| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 3367
Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RockitRon wrote: |
The two films in question, as reported in the BBC News report, were Oceans 13 and Surf's Up, both rated PG. I'd have thought they were more likely to induce sleep than...
|
Those AND the adult films were on the expenses.
| RockitRon wrote: |
More seriously, though, John and Rachel are right. If she had been found to be claiming expenses she wasn't entitled to from a private company or the armed forces she'd have been out on her ear already, and no room for error. |
| colby wrote: |
They're getting action - a change in the rule on disclosure (and governed by the Freedom of Information Act) which kicks in next month. That's the point that I've been making. |
Right. But that doesn't excuse/allow for what the Smiths have been up to. So they need to pay penalty.
The current guidance on the MPs 'expenses rules' says no expenses should cause any issues that will raise question in public (that's not the actual wording, can't find the clause that was quoted somewhere else).
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Minx
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 4088
Location: France/Spain/Peterborough/Tenerife
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see that the Government is saying that they now "know where the source of the leak is, but not yet the individual concerned".
Let me guess...... could it perhaps be the Accounts Department....... and maybe a low paid clerk with anti-Labour political persuasions??? 
_________________
Minx
To err is human, to forgive - canine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
colby
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Minx wrote: | | Let me guess...... could it perhaps be the Accounts Department....... and maybe a low paid clerk with anti-Labour political persuasions??? |
Yes, a low-paid civil servant who finds the prospect of an alleged 6-figure bribe somewhat tantalising, perhaps?
_________________
(signature and avatar removed, violated forum Rule 2.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Briant
Joined: 02 Jun 2007
Posts: 964
Location: Liverpool England UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why would a Government Minister claim back 88p for a bathroom item?  Was it just a security leak? Or a rubber duck?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
