egafd.com

"I don't see where I'm wrong, though. Am I wrong to refuse to label someone a hypocrite based on supposition and hearsay?"
Oh, so now you want to put aside the values now, after complaining earlier I was omitting the higher figure of ?278,346 and only mentioning the more relevant, lower figure of ?161,358? In other words, it was important when it suited you to mislead, and when that didn't work it's not so important, only the principle? I get it."

Sam, Sam. Do step back for a moment and think. It's not supposition. He had bought a house. He claimed expenses for accommodation in Brussels during that time. Thats it. He's a hippocrite given that the difference between buying and selling price of the Brussels house was over 300,00 euros. I set aside the expenses value for no other reason than the value does not dictate whether he is a hypocrite or not i.e. if he claimed above 100k he is a hypocrite; if he claimed 50,000 he isn't.

"What does 'making the most of' mean? That he 'made the most of' the money in providing the public or 'made the most of' the money to pocket it for himself? You don't know, do you?

Yes I do. Because expenses for an MP have to be backed by receipts you can see where the money went. Surprise, surprise, it means making the most of the expenses opportunity down to funding the cost of a cake tin which the kids on Newsbeat gave him a very hard time about. I suspect they are however, much less docile than you when it comes to questioning the likes of Cleggie!!

"Never run a business, David. Still, if I want to do dodgy deals I'd be more inclined to have multiple accounts rather than use my own personal account."

You are Sam, unbelievably naive. The first rule of business accounting is to keep a business account separate from your personal account. This is the case whether you are cleaning windows or running a multi-million pound company. You do come out with staggeringly naive statements which I have to read a few times just to check if its some obscure wind-up.


"But there are so many things about all this that are just assumed and supposed. You're buying it all because you're miffed the Lib Dems have gained a few votes. You've not shut up about Clegg since the first tv debate, and not much of it has been positive. That's your right, of course, but I'm not buying the tittle-tattle until it's got a little more meat on the bones."

There's very very little that is assumed.
1. He bought and sold a house he owned. And the difference in the two prices was over 300,000 euros in about 4 years.
2. He claimed money for Brussels accommodation.
3. He claimed frequently as an MP as many expenses as he could under the Westminster scheme down to minutiae such as a cake tin.

Which of the above is wrong. If Cleggie had taken the approach of so many honest Westminster MPs opposed to the system and claimed very little or if he had given the proceeds of his profits from the EU to charity, he would indeed have the right to the moral high ground. He hasnt so he is a hypocrite i.e. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

The Blessed Cleggie in a nutshell.

Cheers
D

[quote]Sam, Sam. Do step back for a moment and think. It's not supposition. He had bought a house. He claimed expenses for accommodation in Brussels during that time. [/quote]

It is hearsay and supposition that he used expenses to pay off part of his mortgage. I thought it was obvious I didn't actually mean buying a home, or claiming expenses was supposition as I've not once during all my posts questioned those facts. I do believe you have no answer to my real point and this is another attempt to mislead.

To confirm, just for you: It is hearsay, rumour or supposition that Nick Clegg used any expenses to help pay off the mortgage on the house he bought while in Brussels between 2001 and 2004. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd advise you to laugh at me and go sell this evidence to the highest bidder as I'm sure many tabloids would be quite willing to pay for such gold dust. Another alternative, of course, is to take up your own advice and 'step back a moment and think.' You may then be less likely to misread what I've typed.

[quote]Yes I do. Because expenses for an MP have to be backed by receipts you can see where the money went.[/quote]

He didn't have to keep receipts and so I don't automatically think any less of him for not doing so. Maybe he'd have seen it as prudent to do so, if he could foresee the scandal coming up in 9-4 years time but I'm a logical man, governed by reason and science and so I believe Mr. Clegg has no supernatural/paranormal attributes that let him see into the future.

[quote]You are Sam, unbelievably naive. The first rule of business accounting is to keep a business account separate from your personal account.[/quote]

Why, I do believe you've either twisted my point to avoid answering my real point or, again, misread/misinterpreted what I actually said/meant. I specifically alluded to my assumption that multiple accounts would muddy the waters, so to speak, when attempting 'dodgy deals' or underhand filtering of monies. I never said that businessmen shouldn't have separate accounts and that this wasn't the norm. To put it simply, if I wanted to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, regarding my finances, the last thing I'd do would be to use my own personal account for everything going in and out. That's like having one single password for my e-mail, banking and all forums and social media sites on the internet. Someone cracks it and they crack everything. You with me? I may be naive about fiddling expenses, David, but don't call me naive about something I never said, or even implied. That makes you sound both arrogant, twatish, and most importantly: wrong.

[quote]There's very very little that is assumed.
1. He bought and sold a house he owned. And the difference in the two prices was over 300,000 euros in about 4 years.
2. He claimed money for Brussels accommodation.
3. He claimed frequently as an MP as many expenses as he could under the Westminster scheme down to minutiae such as a cake tin.[/quote]

Ahhhh !happy! This is funny.

1. I never questioned this.
2. I never questioned this (though I did put forward the possibility of hotels and the like, which would fall under 'accommodation', and that neither of us know how much he had to stay away from home during his work in Brussels.)
3. Enter the cake tin! You can't win on any of your points so you bring out a cake tin! Ha ha ha ha! Ok, David, I'll give you the cake tin. Ok? You accuse me of never admitting when I'm wrong, and always wanting the last word so I'll break the habit and say you were right about the cake tin!

Maybe the cake tin was for a Christmas party for the office and thus fell under work-related tools? Oooops, I'm bloody doing it again! You're right about the cake tin. !thumbsup!

You still seem very, very confused. I will try again. Before replying to my message please go back and read the thread first and then read this message.

First you state
"It is hearsay and supposition that he used expenses to pay off part of his mortgage. I thought it was obvious I didn't actually mean buying a home, or claiming expenses was supposition as I've not once during all my posts questioned those facts. I do believe you have no answer to my real point and this is another attempt to mislead."


My points are:
1. He bought a house to live in in Brussels while an MEP.
2. He claimed a daily allowance unreceipted for accommodation and travel in Brussels. The bulk of that daily allowance was for accommodation.
3. Either he spent it indirectly to help pay for the house or he spent it on something completely different i.e using it as a gift to be spent for whatever.
4. There has been no comment whatsoever from Clegg or the Lib Dems to contradict points 1. 2 or 3 even in broad brush about where the accommodation expenses went.

First question, you appear to agree with points 1 and 2.
Do you agree with points 3 and 4?

Then you start getting hopelessly confused.

First of all you quote me talking about his MP EXPENSES
Quote:

Yes I do. Because expenses for an MP have to be backed by receipts you can see where the money went.

Then you reply with an answer to a different quote which is concerned with his time as AN MEP.

He didn't have to keep receipts and so I don't automatically think any less of him for not doing so. Maybe he'd have seen it as prudent to do so, if he could foresee the scandal coming up in 9-4 years time but I'm a logical man, governed by reason and science and so I believe Mr. Clegg has no supernatural/paranormal attributes that let him see into the future.

Let me try and explain yet again. MEP EXPENSES NO RECEIPTS REQUIRED. MP EXPENSES RECEIPTS REQUIRED. Got it now!

You said
"I may well be naive and maybe using a single, personal bank account really does muddy the waters much more."

I would not disagree with you Sam re your statement above. Thats why the Revenue demand separate business and personal accounts. You are naive, quite right!

Now I will address the cake tin!

You say
"Enter the cake tin! You can't win on any of your points so you bring out a cake tin. Ha ha ha ha! Ok, David, I'll give you the cake tin. Ok? You accuse me of never admitting when I'm wrong, and always wanting the last word so I'll break the habit and say you were right about the cake tin!"

A very Reggiesque type answer, I have to say! Ever so slightly maniacal.

This is some of OUR money that the Blessed Cleggie trousered
"Within six months of being elected to Parliament in 2005, Mr Clegg bought a house in his constituency and began charging monthly interest repayments of ?1,018 on the ?279,000 mortgage on his expenses.
He also submitted the stamp duty, land registry and legal costs, totalling ?9,244.50. Over the following months, he fitted the house with a ?2,600 kitchen, and had ?5,857.63 worth of decorating done. He claimed for carpets, a laminate floor, tiling and sanding, curtains, blinds, curtain rails and repairs to a garage door. After a shopping spree at IKEA in 2006, he submitted claims for items including cushions costing ?4.99, a ?2.49 cake pan and ?1.50 paper napkins. The following July, Mr Clegg had ?680 worth of gardening carried out, including work to ?build small wall in rose garden followed by ?760 for the repair of his garden path"

The whole point about the MP expenses scandal was that Joe Public were saying why the fuck should I pay for MPs gardening, paper napkins, duck pond, moat cleaning, cushions, cake tin blah de fucking blah when these guys are coining it anyway.

So the point, I suspect for the last time, is the Blessed Cleggie had his snout in the trough like all the other greedy MPs, even more than the great majority because he regularly spent the maximum it was allowed to spend, but at least the majority of the MPs didnt at the same time have the hypocrisy to slag off the system in a holier than thou way when they had their noses in the trough!!

Cheers
D

[quote]You still seem very, very confused.[/quote]

Oh, really? Am I the one that's shifted the emphasis from making a profit on a house in Brussels, to then talking about his expenses before buying a house in Brussels, and then on to how I'm naive about multiple accounts and running businesses, and then onto cake tins and finally cheering about me mixing up MEPs and MPs. Please, David, you're like a fox sniffing and scratching around a chicken coup looking for the gap in the wire.

[quote]My points are:
1. He bought a house to live in in Brussels while an MEP.
2. He claimed a daily allowance unreceipted for accommodation and travel in Brussels. The bulk of that daily allowance was for accommodation.
3. Either he spent it indirectly to help pay for the house or he spent it on something completely different i.e using it as a gift to be spent for whatever.
4. There has been no comment whatsoever from Clegg or the Lib Dems to contradict points 1. 2 or 3 even in broad brush about where the accommodation expenses went.

First question, you appear to agree with points 1 and 2.
Do you agree with points 3 and 4?[/quote]

You are correct. I agree with point one and point two.

As for point three, he could have spent it directly, or indirectly, on paying off the house or spending it for other personal things (doing up the house, buying gifts etc etc) but do you also agree that it's also just as likely he spent it on work-related things like hotel and food costs while working away from home?

Finally, point four, while correct, alters nothing. There could be many reasons for not saying anything, as I've repeatedly said. Again, I repeat, he could be guilty of using expenses for personal reasons or it could be that since he didn't keep receipts, and since it was 5-9 years in the past he cannot give a thorough enough answer about every hotel bill, taxi fare and quasant purchased for breakfast. Hell, I don't know how much I spent on stuff last month never mind 9 years ago.

[quote]Then you start getting hopelessly confused.

First of all you quote me talking about his MP EXPENSES
Quote:

Yes I do. Because expenses for an MP have to be backed by receipts you can see where the money went.

Then you reply with an answer to a different quote which is concerned with his time as AN MEP.

He didn't have to keep receipts and so I don't automatically think any less of him for not doing so. Maybe he'd have seen it as prudent to do so, if he could foresee the scandal coming up in 9-4 years time but I'm a logical man, governed by reason and science and so I believe Mr. Clegg has no supernatural/paranormal attributes that let him see into the future.

Let me try and explain yet again. MEP EXPENSES NO RECEIPTS REQUIRED. MP EXPENSES RECEIPTS REQUIRED. Got it now!l[/quote]

Yes, sorry. Right answer to the wrong question. In my defence I suppose I was the victim of you flapping around, moving the goal posts and changing the emphasis of your argument because you wasn't getting anywhere (remember my 'fox looking for the whole in the wire' analogy?). I hadn't realised you'd moved the conversation onto more solid ground for yourself since you got nowhere with the house/profit debate, which was your original point.

[quote]You said
"I may well be naive and maybe using a single, personal bank account really does muddy the waters much more."

I would not disagree with you Sam re your statement above. Thats why the Revenue demand separate business and personal accounts. You are naive, quite right![/quote]

I admitted I might be. Never tried to fiddle expenses before. You seem to know more about that. Still, I always think it polite to enlighten peoples' ignorance so can you tell me how a single account makes it harder for an outsider to track down monies going in and out compared to say, lots of different accounts?

[quote]You say
"Enter the cake tin! You can't win on any of your points so you bring out a cake tin. Ha ha ha ha! Ok, David, I'll give you the cake tin. Ok? You accuse me of never admitting when I'm wrong, and always wanting the last word so I'll break the habit and say you were right about the cake tin!"

A very Reggiesque type answer, I have to say! Ever so slightly maniacal.

This is some of OUR money that the Blessed Cleggie trousered
"Within six months of being elected to Parliament in 2005, Mr Clegg bought a house in his constituency and began charging monthly interest repayments of ?1,018 on the ?279,000 mortgage on his expenses.
He also submitted the stamp duty, land registry and legal costs, totalling ?9,244.50. Over the following months, he fitted the house with a ?2,600 kitchen, and had ?5,857.63 worth of decorating done. He claimed for carpets, a laminate floor, tiling and sanding, curtains, blinds, curtain rails and repairs to a garage door. After a shopping spree at IKEA in 2006, he submitted claims for items including cushions costing ?4.99, a ?2.49 cake pan and ?1.50 paper napkins. The following July, Mr Clegg had ?680 worth of gardening carried out, including work to ?build small wall in rose garden followed by ?760 for the repair of his garden path"[/quote]

Ok, so you've got over the house in Brussels I see. Is this the 'solid ground' you were hoping for, David? You see, while I might be in agreement with you over some of these 'claims', Nick Clegg has promised on numerous occasions that any profit made on his home here in Sheffield will be given straight back to the taxpayers. And to prove I'm not just quoting the now Lib Dem supporting Guardian, here are links from the Daily Mail and Telegraph where they confirm this pledge:






[quote]The whole point about the MP expenses scandal was that Joe Public were saying why the fuck should I pay for MPs gardening, paper napkins, duck pond, moat cleaning, cushions, cake tin blah de fucking blah when these guys are coining it anyway.[/quote]

And your whole point was about the profit from the house in Brussels until you started flapping around. I'm starting to think it's you who's 'Perrinesque'. He was like that when he couldn't get others to see things his way. Hell, maybe that's why he's not posted for a while. You're him! All this Reggie stuff was all a ruse to throw me off the scent!

[quote]So the point, I suspect for the last time, is the Blessed Cleggie had his snout in the trough like all the other greedy MPs,[/quote]

No it wasn't! It was that he was a hypocrite due to the claiming expenses while making a profit on a house in Brussels. Now your point is suddenly about expenses spent on a house he's not sold yet in the UK. Deary me.

Another little snippet about the Blessed Cleggie.

In summer 2008 as the recession started to bite, the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg had an "I feel your pain" interview where he disclosed that his family were "gravitating away from Ocado (linked to Waitrose) towards Sainsbury's, just on price. I have to say, the difference is pretty big".

However, the Telegraph inquiry showed he claimed his groceries bills back on expenses from the taxpayer. For instance in one four month period alone he claimed ?1,657.32 on groceries.

To repeat, now I know that many MPs had their snouts in the trough but why should the taxpayer pay for the Clegg's fucking grocery bill and in addition get the sanctimonious lectures on cleaning up the expenses system.

D

I don't know what to say, David. Cleggie's a man that takes his '5-a-day' very seriously.

Let's hope, for this woman's sake, he kept off the onions at lunch:

[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/457 ... 579d_b.jpg[/img]

He looks comfortable around people, don't you think? Cameron would just look fake and Brown uncomfortable. A man of the people who listened to his nan and likes his greens.

"As for point three, he could have spent it directly, or indirectly, on paying off the house or spending it for other personal things (doing up the house, buying gifts etc etc) but do you also agree that it's also just as likely he spent it on work-related things like hotel and food costs while working away from home?"

Do you really think it likely that he bought his house in Brussels and then stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years. Do you not think he might have mentioned that? The allowance was purely for Brussels costs.
Secondly the allowance although primarily for accommodation, also included an amount for subsistence i.e. food costs.
You are struggling aren't you? There appear to be three explanations:
1. He spent the money directly or indirectly on his house.
2. He very bizarrely, bought a house in Brussels for his MEP work and then stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years. How likely is this?
3. He used the money for something that had nothing to do with what the allowance was for i.e. Brussels accommodation, LOCAL travel expenses and food.

So unless it was bizarrely 2. he had his snout in the trough, snuffling up all the taxpayers' money, didn't he?

Then you say
"Hell, I don't know how much I spent on stuff last month never mind 9 years ago"

Could you remember if you had stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years whilst your Brussels house stayed empty? If not, maybe your local hospital might be able to help? Given the amount is 6 figures, he could at least BROADLY indicate the sorts of things it was spent on. I am NOT asking for the nth degree of detail, just a very basic BROAD BRUSH idea of where the dosh went.

Then you say.
"Yes, sorry. Right answer to the wrong question. In my defence I suppose I was the victim of you flapping around, moving the goal posts and changing the emphasis of your argument because you wasn't getting anywhere"

I will take that as an apology then, even if it is very grudging. Given that I mentioned the MP stuff several messages ago, perhaps you should have said then that you struggle with two subjects in the same message?

"Still, I always think it polite to enlighten peoples' ignorance so can you tell me how a single account makes it harder for an outsider to track down monies going in and out compared to say, lots of different accounts?"

Ok, but only because you seem a likeable chap!. Pay attention now. In your personal account you probably have lots of personal outgoings e.g. phone, rent, mortgage, grocery food etc. You also have ingoings like cheques you have received for whatever, pay maybe, present from your grannie etc etc. If you run a business and also have business expenses going out of a personal account and business sales coming in, everything gets totally mixed up and confused. What is personal? What is business? That is why the Revenue are keen on separate accounts as a minimum - one for your personal stuff - non-business and a separate business account for business expenditure and sales. It keeps it much cleaner and simpler. Ok Sam? Invoice will be in the post soon as you give me your address. Now where was I?

Ah yes, you said
"see, while I might be in agreement with you over some of these 'claims', Nick Clegg has promised on numerous occasions that any profit made on his home here in Sheffield will be given straight back to the taxpayers."

First of all, I do believe I am making progress!!!! I have read the Blessed Cleggies promise. What it doesnt explain is why the fuck I should pay for his grocery bill, all his fucking furniture, and his fucking cake tin as well as listen to his sanctimonious fucking sermons.

Help I am turning into Rodders UK!

And then you came up with
"And your whole point was about the profit from the house in Brussels until you started flapping around. I'm starting to think it's you who's 'Perrinesque'. He was like that when he couldn't get others to see things his way. Hell, maybe that's why he's not posted for a while. You're him! All this Reggie stuff was all a ruse to throw me off the scent!"

No, my whole point in this thread, is that if you take ALL of these points together, he is a fucking hypocrite (stop it Rodders).

The house sale in Brussels which would be incredibly easy to crush e.g. I have a thing about hotels. My wife gets changed, lies on the hotel bed, calls me on my mobile for room service and I am go up and..... And yes we did that for 4 years even though we had the house in Brussels. The huge unreceipted allowances he trousered.

The donations that went direct into his personal account.

The year as a political lobbyist on his return from Brussels which he wiped from his CV on his website and implied in interviews that it had never happened.

The huge amount of expenses for his second home that he charged for, close to the limits allowed on numerous occasions.

All that put together (MEP, lobbyist and MP) suggests that Clegg is being hypocritical in doing all that and then taking the holier than thou high ground on expenses.

Cheers
D

"A man of the people who listened to his nan and likes his greens."

No problem with that as long as he starts fucking buying them himself instead of getting the taxpayer to do it!

Cheers
D

[quote]Do you really think it likely that he bought his house in Brussels and then stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years. Do you not think he might have mentioned that? The allowance was purely for Brussels costs.[/quote]

I don't know if it's likely or not. I don't know much about MEP life for a Brit working in Brussels between 2001 and 2005. Like I've already said, I don't know enough to pass judgement. The difference between us is that you're filling in the blanks with negative things while I'm open to the possibility he might be kosher.

[quote]Secondly the allowance although primarily for accommodation, also included an amount for subsistence i.e. food costs.
You are struggling aren't you? There appear to be three explanations:
1. He spent the money directly or indirectly on his house.
2. He very bizarrely, bought a house in Brussels for his MEP work and then stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years. How likely is this?
3. He used the money for something that had nothing to do with what the allowance was for i.e. Brussels accommodation, LOCAL travel expenses and food.

So unless it was bizarrely 2. he had his snout in the trough, snuffling up all the taxpayers' money, didn't he? [/quote]

All supposition straight from your cynical head, David. And please stop this 'stayed in a hotel for 4 years' business. Even a very cheap hotel would cost more than the ?160,000 over 4 years. Are you sure you don't work for the Telegraph or Murdoch press?

[quote]Then you say
"Hell, I don't know how much I spent on stuff last month never mind 9 years ago"

Could you remember if you had stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years whilst your Brussels house stayed empty? If not, maybe your local hospital might be able to help? Given the amount is 6 figures, he could at least BROADLY indicate the sorts of things it was spent on. I am NOT asking for the nth degree of detail, just a very basic BROAD BRUSH idea of where the dosh went.[/quote]

There you go again with the 'stopping in a hotel for four years' bit of spin. If you have anything on Clegg then go to the tabloids. You'll make a few quid.

[quote]Ok, but only because you seem a likeable chap!. Pay attention now. In your personal account you probably have lots of personal outgoings e.g. phone, rent, mortgage, grocery food etc. You also have ingoings like cheques you have received for whatever, pay maybe, present from your grannie etc etc. If you run a business and also have business expenses going out of a personal account and business sales coming in, everything gets totally mixed up and confused. What is personal? What is business? That is why the Revenue are keen on separate accounts as a minimum - one for your personal stuff - non-business and a separate business account for business expenditure and sales. It keeps it much cleaner and simpler. Ok Sam? Invoice will be in the post soon as you give me your address. Now where was I?[/quote]

Thank you for that explanation. So all finance fiddlers and tax-dodgers don't have multiple accounts, off-shore accounts and the like? They all put it in one pot because the tax man, for instance, couldn't work out that the ?300 bill from Staples was more likely stuff for an office and the two tickets to Disneyland and the lawnmower were personal (assuming you're not a landscape gardener). So, automatically, Clegg's guilty? A fraud? A hypocrite?

[quote]hen you say.
"Yes, sorry. Right answer to the wrong question. In my defence I suppose I was the victim of you flapping around, moving the goal posts and changing the emphasis of your argument because you wasn't getting anywhere"

I will take that as an apology then, even if it is very grudging. Given that I mentioned the MP stuff several messages ago, perhaps you should have said then that you struggle with two subjects in the same message?[/quote]

I apologise when I'm wrong, despite what you might think. Grudgingly at times, yes, but it's better than pretending otherwise and flip-flapping around being patronising. No? What can I say? MEP expenses and MP expenses......so shoot me.

[qoute]Ah yes, you said
"see, while I might be in agreement with you over some of these 'claims', Nick Clegg has promised on numerous occasions that any profit made on his home here in Sheffield will be given straight back to the taxpayers."

First of all, I do believe I am making progress!!!! I have read the Blessed Cleggies promise. What it doesnt explain is why the fuck I should pay for his grocery bill, all his fucking furniture, and his fucking cake tin as well as listen to his sanctimonious fucking sermons.

Help I am turning into Rodders UK![/quote]

Ooops! I finish off with 'so shoot me' and then you mention RoddersUK. Do you think Kevlar jackets will ever become fashionable?

[quote]And then you came up with
"And your whole point was about the profit from the house in Brussels until you started flapping around. I'm starting to think it's you who's 'Perrinesque'. He was like that when he couldn't get others to see things his way. Hell, maybe that's why he's not posted for a while. You're him! All this Reggie stuff was all a ruse to throw me off the scent!"

No, my whole point in this thread, is that if you take ALL of these points together, he is a fucking hypocrite (stop it Rodders).[/quote]

Well, that's your point NOW, yes. Still, your first point on this and the other thread was specifically about that house in Brussels. You moved the debate onto other things, not me.

[quote]The house sale in Brussels which would be incredibly easy to crush e.g. I have a thing about hotels. My wife gets changed, lies on the hotel bed, calls me on my mobile for room service and I am go up and..... And yes we did that for 4 years even though we had the house in Brussels. The huge unreceipted allowances he trousered.[/quote]

This is getting a little too erotic for a debate between to heterosexual males, David. What ARE you on about? !laugh! You're assuming to know Cleggie's sexual peccadilloes now! If this is what Blackpool on the brink of promotion does to you I think I'll withdraw my support for the underdogs. Nottingham Forest it is then!

[quote]The donations that went direct into his personal account.

The year as a political lobbyist on his return from Brussels which he wiped from his CV on his website and implied in interviews that it had never happened.

The huge amount of expenses for his second home that he charged for, close to the limits allowed on numerous occasions.

All that put together (MEP, lobbyist and MP) suggests that Clegg is being hypocritical in doing all that and then taking the holier than thou high ground on expenses.[/quote]

Are you sure Cleggie hasn't secretly been eyeing up your missus or something? He's good with people, softly spoken and a decent looking fella (for a British politician). I can see why you might hold a grudge.

"Quote:

Do you really think it likely that he bought his house in Brussels and then stayed in a hotel in Brussels for 4 years. Do you not think he might have mentioned that? The allowance was purely for Brussels costs."

I don't know if it's likely or not.

Oh come on, Sam. I know you know nothing about business. That's crystal. Of course it isnt likely!

By the way if you had read the story properly instead of a slipshod fashion you would have realised that the allowance was for DAYS attendance in Brussels i.e. those days over 4 years Cleggie turned up in Brussels for the EU parliament. So your cheap jibe about Murdoch press and hotel prices was silly. Do I have to keep correcting you about stuff?

About the rest I can see you make NOT ONE SINGLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE ISSUE RE MP EXPENSES in your previous message. Just joking asides. And a joke about Nick Clegg eating his 5 a day.

Very poor, Sam. Now you just bleat about me starting on Brussels and then widening it to include other additional examples of his hypocrisy. Several messages after you made no comment whatsoever about me including that other stuff.

At least you know about business and personal accounts now eh!

This has run its course now don't you think? Anyone reading this thread can make their own mind up. I have nothing more to say. And reading your last message you appear to have nothing more to say, but whether you realise that, I somehow doubt it, based on previous experience.

However I suppose I can take heart from your statement earlier in the thread
"while I might be in agreement with you over some of these 'claims'

Thanks Sam, he is a hypocrite isn't he? Glad to get your agreement, if perhaps grudgingly once again.

Over to you Sam, for your Perrinesque, final word!


Good night.
David