Ministers' Expenses: This is Beyond a Joke

**OwlHoot** · 5 April 2009, 06:50

I tried running a few names through a porn star name generator :

Tony Blair - Don Looselips
Gordon Brown - Gunnar Slamm
Harriet Harman - Slappy Strokum

Hmm, not bad. I wonder how Geoff Hoon comes out:

Geoff Hoon - Geoff Hoon

**centurian** · 5 April 2009, 07:16

Originally posted by NickFitz View Post

From the Beeb:

[Transport Secretary Geoff] Hoon claimed an allowance for his constituency home, while letting out his London flat and living in a rent-free Whitehall apartment.

He has defended the claims - made while he was defence secretary - saying he acted within the rules.

...

Mr Hoon lived in an Admiralty House residence for three-and-a-half years while the property registered with Commons authorities as his main home was let to a private tenant.

Let me see... the pension for that Goodwin chap that they're getting so worked up about seems to be "within the rules", so they threaten to introduce retrospective legislation to change the rules.

All the BN66 stuff? It seems that it was "within the rules", so they threaten to introduce retrospective legislation to change the rules.

MPs' expenses? It seems that as they were "within the rules", nothing need be done.

Now, when they get around to deciding that the ways in which you have benefited by being outside IR35 were "within the rules", which way do you think they'll jump?

Yeah, I'm no fan of the BN66 crowd, who weren't quite clued into reality if they thought they could get away without paying any tax - and are now scaremongering the IR35 crowd into supporting them...

However, given the behaviour of our MP's over expenses, MPs seem to be sending out a clear message that as long as you comply with the letter of the rules, then practically anything is fair game - even if what you are doing is clearly reprehensible and morally wrong.

I wonder what would happen if some squeaky clean MP (assuming we can find one) put forward a private members bill to retrospectively clarify MPs expenses - how far would that get?

**BrilloPad** · 5 April 2009, 07:45

Originally posted by centurian View Post

Yeah, I'm no fan of the BN66 crowd, who weren't quite clued into reality if they thought they could get away without paying any tax - and are now scaremongering the IR35 crowd into supporting them...

However, given the behaviour of our MP's over expenses, MPs seem to be sending out a clear message that as long as you comply with the letter of the rules, then practically anything is fair game - even if what you are doing is clearly reprehensible and morally wrong.

I wonder what would happen if some squeaky clean MP (assuming we can find one) put forward a private members bill to retrospectively clarify MPs expenses - how far would that get?

Of course you wont find a squeaky clean MP. Labour know they are going to lose next year so are lining their pockets now.

Interesting you appear to support retrospective legislation though. Personally I dont think it should be used atall.

**centurian** · 5 April 2009, 08:09

Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post

Interesting you appear to support retrospective legislation though. Personally I dont think it should be used atall.

I just don't see it as completely black and white.

I am sure that if a paedophile found a loophole in the law to get away scot free from all his crimes and the government wanted to retrospectively close it - would there be many objections?

Now BN66 avoidance/evasion (delete as appropriate) isn't as bad as paedophilia, but still sits more on the blacker end of the scale for me.

That said, the recent actions of MP's certainly put BN66 into a different perspective.

**moorfield** · 5 April 2009, 08:30

Hoon is a c*** of the highest order, I would expect nothing from less from him than expense fiddling and lawyers waffle about being "within the rules".

**OwlHoot** · 5 April 2009, 08:34

Originally posted by centurian View Post

I just don't see it as completely black and white.

I am sure that if a paedophile found a loophole in the law to get away scot free from all his crimes and the government wanted to retrospectively close it - would there be many objections?

Now BN66 avoidance/evasion (delete as appropriate) isn't as bad as paedophilia, but still sits more on the blacker end of the scale for me.

That said, the recent actions of MP's certainly put BN66 into a different perspective.

"Hard cases make bad law"

Retrospective legislation is always wrong, however "deserving" and however much the kneejerk public support.

Apart from anything else it sets a bad precedent - This time it may be something everyone approves, but once the Government start moving the goal posts like that they'll soon be making it up as they go along and applying retrospective changes left right and centre!

**ASB** · 5 April 2009, 08:52

Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post

Apart from anything else it sets a bad precedent - This time it may be something everyone approves, but once the Government start moving the goal posts like that they'll soon be making it up as they go along and applying retrospective changes left right and centre!

Quite. Law should be about certainty going forward. It should be black and white - however complex to make the decision. There are two state. Legal or not. Changes can only be made to prevent the abuse that is seen from continuing. Retropspection means there is definitely no certainty, and thus no law. That way lies anarchy.

**expat** · 5 April 2009, 08:57

Originally posted by centurian View Post

I just don't see it as completely black and white.

I am sure that if a paedophile found a loophole in the law to get away scot free from all his crimes and the government wanted to retrospectively close it - would there be many objections?

Yes. If your paedophile did things that were not against the law, they were not crimes. Maybe he was repulsive, what he did was morally wrong, and his actions should have been against the law: but if they weren't, then they weren't crimes. It is misleading for you to describe such a situation in those terms, it begs the question: by using the word "crimes", you are asking for your claim to be granted before discussion.

However, you make a good point: I might be against retrospective legislation because it is wrong in principle, but you can probably stir up Joe Public into approving of it when it brings about something that he wants; or disapprove of it in the opposite case.

**SantaClaus** · 5 April 2009, 09:02

Originally posted by NickFitz View Post

From the Beeb:

[Transport Secretary Geoff] Hoon claimed an allowance for his constituency home, while letting out his London flat and living in a rent-free Whitehall apartment.

He has defended the claims - made while he was defence secretary - saying he acted within the rules.

...

Mr Hoon lived in an Admiralty House residence for three-and-a-half years while the property registered with Commons authorities as his main home was let to a private tenant.

Let me see... the pension for that Goodwin chap that they're getting so worked up about seems to be "within the rules", so they threaten to introduce retrospective legislation to change the rules.

All the BN66 stuff? It seems that it was "within the rules", so they threaten to introduce retrospective legislation to change the rules.

MPs' expenses? It seems that as they were "within the rules", nothing need be done.

Now, when they get around to deciding that the ways in which you have benefited by being outside IR35 were "within the rules", which way do you think they'll jump?

And now the latest information to emerge in the Sunday Times: "MP's claim stamp duty on expenses". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6036712.ece

No wonder they don't mind raising stamp duty when they don't have to pay it!

Ministers' Expenses: This is Beyond a Joke