Tuesday, 24 May 2011

85% OF PEERS ARE AT IT...


The Noble Baron Hanningfield made the claim in defence of his own fiddling in court in England today.

Hanningfield’s excuse for stealing money from the taxpayer was that he thought it was unfair that he did the work of four frontbenchers in the Lords and didn’t get properly recompensed for it. That's the Tories for you!!

Asked about the fact that he had claimed £25,000 for employing someone to whom he paid only £12,500, he said that he could have had £130,000 for staffing expenses had he been in the Commons.
Perhaps he hadn’t noticed that was wasn’t in the Commons (all these flunkies bowing and scraping and calling him “my lord” might have been a clue to that), and that if he had a problem with the amount of work that he had to do, he should have gone to his party leader and asked for more resources, instead of just stealing them.

His excuse for charging for hotel rooms for nights when he had been taken home (if I remember rightly, by his chauffeur), he said that 85% of Lords were doing it. But he wouldn’t name them. Well, it wouldn’t do you know, old chap, splitting on a fellow’s co-peers.

The poor old soul said that he had no stocks and shares, no savings and that most of his clothes came from Marks & Spencer. My goodness, a Tory peer dressing out of M&S, tut tut. (Actually M’lord only my best clothes come from M&S. You need a mortgage for them.)

He also, weirdly, produced a biscuit tin full of receipts which he said he had not claimed in a career of more than 40 years.

What kind of weirdo saves all his receipts for 40 years, doesn’t claim any of them and then steals public money and justifies it by saying that he felt he was underpaid.

At 70 the Noble Lord is entitled to his retirement pension, always supposing that he has paid his NI contributions. It’s good enough for millions of other people. Why is it not for him?


***


I reckon all the blog readers will be relieved to know that Munguin's Man in America, Danny, based as he is in the state of Missouri, was fortunate enough NOT to be in Joplin when the tornado hit. You can't imagine the relief I felt this morning when I saw his name in my inbox.

17 comments:

  1. The man's a disgrace, Tris - just like the toe-rag Elliot Morley who wept in the dock when he was sentenced, his excuse is that everyone else is doing it. That begs the question of why more of them haven't appeared in Court. Many thieves and pilferers have got away scot-free (if you'll excuse the expression!) and many have been re-elected while their constituents were kept in the dark. It's bloody shameful. Have tweeted it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was really my point GV. Here's a man who says that 85% of peers are stealing from the taxpayer (and as the Lords is the second biggest legislative chamber after the Chinese parliament, that’s a fair number), so what are we doing about it? Nothing.

    The government is coming down hard on social security cheats, but when it comes to Noble and Honourable members, we get half a dozen out of six or seven hundred thrown to us and the rest get to keep their perks.

    Interestingly, did you know that the expression “Scot Free” comes from the fact that whilst most countries have either guilty or not guilty verdicts, Scotland has a third. Juries can only call “guilty” if there is no doubt that the prisoner did it. They can call “not guilty” if they are sure that that is the correct verdict; but it they have doubts they should call “Not Proven”, which means that accused goes free, but with a stain on their character, because they have not been properly cleared of the crime. The verdict “Not Proven” is going “Scot Free”.

    Ahhh...every visit to Munguin’s Republic is a wee education all to itself... is it not?

    (You probably knew it anyway.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought you had bought an injunction as blogger wouldn't let me post.:) Democracy is what we need in the UK just like Egypt and others are fighting for. Whatever happened to the seizing of criminal assets by the state in these leeches.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Umm! CH managed to break through the Unionist firewall dont know how will mention it at the next meeting...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah yes CH but you can't talk about it because it was a super injunction. In fact it was so super an injunction that even I wasn't allowed to know about it.

    It's amazing what Munguin's millions can do.

    Ryan Giggs eat your heart out.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You should keep quiet Niko. Careless talk cost whatits, and all that jazz. Mum's the word. OK? :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. tris..

    "The verdict “Not Proven” is going “Scot Free"
    I
    Ha ha I doubt it. I suspect you made that up..

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot%20free.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey where's Dean ? He thinks 'the other house' are as clean as a whistle lol

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good news about Danny. I was worried after seeing the devestation in the US!

    Can you imagine the House of doddering old farts which administers 40 million English people is second only to the Chinese parliament which governs 1.5 Billion.

    And now Nick Clegg with his constitutional affairs hat on wants to have some of them elected for 15 years. He wanted to discuss this with President Obama but understandably the US head of state couldn't care less and did not want to waste an hour of his life massaging Nick's ego and suggested he meet Joe Biden instead. Can you imagine the front of it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. No Monty, I didn't make it up. I read it somewhere a few months ago, and I'm trying hard, without success, to remember where. But as the piece you link to shows, there are other ideas as to where the phrase came from.

    Tax free is interesting, but it indicates "free" as in "without cost", whereas we always use "Scot Free" to indicate "without punishment". I've certainly never heard it used to describe tax evasion, although the two examples given indicate that its use was punishment oriented way back. I wonder about the use of the word “scotch” given the origin of “scot” was Norse (tax), and not related to Scotland.

    I'm not always 100% sure of things I read on the net and I think that either of these possibilities is not unreasonable. :¬)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dean has been rather quiet over the last few days. End of term. Maybe he's been celebrating, Hugh.

    ReplyDelete
  12. More front than Rothsay, I think Munguin.

    Although I'm wondering why Joe would have been interested in what England does with a pile of doddering old aristocrats, most of whom, it appears, are fiddling like Nero.

    I was interested to hear the President, when he was in Ireland, talk about the Queen of England's visit. Does that mean that he knows something about future plans that we don't?

    Although I suppose he was simply making reference to the mos important place of which she is queen. After all, she is Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Papua New Guinea, Queen of Tuvalu, etc, as well as Queen of Scots (not to mention being the Duc de Normandie in the Channel Islands!)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Tris, I noticed that during his toast to the Queen, because he referred to her as Queen of England then too. That seems to be how Americans always refer to her, and I'm never sure whether to take it as an insult (that they're implying Scotland is part of England) or a compliment (that they don't think Scotland are under her reign).

    Maybe Obama just thinks "she can't be Queen of Scotch, because she's called Elizabeth II and there's never been an Elizabeth I in Scotchland"?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Morning Doug, well, she's not Queen of Scotland, only of Scots.

    I think it's just that Americans tend to think of the words 'England' and 'Britain' as being interchangable....much as people in the west never really understood the difference between the Soviet Union and Russia.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Doug: I'm thinking btw, that there's never been Elizabeth I in Canada, Papua New Guinea, Australia, Jamaica, New Zealand, etc, etc.

    It's all down to England and Wales.

    Typical.

    ReplyDelete