Allowancesgate: Even More On ACA

As regular visitors to this site will know, your news team has been highlighting what we consider to be one of the many abuses of Parliament (the so-called “Privileges of Parliament“) for some two years now. When we began our criticism of the cavalier attitude of many “Honourable Members” towards the claiming of our tax money, it was something of a lonely experience - as similar stories in the national media were few and far between. How times have changed! Today we note yet another airing of this issue in one of the country’s leading newspapers - one which has become, quite rightly, party-politically blind on this issue - in response to the growing national revulsion over what many consider to be the theft of their money by our elected representatives. This morning, in the Sunday Telegraph, a Parliamentarian is quoted as saying:

“To use the ACA in this way is incredible. It may be within the law, but it’s like people doing dodgy tax deals which are just about legal but go against the spirit of the tax legislation. MPs should not just play within the letter of the law but also within the spirit of the law. The people opposing reform of this system are bringing democracy and Parliament into disrepute.”

“Bringing democracy and Parliament into disrepute” is exactly what they are doing and consequently, one of the many Herculean tasks of the BNP must be to cleanse the Westminster Augean Stables of the accumulated corruption that so befouls it. However, the claiming of our tax money in “iffy” allowances and expenses claims is but one manifestation of the cancer gnawing away at the very heart of our democracy - another is the willingness of Establishment MPs to enact legislation that is clearly contrary to the wishes of the electorate - legislation detrimental both to the well being of the people of these British Isles and to their ancient rights and liberties. But that’s another issue.

Returning to the subject of ACA, we wonder why it is that so many MPs choose not to live in the constituencies for which they were elected. Indeed, we wonder, how such people can truly claim to represent their constituents when they aren’t even prepared to live amongst them? There are many examples of this - David Cameron, for instance, was elected for Witney in Oxfordshire - yet his main home is in London - as is that of Boris Johnson, formerly Tory MP for Henley! As we say, there are many examples of what we call “absentee landlordism”.

Additionally, we wonder, how many of the dozens of MPs who represent constituencies within easy commuting distance of The House actually stated their intention to use taxpayers’ money to fund second-homes in their election addresses when standing for election? How many will mention it when they stand for re-election? Few - if any - we suspect!

Such is the moral abyss into which the Mother of Parliaments continues to sink.

This morning’s Sunday Telegraph article, to which we refer, begins:

“Taxpayers are funding MPs to run two homes even when they only need one for their parliamentary duties. .”

The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered four cases where MPs are receiving up to £24,000-a-year in “second home allowance” despite one of their two homes being nowhere near either Westminster or their constituency.

Although the arrangement is permitted by House of Commons rules, other MPs called it “incredible” and claimed that it was bringing politicians into disrepute

More here .

It’s An April Fools Joke - Isn’t it?

Your news team is somewhat baffled by the contents of a media report sent to us by a Hounslow reader. It concerns two individuals well known to regular visitors to this site – Labour’s man and wife team Ann and Alan Keen MPs; known to some as “Mr and Mrs Expenses“!

First of all we invite readers to read the article, from the Hounslow Chronicle, which we reproduce in full, here:

The Keens expenses row has deepened over claims the couple racked up a £5,000 hotel bill in just six weeks.

Ann and Alan, MPs for Brentford & Isleworth and Feltham & Heston respectively, claimed for the stay between April 1 and May 17, 2002. The period reportedly relates to the six-week gap between the duo selling their flat in Covent Garden and buying a luxury flat in Waterloo.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show Ann claimed £2,575 for ‘hotel expenses, etc’, while Alan claimed £2,425 for ‘hotel, telephone, etc’.

The Commons sat for just 19 evenings during this time, meaning the bill for taxpayers works out at more than £260 a night.

The Keens were last week criticised for spending £175,000 of tax payers’ money on a flat in Waterloo, despite their Brentford home lying just nine miles from Parliament.

However, there is no suggestion they have broken Parliamentary rules with any of their claims.

Quite rightly, the Chronicle’s report states that they have not broken any Parliamentary rules witn any of their claims.

However, there would appear to be a couple of rather obvious questions in desperate need of answers!

If we understand the article correctly then the Keens moved out of their Covent Garden taxpayer-subsidised flat and utilised hotel accomodation, until moving into their new taxpayer-subsidised flat in Waterloo, some seven weeks later. This move incurring hotel bills of around £5,000 – charged to the taxpayer. But their main residence, a large house in Brentford, was (and still is) just nine miles from The House. As many Londoners will know Brentford is within easy reach of The House of Commons by car, tube, bus, taxi and, dare we suggest, even pushbike? So why, we ask, did they need to stay in a hotel? Indeed, why the “need” for taxpayer funded accomodation at all?

And it is with no little irony that we note Labour’s public money claimants began their hotel stay commencing on April 1st. Unfortunately the joke would appear to be on us – the taxpayer!

The Chronicle’s report may be found here .

Surely Honourable Members Should Do The Honourable Thing?

One would imagine that being a Westminster MP would require the display and maintenance of exemplary standards at all times. After all, MPs are handsomely paid to represent their electorate and should therefore be beyond reproach – particularly in respect of their use of public money. Furthermore, one would also imagine that political parties would be equally keen to maintain standards in respect of those who represent them.

With those thoughts very much in mind we ask whether it is sufficient for a Honourable Member merely to repay public money after being discovered to have wrongfully expended it – surely resignation is in order? The fact that neither MP nor his party appears to be considering this option is, we believe, a matter of concern!

The story at the heart of this matter may be found in the Wimbledon Guardian, which begins:

Quote: “Sutton and Cheam MP Paul Burstow will reimburse Parliament after being found to have misused parliamentary allowances, using House of Commons pre-paid envelopes to mail out political newsletters.

Parliamentary Commissioner John Lyon found Lib Dem Mr Burstow breached House of Commons rules by including the newsletter that criticised a political opponent - Conservative Party candidate Philippa Stroud.

“He has told me that he very much regrets this error and he has taken steps to put the matters straight and to refund the expenditure incurred,” Mr Lyon said.

In a statement to the commissioner, Mr Burstow said he accepted he should not have sent the letter using the House of Commons envelopes.

“I should not have used pre-paid envelopes for this purpose and I am making arrangements to reimburse the full cost of the envelopes and stationery,” Mr Burstow said. Unquote.

The full story may be found here .

Expenses and Allowances - They’re All at it!

Your news team doesn’t believe - not for a second – it doesn’t, that there is a cigarette paper’s width of difference between Tory and Labour MPs in respect of whatever morality may be involved in the claiming of taxpayers’ money. And whereas politicians from both parties are frequently espousing political policies that are increasingly interchangeable – if not the same, their position in respect of claiming from the Public Purse is, and remains, as always - identical. Which is why allegations made in the media concerning the enthusiastic claiming of public money for expenses and allowances is a non-party political issue – put bluntly – all the Establishment parties are at it! It’s Westminster’s very own and highly profitable cottage industry!

And once again, we have to concur with the oft-repeated “explanation” offered-up by MPs in response to intense media interest, that they “have done nothing wrong” - but have merely been following orders – sorry, we mean - following the House of Commons rules as enshrined in that institution’s little Green Book.

As an example of what we mean we draw your attention to two stories that have recently appeared in the Daily Mail, which feature a now former Labour MP who – like many others - was “just following the rules”! Of course, the reports could just as easily have applied to a Tory MP!

According to yesterday’s Daily Mail:

“A Labour MP used almost £500,000 of taxpayers’ money over six years to help run an office from his home which was staffed by his wife.

David Marshall, 67, who has quit to spark the Glasgow East by-election on July 24, used the expenses to pay for a constituency office and staff.

But Mr Marshall’s office was in his semi-detached Glasgow home and he employed his wife Tina as his secretary. It is also believed he paid his daughter Christina to work from his home from the same pool of money.”

You can read more here .

And, according to the Daily Mail (29th June):

“Scottish Labour MP David Marshall’s shock resignation came after rumours swept Westminster that he was about to be engulfed in a row over expenses payments to family members.

Senior Labour sources dismissed reports that the Glasgow East MP’s resignation was entirely the result of his health problems.

They said privately that former bus conductor Mr Marshall, 67, was quitting his safe seat to avoid becoming the latest MP to be embroiled in allegations of misuse of expenses.”

More here .

UKIP and the question of one man’s £122,103 in ACA

In recent times your news team has devoted much space to the issue of MPs and their claiming of public money in Parliamentary expenses and allowances. During that time we have taken to task leading members of both the Tory and Labour parties and asked the sort of questions they just don’t like being asked.

Today we turn our attention to the Europhile BBC promoted United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).

Regular visitors to this site will know that we have already, on at least one previous occasion, asked why UKIP’s MEPs are so unwilling, apparently, to place the full details of their EU allowances and expenses claiming into the public domain. We ask because it is our tax money and the sums said to be involved are huge – certainly amounting to £ millions between them since the European Elections!

We have also previously described our failure in obtaining from UKIP any figures relating to the claims on the public purse made by their MEPs – a situation we believe to be nothing short of hypocritical. This being particularly so as opposition to the EU “Gravy Train” and a demand for transparency in the matter of MEPs allowances and expenses, being one of their leading policy stances prior to the 2004 European Elections. Yet, here we are now, just four short years on, with one UKIP-elected MEP having completed a jail sentence for fraud and another UKIP-elected MEP recently reported in the media as assisting police with their enquiries in relation to alleged fraud!

But it is not the subject of UKIP’s MEPs that we concern ourselves with today – but rather the expenses and allowances claiming of their sole MP, Bob Spink. Now Mr. Spink was elected as the Conservative MP for Castle Point in Essex in 2001 but, following a difference of opinion with that party, he decided to cross the floor to UKIP earlier this year.

What we find particularly interesting about Mr. Spink is his claiming of Parliament’s Additional Claims Allowance (ACA) and his travel claims.

And, why is that you ask?

Well, it’s because since being elected Mr. Spink is recorded as having claimed at least £120,000 in ACA and over £60,000 in travel costs – despite representing a constituency, the centre of which is a little over 30 miles by road from The House!

To be precise the record shows that between Q1 2001 and Q1 2007 Mr. Spink claimed £122,103 in ACA. And when the figures for the financial year 2007/8 are added in (when available later this year) it is possible that this total may increase to around £140,000!

Similarly, he is recorded as claiming no less than £60,740 in travel costs between Q1 2001 and Q1 2007 – a figure that could conceivably reach around £70,000 when the 2007/8 figures are available! This being a considerable amount - considering, according to your news team’s online route-planner, the distance between South Benfleet (in the middle of the Castle Point constituency) and Westminster tube station, by road, is a mere 34.4 miles!

We should stress, as far as we are aware, Mr. Spink has done nothing unlawful and has acted entirely within the rules laid down by our legislators in Parliament. Nonetheless, we do question why he needs to claim any ACA at all! After all, as the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia states:

“Situated just 30 miles (48 km) from the heart of London, Castle Point is well placed by road, rail and air. The borough is crossed by the A13 and bordered to the north by the A127, providing direct links to both Southend and London. The M25 is just 20 minutes drive away. Frequent train services run through Benfleet on the London Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness line. Operated by C2C, the line offers a high quality and reliable service.”

Indeed, certainly hundreds, if not thousands, of commuters use that very service from Benfleet and even further afield, to travel in to central London every day – meaning that London is clearly commutable from Castle Point! This being particularly the case as Parliament only sits for around 100 days in any given year – unlike standard employment which normally requires employees attendance on a five days per week, fifty weeks a year, basis.

And that’s our point. ACA was introduced to reimburse the expenses of MPs whose constituencies are so geographically distant from The House that daily commuting is not a viable option! With that thought in mind we are understandably left wondering where in Castle Point such remote parts are to be found! Is the Dogger Bank, far out in the North Sea, now regarded as an extension of the constituency perhaps? If so, we can fully appreciate Mr. Spink’s claiming of our tax money in the form of ACA.

One further point which, perhaps, may be helpful to UKIP’s Westminster representative, is this:

According to the records, Mr. Spink claimed for £6,732 during the financial year 2006/7 for car travel – yet only £8 for rail travel. Bearing in mind the “high quality and reliable” rail service that operates through his constituency, could he not save himself a considerable amount of quality time and the taxpayer a considerable amount of money - by taking a train to work like thousands of other commuters? You know - the people who ultimately pay his wages!

We wonder what the taxpaying Castle Point electorate will make of all this?

UKIP – a chip off the old Tory block?

All aboard the Gravy Train

An excellent article in today’s Times that is a “must read” – it begins:

Quote: Members of Parliament are each paid £61,820. They are granted this sum in order to enable them to represent their constituents and give voters the benefit of their insight into public affairs. This week it appeared from their horrifyingly poor judgment that many of them are being paid £61,820 too much.

After six months of deliberation by a committee established by the Speaker of the House of Commons, MPs were presented on Thursday with a number of proposed reforms to their expenses system. The two most important were that it would no longer be possible to claim for household items to furnish a second home, and that MPs’ claims would be externally scrutinised under the auspices of the National Audit Office. Remarkably, a majority of Members decided to reject these changes.

The motivations of the rejectionists were varied, but none do them credit. Unquote.

And:

Quote: Many Members have concluded that the public have become so mistrustful and unreasonable that no arrangements of any kind will reassure them. They have therefore given up on reform and determined that they may as well please themselves as they can’t please anyone else Unquote.

It may be read in full here .

Allowancesgate: Parliament’s contempt for the People

If you are one of those poor misguided people who believe that the standing of Parliament in the eyes of the electorate couldn’t get any lower, then we have news for you – it already has!

The Western Mail reports that it recently sent a Freedom of Information request to the House of Commons Authority for the spending details of Welsh MPs since the 2005 General Election. Their request was rejected – wait for it – for the spurious reason that it was “too expensive” to collate this information!

The Western Mail article begins:

Quote: A BID to reveal exactly what Welsh MPs claimed under the controversial “John Lewis list” expenses system has been rejected by the House of Commons authorities.

The Western Mail requested the information under the Freedom of Information Act after the High Court ruled a separate sample of MPs’ expenses should be made public. But the Commons has ruled that revealing details of the Welsh MPs’ spending since the 2005 election would be too expensive.

Information that has been released on the £23,000 MPs can claim to maintain a London residence has proved embarrassing – Tony Blair claimed back the cost of his TV licence and Barbara Follett, the MP married to millionaire novelist Ken, claimed £1,600 for window cleaning.

A long-running series of legal challenges to the secrecy surrounding MPs expenses led to the “John Lewis list” being made public in January. It lists items that can be bought with public funds to furnish a second home, based on that store’s prices.

MPs voted on Thursday evening to reject a root-and-branch reform of the expenses system, although there will be greater auditing and more information made public in future. Unquote.

You can read all about the House of Shame’s latest attempt to cover-up what many consider to be state-sanctioned fraud here .

Clearly, this Parliament is an affront to democracy!

Allowancesgate: The Roll of Shame

The majority of “Honourable” members - 146 of the 172 - who voted to keep the second home allowance (ACA), which allows MPs to buy items on the “John Lewis list” and retains other “perks”, were Labour, including 33 ministers.

The list in full is:

Labour: Nick Ainger (Carmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South), Graham Allen (Nottingham North), David Anderson (Blaydon), Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen), Ian Austin (Dudley North), Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West), Gordon Banks (Ochil & Perthshire South), Kevin Barron (Rother Valley), Margaret Beckett (Derby South), Clive Betts (Sheffield Attercliffe), Liz Blackman (Erewash), Roberta Blackman-Woods (Durham, City of), Bob Blizzard (Waveney), David Borrow (Ribble South (South Ribble)), Nick Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East & Wallsend), Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield), Colin Burgon (Elmet), Andy Burnham (Leigh), Stephen Byers (Tyneside North), Alan Campbell (Tynemouth), Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley), Ben Chapman (Wirral South), David Chaytor (Bury North), Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill), David Clelland (Tyne Bridge), Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley), Ann Coffey (Stockport), Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead), Michael Connarty (Linlithgow & Falkirk East), Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West), Ann Cryer (Keighley), John Cummings (Easington), Jim Cunningham (Coventry South), Tony Cunningham (Workington), Wayne David (Caerphilly), Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West), Janet Dean (Burton), Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras), Brian Donohoe (Ayrshire Central), Jim Dowd (Lewisham West), Angela Eagle (Wallasey), Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston), Jeff Ennis (Barnsley East & Mexborough), Bill Etherington (Sunderland North), Caroline Flint (Don Valley), Paul Flynn (Newport West), Michael Foster (Worcester), Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings & Rye), Mike Gapes (Ilford South), Dr Ian Gibson (Norwich North), Linda Gilroy (Plymouth Sutton), Nia Griffith (Llanelli), Andrew Gwynne (Denton & Reddish), Mike Hall (Weaver Vale), David Hamilton (Midlothian), Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney), Stephen Hesford (Wirral West), Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead East & Washington West), Jimmy Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East), George Howarth (Knowsley North & Sefton East), Beverley Hughes (Stretford & Urmston), Joan Humble (Blackpool North & Fleetwood), Dr Brian Iddon (Bolton South East), Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central), Adam Ingram (East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow), Brian Jenkins (Tamworth), Diana Johnson (Hull North), Kevan Jones (Durham North), Martyn Jones (Clwyd South), Tessa Jowell (Dulwich & West Norwood), Eric Joyce (Falkirk), Alan Keen (Feltham & Heston), David Kidney (Stafford), Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton), Bob Laxton (Derby North), Tom Levitt (High Peak), Ivan Lewis (Bury South), Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central), Ian Lucas (Wrexham), Tommy McAvoy (Rutherglen & Hamilton West), Stephen McCabe (Birmingham Hall Green), Christine McCafferty (Calder Valley), Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East), Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Portsmouth North), Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham & Morden), James McGovern (Dundee West), Anne McGuire (Stirling), Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes), Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East), Tony McNulty (Harrow East), Denis MacShane (Rotherham), Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham Perry Barr), Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West), Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South), Alan Meale (Mansfield), Gillian Merron (Lincoln), Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston), Madeleine Moon (Bridgend), Jessica Morden (Newport East), Elliot Morley (Scunthorpe), George Mudie (Leeds East), Denis Murphy (Wansbeck), Paul Murphy (Torfaen), Mike O’Brien (Warwickshire North), Eddie O’Hara (Knowsley South), Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock), James Plaskitt (Warwick & Leamington), Bridget Prentice (Lewisham East), Gordon Prentice (Pendle), Gwyn Prosser (Dover), Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton North East), Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich), John Robertson (Glasgow North West), Terry Rooney (Bradford North), Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd), Christine Russell (Chester, City of), Alison Seabeck (Plymouth Devonport), Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield), Jimmy Sheridan (Paisley & Renfrewshire North), Angela C Smith (Sheffield Hillsborough), Angela E Smith (Basildon), Jacqui Smith (Redditch), Anne Snelgrove (Swindon South), John Spellar (Warley), Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West), Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East), Gisela Stuart (Birmingham Edgbaston), Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South), Mark Tami (Alyn & Deeside), Gareth Thomas (Harrow West), Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury), Don Touhig (Islwyn), Derek Twigg (Halton), Kitty Ussher (Burnley), Keith Vaz (Leicester East), Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge), Claire Ward (Watford), Tom Watson (West Bromwich East), Dave Watts (St Helens North), Phil Wilson (Sedgefield), Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central), Shaun Woodward (St Helens South), Phil Woolas (Oldham East & Saddleworth), David Wright (Telford), Iain Wright (Hartlepool), Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne & Sheppey)

Conservative: David Amess (Southend West), James Arbuthnot (Hampshire North East), Henry Bellingham (Norfolk North West), Brian Binley (Northampton South), Sir John Butterfill (Bournemouth West), Christopher Chope (Christchurch), John Greenway (Ryedale), Gerald Howarth (Aldershot), Bernard Jenkin (Essex North), Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove), Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest), Anne McIntosh (Vale of York), Andrew Mackay (Bracknell), Andrew Rosindell (Romford), Hugo Swire (Devon East), Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth & Horncastle), Angela Watkinson (Upminster), Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone & The Weald), David Wilshire (Spelthorne), Lady Ann Winterton (Congleton), Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Independent: Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent), Robert Wareing (Liverpool West Derby).

Voted in both lobbies (votes discounted) Labour’s Barbara Follett (Stevenage) and Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) and Ukip’s Bob Spink (Castle Point).

Interestingly, some notable second-home owners appear to have abstained - Jon Cruddas (Dagenham) and Ann Keen (Brentford & Isleworth) amongst them!

“Honourable” Members vote to continue to rip-off the taxpayer - no surprise there then!

The BBC has reported this evening that:

Quote: MPs have voted to keep their £24,000 second home allowances, but have decided not to award themselves above-inflation pay rises.

They rejected tougher auditing and an alternative expenses regime proposed by a Commons review.

The Tories and Lib Dems condemned the decision but MPs who backed keeping the allowances said they were fair.

But MPs voted for a 2.25% pay rise, rejecting a proposed £650-a-year “catch-up” payment.

A review by the Commons Members Estimate Committee had recommended the additional costs allowance (ACA) be replaced and an end to the so-called “John Lewis list” - the use of public money to pay for items like new kitchens and household goods such as TVs.

However, MPs voted by a majority of 28 to retain the ACA and the list, and to have their spending looked at only by internal, rather than external, auditors.

More than 30 government ministers opted to keep the ACA, including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham and Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s parliamentary private secretaries Ian Austin and Angela Smith also voted in this way. Unquote.

More here .

Labour ministers who voted in favour of keeping the additional costs allowance for second homes, worth up to £24,000 a year, were:

Liz Blackman
Bob Blizzard
Nick Brown
Andy Burnham
Alan Campbell
Tony Cunningham
Angela Eagle
Maria Eagle
Caroline Flint
Michael Foster
Beverley Hughes
Tessa Jowell
Thomas McAvoy
Steve McCabe
Siobhain McDonagh
Tony McNulty
Gillian Merron
Mike O’Brien
James Plaskitt
Bridget Prentice
Jacqui Smith
Gerry Sutcliffe
Mark Tami
Gareth Thomas
Derek Twigg
Kitty Ussher
Claire Ward
Dave Watts
Tom Watson
Dave Watts
Rosie Winterton
Shaun Woodward
Iain Wright

Quote: “The Tories and Lib Dems condemned the decision” - but will carry on claiming taxpayers’ money from the Parliamentary trough regardless!

More on this tale of unbridled greed tomorrow.

Are “Honourable” Members Above The Law?

For the best part of the last two years your news team has been drawing your attention to the pilfering of public money by hundreds of “Honourable” Members past and present. In the vast majority of cases this money – our tax money – has been claimed within the Parliamentary rules, thus enabling parliamentarians and their apologists to claim: “we have done nothing wrong”. The fact that these rules, as enshrined within Westminster’s “Little Green Book”, are little more than a license to thieve and would never be accepted by any reputable organisation, is an irrelevance it would seem. Parliament is sovereign and the “Privileges of Parliament” remain very much the order of the day it would appear – an arrogant and contemptuous attitude much in evidence amongst the ranks of legislators in the decade preceding the English Civil War!

This evening your news team asks visitors to this site to read an article that was published earlier today in the Mail on Sunday. If the allegations made are correct, and we are confident that in a great many cases that they are, then we ask: why are fraud charges not being brought? Additionally we wonder: do “Honourable” Members consider themselves to be above the Law of the Land?

You can read this article: here .

As an aside, a related story may be found here .

Next Page »