• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Correct. I think I owe her an apology of my own. Obviously I was wrong and she needn't pay the whole lot back. A simple apology (that lasted 32 seconds) was all it needed to make up for her "oversight" and for obstructing (or not helping) the investigation.

Silly silly me. There I was expecting better of the people that tell us that the press can't self regulate. Not to mention IBS who doesn't like benefit cheats, but is happy to back an expenses cheat.


You forgot to mention when any MP apologises everything should be forgotten because they are honourable people:hilarious:
 
What a shame!







it is that she hasn't done the full resignation and left her seat too.
It would have been an interesting bye election.
 
Miller is yet another MP caught in the net.They will never learn.

Cameron has come out of this as very weak.He should have fired her when the story first broke.
 
She should have just paid back the full amount without arguing
 
The thing is she has resigned because the issue is becoming a distraction from the European elections. She's not resigned because she thinks she's done anything wrong. Presumably her resignation doesn't include a promise to pay back the £40,000 she "inadvertently" claimed for? It's not like she can't afford it after making £1m profit on a house we paid for.

She bought a second home, we paid her mortgage on it. She then adopted that house has her primary residence, paid the mortgage for a few years and then sold it. She made a £1m profit. But by making that her primary residence (and paying the mortgage for few years) she also saved £280,000 in capital gains tax that she would have had to pay if she had kept this house as her secondary home. (Ignoring for the time being that this secondary home was lived in by her parents which AFAIK is also against the rules.)

Surely after making that amount of profit she could afford to pay back £40,000? In reality she should seriously consider paying back the £280,000 to the tax man.

This really is a load of bollocks:

BBC

Maria Miller has denied being forced to stand down as culture secretary after a damaging row about her expenses, insisting it was her decision.

"I take full responsibility for my decision to resign. I think it's the right thing to do," she said.

Really? So why did it take a full week? If it was the right thing to do why did you apologise (for 32 seconds) in the House of Commons, and not resign then? Don't make me laugh.

I also think Camerscum has come out of this badly too. He was telling all and sundry that her apology was the right thing, and then he accepts her resignation. If he was sure she was right, then why did he allow her to resign? He should have done the right thing in the first place, but he didn't. He was weak, and has been shown to be the hypocrite we all knew him to be. Again, he doesn't like benefit cheats, and (quite rightly) comes down hard on them, but when someone cheats their expenses it's not a problem. I wonder why that is Dave?
 
If any of us appeared in court over 40k of fiddling and we "apologise unreservedly" would the court let us walk away without further action.

Every MP MUST be whiter than white and if they are caught cheating they should be made to pay with lengthy spells inside and I don't mean a few months I mean several year's.
 
If any of us appeared in court over 40k of fiddling and we "apologise unreservedly" would the court let us walk away without further action.

Every MP MUST be whiter than white and if they are caught cheating they should be made to pay with lengthy spells inside and I don't mean a few months I mean several year's.

More to the point, would we be told we only had to pay back £5800, and that we could keep the rest?
 
Ok, the main points here as I see them:

She was overpaid expenses by £40K, this should be re-paid

It's been claimed as an oversight, and this has been accepted by the commons standards committee. This being the case would you want someone in a Government position who's capable of this type of mistake?

As it's been accepted by the authorities as an error, it's not deliberate fraud so any suggestions of imprisonment is ridiculous (unless you want to start imprisoning people for innocent errors? Good luck with that legislation!)

I'm not party as to whether or not it was deliberate, but once it's been accepted as such it's hardly going to be a criminal act. Any punishment would be akin to imprisoning someone because you believe them to be guilty, even if found not so at a trial.

As for expenses, I don't see why mortgage payments should be covered. It'd make far more sense for the Government to purchase properties for the use of sitting MPs, and for these to be handed on to successors as and when members retire or fail to gain re election. They do it for the PM, and Chancellor, so why not for all MPs (or even all that live a certain distance from the capital)
 
I have read that she will get £17,000 for resigning from the cabinet!
How mad are we to put up with these shysters?
"All in it together" ha ha.:angry:
 
Ok, the main points here as I see them:

She was overpaid expenses by £40K, this should be re-paid

It's been claimed as an oversight, and this has been accepted by the commons standards committee. This being the case would you want someone in a Government position who's capable of this type of mistake?

As it's been accepted by the authorities as an error, it's not deliberate fraud so any suggestions of imprisonment is ridiculous (unless you want to start imprisoning people for innocent errors? Good luck with that legislation!)

I'm not party as to whether or not it was deliberate, but once it's been accepted as such it's hardly going to be a criminal act. Any punishment would be akin to imprisoning someone because you believe them to be guilty, even if found not so at a trial.

As for expenses, I don't see why mortgage payments should be covered. It'd make far more sense for the Government to purchase properties for the use of sitting MPs, and for these to be handed on to successors as and when members retire or fail to gain re election. They do it for the PM, and Chancellor, so why not for all MPs (or even all that live a certain distance from the capital)


If she was so innocent,

Why upon realising the error she did not repay the amount in full straightaway ?
Instead she chose to bully reporters and the investigation team,Constantly failed to offer the information the committee required .

Are these the actions of an innocent person.
 
If she was so innocent,

Why upon realising the error she did not repay the amount in full straightaway ?
Instead she chose to bully reporters and the investigation team,Constantly failed to offer the information the committee required .

Are these the actions of an innocent person.

I'm fairly certain I've not said I believe she's innocent of the crime, merely that she's been found to be innocent. It'd be hard to prosecute someone who's been cleared of intent, merely because one's pretty sure they're guilty
 
On Question Time there was the Miller topic, poor answers from her replacement toryboy, although, to my surprise Harriet Harmen spoke some sense; fair play to her for that as usually she just spouts party lines.
The overall impression was that politicians STILL do not understand the public perception and loathing of the all too low ethics and standards that STILL continue in the H of P.
Lastly the audience was very tame and a tad boring.
 
Politicians do not live in the real world,They are even able to eat and drink in parliament at vastly discounted prices.

They win win
We lose lose.
 
The thing is there is a simple way to sort this whole mess out, and that is to pay the MPs a decent amount. It's ridiculous that they should have to live on about 50-60 grand when most of them have to maintain two households because they live too far away from London to commute.

It would be far simpler to pay an MP, say £200,00, and tell them "that's your lot", do with it what you want. However, it may also be more sensible to pay the opposite of London weighting where MPs that are deemed to live close enough to London get paid less because they don't need a 2nd home. If on the odd occasion they need to stay late at the Houses of Parliament then they do what the rest of us do, and book into a hotel, or stay with friends.

It also shouldn't be possible to flip your primary and secondary homes. That would be pretty much self policing if the MPs that live close enough to London aren't allowed a 2nd home. For the rest it would be obvious which is their primary and which is their secondary home. (The primary is the one in their constituency, and the secondary one is the one in London.) Any profit made of the 2nd home when it is sold is paid over to a fund that is used to help pay other MPs salaries.

Most MPs are decent people and actually work extremely hard, and long hours. The vast majority could earn a whole lot more if they gave up politics and just got a job. A lot of them are solicitors, barristers, and the vast majority have a degree. That is why I get upset when one or two of them ruin the reputation of the whole house. £200,000 may be too much, but I think you get my point.
 
The thing is there is a simple way to sort this whole mess out, and that is to pay the MPs a decent amount. It's ridiculous that they should have to live on about 50-60 grand when most of them have to maintain two households because they live too far away from London to commute.

It would be far simpler to pay an MP, say £200,00, and tell them "that's your lot", do with it what you want. However, it may also be more sensible to pay the opposite of London weighting where MPs that are deemed to live close enough to London get paid less because they don't need a 2nd home. If on the odd occasion they need to stay late at the Houses of Parliament then they do what the rest of us do, and book into a hotel, or stay with friends.

It also shouldn't be possible to flip your primary and secondary homes. That would be pretty much self policing if the MPs that live close enough to London aren't allowed a 2nd home. For the rest it would be obvious which is their primary and which is their secondary home. (The primary is the one in their constituency, and the secondary one is the one in London.) Any profit made of the 2nd home when it is sold is paid over to a fund that is used to help pay other MPs salaries.

Most MPs are decent people and actually work extremely hard, and long hours. The vast majority could earn a whole lot more if they gave up politics and just got a job. A lot of them are solicitors, barristers, and the vast majority have a degree. That is why I get upset when one or two of them ruin the reputation of the whole house. £200,000 may be too much, but I think you get my point.

Even simpler -

Build a large halls of residence. It only need to be a few hundred rooms. It can be a crashpad with a 24/7 canteen for food, gym/pool, some meeting rooms, sex dungeon etc etc.

When parliament is in recess (something like 100 days! even teachers don't get that!!!) then the halls can be let out as a hotel or hostel or something.
 
Back
Top