John Wick is our hero

[Westy Pre-Lit]

Give the man a Knighthood for exposing these scum bags.

Well i think he deserves it any way.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/MPs-Expe...

As a side note i find it very strange why they keep saying they need to get their act together so we, the public, can trust them again.

COUGH COUGH Who the fk do they think trusted the self serving tts in the first place. I for one certainly don't and never have had!!!

Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Saturday 23 May 00:25

[7mike]

“We’ve reached a stage in society where they want to know everything about us – I think we’re entitled to know about them.”
Heard him say this in the interview yesterday, absolutely spot on

[Jasandjules]

He certainly did the country a favour.

[Randy Winkman]

Wasn't he just the "middle-man"?

[andy_s]

7mike said:

“We’ve reached a stage in society where they want to know everything about us – I think we’re entitled to know about them.”
Heard him say this in the interview yesterday, absolutely spot on

I liked that one too. He also described how about 50% of MPs had been within the rules but 'over egging the pudding' with their claims, 25% had been whiter than white and 25% are probably fraudulent.

He was the middle man/broker but the most interesting thing is that when asked for a sample from the 'mole', he was supplied with 5 MPs details, each one had three different versions of their expenses - the original, the redacted (cut out anything dodgy) and the approved version (further redacted) version - the redacted versions (ie the dishonest altered ones) were the ones MPs were goping to release in July. This is an even bigger scandal than the current 'moat cleaning' type individual claims; it means MPs were going to show us taxpayers dishonest and falsified accounts and claim they were genuine - to save themselves all this trouble. It is this dishonesty more than exuberant claims which should be the focus of public ire.

[7mike]

Randy Winkman said:

Wasn't he just the "middle-man"?

Yes, but having been thrust into the public spotlight he has conducted himself brilliantly, see quotes above. If he's making some money out of this then good on him, he deserves it more than the bunch of twunts he has exposed.

[Northern Munkee]

Expect a (labour) friendly journo to launch an investigation into him, to try and identify the whistleblower, looking to smear him, and the the source, with "the real agenda" to try and move news story off the revelations themselves.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 23 May 11:51

[Jasandjules]

Northern Munkee said:

Expect a (labour) friendly journo to launch an investigation into him, to try and identify the whistleblower, looking to smear him, and the the source, with "the real agenda" to try and move news story off the revelations themselves.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 23 May 11:51

I don't think that will work. The bottom line is they are lying, theiving scum, and doing so at a time when many people are losing their jobs and homes.... The public are NOT going to forgive or forget.

[tubbystu]

andy_s said:

He was the middle man/broker but the most interesting thing is that when asked for a sample from the 'mole', he was supplied with 5 MPs details, each one had three different versions of their expenses - the original, the redacted (cut out anything dodgy) and the approved version (further redacted) version - the redacted versions (ie the dishonest altered ones) were the ones MPs were goping to release in July. This is an even bigger scandal than the current 'moat cleaning' type individual claims; it means MPs were going to show us taxpayers dishonest and falsified accounts and claim they were genuine - to save themselves all this trouble. It is this dishonesty more than exuberant claims which should be the focus of public ire.

which is what really finally got Michael Martin sacked.

It seems from an answer on Question Time they didn't need to be audited in any way either - unlike any other use of public money apparently - for this alone (if true) they should be strung up. The whole culture of parliament is going to have to be changed. They cannot be allowed to even consider making rules that exempt them from scrutiny if required by law in other cases.

Martin Bell on Question Time said:

This is a very British revolution

I don't think we should have an election soon either, the silt muddying the waters needs time to settle so we know who are the really bad, corrupt, thieves and get rid of them and the rules they were allowed to flourish under.

[Uncle Fester]

I read an allegation, but can’t remember where, that the Labour party had encouraged maximising claims. The money raised was not for the M.P.’s directly. It was to be turned over to the party for use as election campaign funds.

The permitted sources and use of funds for election campaign funds is regulated by law.

If this were true, then it may amount to conspiracy to commit election fraud. If it was going on prior to the last election, it may be actual election fraud has been committed.

Did anyone else hear this and if so, what evidence is there?

[Northern Munkee]

Jasandjules said:

Northern Munkee said:

Expect a (labour) friendly journo to launch an investigation into him, to try and identify the whistleblower, looking to smear him, and the the source, with "the real agenda" to try and move news story off the revelations themselves.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Saturday 23 May 11:51

I don't think that will work. The bottom line is they are lying, theiving scum, and doing so at a time when many people are losing their jobs and homes.... The public are NOT going to forgive or forget.

Well I don't think it would work either, but this government is so out of touch, don't mean they won't try.

[handpaper]

Uncle Fester said:

I read an allegation, but can’t remember where, that the Labour party had encouraged maximising claims. The money raised was not for the M.P.’s directly. It was to be turned over to the party for use as election campaign funds.

The permitted sources and use of funds for election campaign funds is regulated by law.

If this were true, then it may amount to conspiracy to commit election fraud. If it was going on prior to the last election, it may be actual election fraud has been committed.

Did anyone else hear this and if so, what evidence is there?

Yep, last year, Private Eye. No idea which issue, but it referred to local councillors expenses.
Ian, can we (subscribers) have a searchable online version please?

[Jasandjules]

Northern Munkee said:

Well I don't think it would work either, but this government is so out of touch, don't mean they won't try.

A fair point.

The question is, are they really SO out of touch that they honestly think they've done nothing wrong, or are they opting for the normal Nu Laba scum system of just repeatedly saying all is well in the hope that the public believe it.