When former Scunthorpe MP Elliott Morley was discovered having taken expenses for 18 months toward a mortgage which had been repaid 18 months earlier, the Taxpayers Alliance reported it to Scotland Yard and threatened a private prosecution if police refused to take action. Morley is now facing criminal charges, and initially said he did not see how he'd committed an offence. The charge amounts to fraud, and theft from the public purse.
Labour MP Fabian Hamilton declared his mother’s home in London as his main residence, which allowed him to claim thousands of pounds to improve his family home in Leeds. The Leeds North East MP also overcharged taxpayers £2,850 in 2004 by claiming for the full cost of his mortgage payments when he was entitled only to reimbursement of the interest.
Conservative MP Stephen Crabb claimed that his main home was a room in a flat rented by another MP after buying a new family home in Wales. He claimed £9,300 in stamp duty, and he had previously "flipped" the property designated as his second home to the family house from another London flat that was sold for a profit after more than £8,000 in taxpayer-funded refurbishment.
Tory MP Andrew MacKay was sacked as David Cameron's parliamentary aide after Cameron found his claims for tens of thousands of pounds in costs towards a "second home", even though he had no main residence, were "unacceptable".
i.e. Mackay falsely claimed expenses, he knew he didn't have a main residence, and he took his expenses to the limit because he thought he could get away with it until Cameron sacked him.
Now for David Laws who 'happens' to be gay.
Like most MP's, Laws previously put in claims without the need for receipts of up to £200 a month, saying they were for incidentals. But when the rules changed and receipts had to be shown, his incidental claims went to £37.
In essence his claims were once within the rules like all other MP's where he could take money for nothing, but once he had to prove those claims, his deceit became clear and his claims reduced as a consequence because he had nothing to actually claim for just like he had nothing to claim for BEFORE the rules changed.
He also deceived taxpayers in his claiming for two rooms at a private residence which he failed to disclose belonged to his homosexual partner James Lundie who is a parliamentary lobbyist with a job to persuade MP's to vote favourably on issues. Laws kept his homosexual relationship with a lobbyist secret and clearly if he was being lobbied by that person then he had a duty to reveal his personal relationship with him, yet Laws didn't disclose that relationship and is said to have kept it hidden for a decade. He now plays the coy shy and private homosexual in an attempt to gain sympathy.
Cameron said he hoped one day Laws could return to politics, yet Laws has duped the taxpayer out of £40,000 plus.
An article in today's Independent questions how Laws and Lundie could in fact have kept their relationship a 'secret'.
The articles author Philip Hensher makes a clear and unambiguous analogy that such a secret would in fact be impossible to keep, since Laws and Lundie's domestic arrangements and social lives would undoubtedly have been impossible to hide, notleast that Laws is a 44 year old male, had no girlfriend in a decade, and of course would naturally have been thought of either as a hermit or gay.
In fact why would Laws want to keep his sexuality a secret anyway, given his beliefs about homosexuality. His sexual preferences are nothing other than a red-herring to draw sympathy to a fraudster who says he hasn't benefitted financially.
If he didn't benefit then who did?
He received over £40,000 over 8 years.
Granted he 'could' have had his own residential costs paid but he chose not to.
But he excused himself by saying he wanted his partner James Lundie to be able to get a mortgage with the money he paid him for rent, despite that rental of property belonging to a partner is forbidden under house rules.
His motive was to benefit another who happens to be his lover, so who's kidding who here when Mr Filth, David Cameron declares; "I hope he can return to government one day"?
Cameron sacked a guy for less than this, and some MP's have been charged with criminal offences after a police inquiry so why is Laws different except that Laws has excused his own dishonesty on grounds that because he's homosexual he 'thought' it was acceptable to rob the public?
Laws gave the benefit of his position to claim expenses to another, and James Lundie profited on the sale of his home to the tune of £193,000 whilst inheriting an ongoing ability to meet his mortgage payments specifically as a result of his personal attachment to Laws who could not otherwise provide that benefit if he had claimed within the rules.
Why did Laws need to rent two rooms, does the taxpayer not have a right to know this given Cameron's pledge that government expenses will be more transparent? Cameron is making a big issue of wanting government to be more open with the public after all.
Why did Cameron sack one minister and not another?
It can only be because Laws is gay, and Cameron is courting the gay vote.
But whether Laws is gay or straight, the fact he intentionally defrauded the taxpayer does not change. He stole money and lied about it in order to do so and that's enough to keep Laws the hell away from public office.
Laws is not the only person in this land who is capable of taking a red marker pen to a bunch of inflated spending figures in order to save a paltry £6 billion of taxpayers money.
Anyone in this country with a red market pen is capable of that!
Laws has no former experience. He is no 'wonder boy', and he's not been in place long enough (15 days), to even be noticed. He has in fact done NOTHING YET except TALK.
I still cannot see why MP's who commit fraud are not immediately sacked and arrested and made open to charges like the rest of us.
MP's are not above the Law, but it seems Law is above the Law.
Mr Filth, David Cameron on the other hand appears to have his knickers and his thinking in a twist when it comes to making decisions in the public interest for he has given muddled thinking on transparency and flawed judgment on at least two expenses claim scandals.
It appears that Mr Filth cannot tell the difference between truth and lies, same as his LibDem bum chum David Laws.
Like Nick Griffin said; "They're all the same and they're all to blame".
Lastly, I'd like to know James Lundie's lobbying position. Is it for gay rights, civil rights, ethnic rights, indigenous rights, or is it just 69 like the rest of Laws and Cameron's mates who climb up each others backsides to save themselves?
0 comments:
Post a Comment