MP claims for a floating duck house...

[max_tranmere]

Eric, I agree. If us mere mortals screwed up like that we would be in trouble, aswell as not be believed when we used these lame excuses.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]No political bias needed, duckhouse = ?1600 = zero taxpayer liability = Tory

Mortage fraud = ?16,000 taxpayer liability = Labour[/quote]

I've not followed the story that closely as I think all this bollocks is due to Jade Goody dying, the swine flu not being as bad as predicted -at least by the media-, the Beckhams are keeping a low profile abroad and no one's been caught having a blow-job while doing a nazi salute for about 6 months. What I'm trying to say is that the journos need something to write about don't they? It's not like MPs having been doing this for decades is it?

Anyway ? has it been proven that claiming for the non-existent mortgage wasn't a mistake? Has he admitted to claiming for a mortgage already paid off knowingly? Claiming for a duck-house isn't a mistake though, is it? No wonder that was turned down! And let's be honest: say the claim for the duck-house was accepted, would he have left it there? What next, a fucking mini assault course for the squirrels (or is that pronounced squiwwels when your a Tory?)

I don't think it matters what the costs involved were to be honest. It's the piss-taking that should be addressed. A thief is a thief regardless of whether he nicked your ?400 watch or ?30000 car. Arguing over money and whether a claim was accepted or not is just your way of excusing one MP's claim over another's, based on your political leanings.

[quote]Let's get back to the original point, if someone held a gun to your head and said you MUST pay ?100 to fund a duckhouse OR Elliott Morleys mortgage which would it be ? For me it's duck power all the way. He'll even clean your Loo.[/quote]

Lol! What a strange hypothetical question! Still, to be polite I'll answer your point with as much seriousness as I can muster. I'd rather pay the ?100. My reason? Foxes hunt ducks and I don't want to mess with nature. In fact, ducks stuck in a fucking house have little chance of escape when a fox comes through the door, unlike if they'd been left to sleep in the open where there are more eyes on watch plus a better chance of escape. In a house they really would have been sitting ducks.

[Flat_Eric]

Sam Slater wrote:

>>


There are a few too many "mistakes" for it all to be a coincidence though, wouldn't you say Sam?

Are they ALL "mistakes", as they seem to be claiming?

And if they are indeed all "mistakes", perhaps these folk shouldn't be running the country if they don't even know what their own mortgage status is (although they probably do get a bit confused from all that "flipping").

You're right that this expenses fiddling by politicians has been going on for decades. The difference now though is that all the gory details were never made public before, so people weren't aware of the extent of it all.

Say what you like about press agendas, but it's definitely a public interest story.

- Eric

[Sam Slater]

Can't argue with most of what you say, Eric (now pick yourself up off the floor), but I'm pointing out to BSH that trying to claim for a duck-house is just as much taking the piss as anything else, in principle.

Voting out a government due to fiddling expenses and replacing them with a party that fiddle expenses is a bit daft, in my opinion. By all means vote them [Labour] out if you think a Tory government might bring the economy back up to scratch quicker, or cut crime rates further, or anything else that's debatable, but this expenses shit shouldn't be a deciding factor ? not when all parties are just as bad as eachother.