Monday, 12 October 2009


I read with interest in “The Scotsman” that Jacqui Smith, the disgraced ex-Home Secretary, has been order to apologise to the House of Commons for her “clear” breach of the rules on second homes.

So just a few points:

We could all see it was a “clear” breach of the rules so why couldn’t she, or indeed her boss, who stood by her?

If she couldn’t see that that was a “clear” breach of the rules, was she really the right person to be interpreting and framing laws that affect millions of people, especially in England, but also in other parts of the UK? I mean, “clearly”, she’s none too bright.

If someone from a sink estate, claiming some sort of social security housing benefit for a home that he or she didn’t live in (and it does happen), would he or she simply be asked to come along and say a few words of apology? Or would he, or she, be marched down the nick pretty damned sharpish?

Why is it appropriate to apologise to the House of Commons. It wasn’t their money she was stealing. It was ours.

The rest of the story in the Scotsman goes on to talk about the Legg letters and how some members may feel disinclined to repay monies they ill came by. You really, really couldn’t make that one up. It’s worth a read.


  1. Seems there were quite a few clear breaches of the rules. Now it seems that even the cyclops is going to have to re-pay a shed load of money he diddled us out of.

  2. Munguin:

    Certainly looks to me that the Browns are not too familiar with soap and water. Seems like an awful lot of cleaning going on in places they rarely live. But I'm damned if I should see why we should pay for their cleaners. They don't pay for ours! Lots of people have very busy jobs, with loads of responsibility but don't expect taxpayers to fork out to pay for their houses to be cleaned.

    Maybe Prime Miniserial hands are shaped differently from the rest of us, don't readily fit into "Marigolds" and come out in boils at the mere thought of Cilit Bang!

    It's back to them thinking they are special. They need to learn to live with the fact that this is the 21st century; we've thrown off the "us and them" thing.

    Come on Sarah pet, get out the Cif....

  3. The boot might have apologised to parliament but as you say, its us she should be apologising to.

    I watched part of this on the BBC news last night and they say it is tradition that when an MP makes an apology then the rest of the thieves and spivs sit in silence.

    Jesus talk about looking after your own!! Its them against us, the public.

  4. Spook.

    That's it. Spot on. They are supposed to work for us, but it's us against them in reality.

    I see that there is a campaign to stop her going to the Lords when she gets booted out in May. I'll sign that. Although, there was one against Martin going and that did sod all good.