, it's pretty clear the government intends to do sod all about it

I don't know, not having seen much in the press about it. But remember we are not in a Labour parliament, where legislation is rushed through warts and all and replaced a few weeks later. It should take a couple of years to respond to a report of that magnitude properly.

 

[transmanche]

But remember we are not in a Labour parliament, where legislation is rushed through warts and all and replaced a few weeks later.

I think it's been demonstrated by all governments that they're capable of passing kneejerk-reaction laws and poorly-drafted laws. Like the Poundland 'work scheme' case? Or the 'abolition of the Independent Living Fund' case. Heck even as far back as the Dangerous Dogs Act!

 

[tony_mac]

Of those here that can claim some form of business expense, definitely >0%, and I would be willing to bet >50%.

Really? Why do you think so many people are dishonest? I'm not aware of anyone I know ever fiddling expenses.

At any rate, it's significantly more reprehensible when it's taxpayer money. I can choose not to buy anything from a company if their prices are inflated due to employees stealing from them. I can't choose not to pay tax if government employees will steal it.

I disagree with that. Stealing from a business may have significant effects on the business. E.g.; like you say, they increase prices, then maybe they can't compete with others, the business closes and many people lose their jobs...
I don't see why that is significantly 'better' than taking money from the state, which can, as you say, raise taxes to make up the shortfall.

It's of course immoral to steal from your employer or from anybody at all, but it's still a step down from stealing from society as a whole.

I just can't fathom this at all.
So it's better to rob an old lady of her pension, where she has to bear the entire burden, than to steal the same amount directly from the state, where the burden is shared by everyone?