Bill Cash

[paddyhasneeds]

Good lord.. as much as I admit to detesting Labour and having a Tory bias based off what I've seen and heard lately this chap seems a total disgrace.

There's a phrase "When in a hole stop digging" and I think he's about to emerge somewhere in Auckland based off his defense so far.

[sone]

It amazes me that he think's it will do him favours being interviewed by the media outside his country pile.
I think thats called rubbing salt in!.

[paddyhasneeds]

sone said:

It amazes me that he think's it will do him favours being interviewed by the media outside his country pile.
I think thats called rubbing salt in!.

I don't have any problem with the country pile, but his argument seems to be all manner of bizarre ste about how his daughter was running in Salford and his son was living in his Westminster flat and so forth.

In a bizarre way I can see his argument, but he's doing such a shockingly bad job of expressing himself that someone just needs to tell him to stop talking.

[Jasandjules]

Mr Barrat 0.50 has a fairly convincing way of getting people to STFU.

[Eric Mc]

They are blind to their own faults. Decades of malpractice has made it impossible for them to see what the problems are with their behaviour.

[sone]

paddyhasneeds said:

sone said:

It amazes me that he think's it will do him favours being interviewed by the media outside his country pile.
I think thats called rubbing salt in!.

I don't have any problem with the country pile, but his argument seems to be all manner of bizarre ste about how his daughter was running in Salford and his son was living in his Westminster flat and so forth.

In a bizarre way I can see his argument, but he's doing such a shockingly bad job of expressing himself that someone just needs to tell him to stop talking.

And neither do I, point is he's going to need all the sympathy he can muster. Further alienating the man in the street is not going to help his cause.

[BiggusLaddus]

sone said:

And neither do I, point is he's going to need all the sympathy he can muster. Further alienating the man in the street is not going to help his cause.

and this leech is my leech.

[DSM2]

paddyhasneeds said:

sone said:

It amazes me that he think's it will do him favours being interviewed by the media outside his country pile.
I think thats called rubbing salt in!.

I don't have any problem with the country pile, but his argument seems to be all manner of bizarre ste about how his daughter was running in Salford and his son was living in his Westminster flat and so forth.

In a bizarre way I can see his argument, but he's doing such a shockingly bad job of expressing himself that someone just needs to tell him to stop talking.

?????????? There is no argument!!! The taxpayer has been paying his son's fking rent. End of.

[paddyhasneeds]

DSM2 said:

paddyhasneeds said:

sone said:

It amazes me that he think's it will do him favours being interviewed by the media outside his country pile.
I think thats called rubbing salt in!.

I don't have any problem with the country pile, but his argument seems to be all manner of bizarre ste about how his daughter was running in Salford and his son was living in his Westminster flat and so forth.

In a bizarre way I can see his argument, but he's doing such a shockingly bad job of expressing himself that someone just needs to tell him to stop talking.

?????????? There is no argument!!! The taxpayer has been paying his son's fking rent. End of.

If I understand his argument correctly, he owns a flat near Westminster already.

He chose to let his son live there, which seems reasonable if it's his flat.

However, he needs somewhere to live in London so rented a flat from his daughter - which appears to be the cause of the anger - whereas his argument is that he was paying market rate and would be paying the same if he's rented the flat from a third party?

[ludo]

paddyhasneeds said:

DSM2 said:

paddyhasneeds said:

sone said:

It amazes me that he think's it will do him favours being interviewed by the media outside his country pile.
I think thats called rubbing salt in!.

I don't have any problem with the country pile, but his argument seems to be all manner of bizarre ste about how his daughter was running in Salford and his son was living in his Westminster flat and so forth.

In a bizarre way I can see his argument, but he's doing such a shockingly bad job of expressing himself that someone just needs to tell him to stop talking.

?????????? There is no argument!!! The taxpayer has been paying his son's fking rent. End of.

If I understand his argument correctly, he owns a flat near Westminster already.

He chose to let his son live there, which seems reasonable if it's his flat.

However, he needs somewhere to live in London so rented a flat from his daughter - which appears to be the cause of the anger - whereas his argument is that he was paying market rate and would be paying the same if he's rented the flat from a third party?

If Cash had paid his daughter for his son to live in the daughters flat "rent free" and live in his own flat when in London, that would have been fine. However he wouldn't then be able to claim for that against his allowance. What he has done appears to be a pretty cynical arrangement designed for the enrichment of both his children at the tax payers expense. Cash knows perfectly well it was a cynical arrangement, otherwise he would say "there is nothing immoral about what I have done" rather than "anything that is not illegal is acceptable" (or words to that effect). It is just that sort of disingenuous nonsense that makes all politicians look like a bunch of dishonest, dishonorable scumbags (IMHO).

[paddyhasneeds]

I'm sure it's cynical, just trying to make sure I understand it -

The London flat is his, not subsidised or paid for by his job as an MP so he can do with it as he wishes which in his case is let his son live there rent free?

As an MP he needs somewhere to live whilst in London. Putting aside arguments about stay in a cheap hotel and so on, he rented a flat, but instead of renting it from Joe Bloggs, he rented it from his daughter.

If I understand correctly, the final point is the issue - if he'd rented it from Joe Bloggs no-one would care but because he rented it from his daughter it's wrong?

I can see why people would think there may be a conflict of interest there, presumably (and this is where I do get cynical) someone checks that what he's paying is the market rate?

Once you go beyond his crap explanation and the newspaper headlines I'm not sure it seems so terrible compared to non-existent mortgages and second homes 200 miles from Westminster and you constituency home etc.

[ludo]

paddyhasneeds said:

I'm sure it's cynical, just trying to make sure I understand it -

The London flat is his, not subsidised or paid for by his job as an MP so he can do with it as he wishes which in his case is let his son live there rent free?

The point is that I rather doubt he would have let his son live there rent free if he could not claim on his allowance for himself to live elsewhere. That means that the tax-payer is footing the bill for his "generosity" to his son.

paddyhasneeds said:

As an MP he needs somewhere to live whilst in London. Putting aside arguments about stay in a cheap hotel and so on, he rented a flat, but instead of renting it from Joe Bloggs, he rented it from his daughter.

I have no substantial problem with him renting from his daughter. As I pointed out, he could have rented his daughters flat and let his son live in it "rent free", and for that he would be applauded for his generosity to his children rather than excoriated for his cynicism.

paddyhasneeds said:

If I understand correctly, the final point is the issue - if he'd rented it from Joe Bloggs no-one would care but because he rented it from his daughter it's wrong?

No, that would still be wrong. He would then have two options: Pay Joe Bloggs for his son to live rent-free in Joe Bloggs flat and live in his own (but without claiming allowance) or let his son live in his flat and rent a flat for himself from Joe Bloggs at the tax payers expense. As another poster correctly pointed out Cash is getting the tax payer to cough up, if indirectly, for his sons rent.

[DSM2]

ludo said:

paddyhasneeds said:

I'm sure it's cynical, just trying to make sure I understand it -

The London flat is his, not subsidised or paid for by his job as an MP so he can do with it as he wishes which in his case is let his son live there rent free?

The point is that I rather doubt he would have let his son live there rent free if he could not claim on his allowance for himself to live elsewhere. That means that the tax-payer is footing the bill for his "generosity" to his son.

paddyhasneeds said:

As an MP he needs somewhere to live whilst in London. Putting aside arguments about stay in a cheap hotel and so on, he rented a flat, but instead of renting it from Joe Bloggs, he rented it from his daughter.

I have no substantial problem with him renting from his daughter. As I pointed out, he could have rented his daughters flat and let his son live in it "rent free", and for that he would be applauded for his generosity to his children rather than excoriated for his cynicism.

paddyhasneeds said:

If I understand correctly, the final point is the issue - if he'd rented it from Joe Bloggs no-one would care but because he rented it from his daughter it's wrong?

No, that would still be wrong. He would then have two options: Pay Joe Bloggs for his son to live rent-free in Joe Bloggs flat and live in his own (but without claiming allowance) or let his son live in his flat and rent a flat for himself from Joe Bloggs at the tax payers expense. As another poster correctly pointed out Cash is getting the tax payer to cough up, if indirectly, for his sons rent.

Exactly!

Paddy - are you Bill Cash in reality, or what?

[elster]

What about if he was a property developer and owned 100 houses in London already?

Do you guys still think it would be wrong for him to rent a property?

How about if he was a director of a company that owned properties?

I think this is a bit of a non story compared to the other fraudulent ones.

[Zod]

The guy is an egotistical ahole who played a large part in continuing the Tory party's unelectable state after 1997 with his rabid euroscepticism. I laugh almost as much at his fall as I do at Brown's.

[Randy Winkman]

elster said:

What about if he was a property developer and owned 100 houses in London already?

Do you guys still think it would be wrong for him to rent a property?

How about if he was a director of a company that owned properties?

I think this is a bit of a non story compared to the other fraudulent ones.

I have a "travelcard" which enables me to travel all around London for a fixed yearly sum. I have bought it because I want it for personal reasons. When I travel in London for work purposes, I use my travelcard and do not claim any money from my employer - because it has cost me nothing. When other people from my department, that do not have travelcards, travel in London, they have to buy tickets. They then claim this back on expenses. Should I claim the money for my London travel, even though it's cost me nothing as I have a ticket already?

[elster]

Randy Winkman said:

elster said:

What about if he was a property developer and owned 100 houses in London already?

Do you guys still think it would be wrong for him to rent a property?

How about if he was a director of a company that owned properties?

I think this is a bit of a non story compared to the other fraudulent ones.

I have a "travelcard" which enables me to travel all around London for a fixed yearly sum. I have bought it because I want it for personal reasons. When I travel in London for work purposes, I use my travelcard and do not claim any money from my employer - because it has cost me nothing. When other people from my department, that do not have travelcards, travel in London, they have to buy tickets. They then claim this back on expenses. Should I claim the money for my London travel, even though it's cost me nothing as I have a ticket already?

Sorry I can't quite see how that analogy compares.

Do you think his daughter should be out of pocket? Because they are related.

[Randy Winkman]

elster said:

Randy Winkman said:

elster said:

What about if he was a property developer and owned 100 houses in London already?

Do you guys still think it would be wrong for him to rent a property?

How about if he was a director of a company that owned properties?

I think this is a bit of a non story compared to the other fraudulent ones.

I have a "travelcard" which enables me to travel all around London for a fixed yearly sum. I have bought it because I want it for personal reasons. When I travel in London for work purposes, I use my travelcard and do not claim any money from my employer - because it has cost me nothing. When other people from my department, that do not have travelcards, travel in London, they have to buy tickets. They then claim this back on expenses. Should I claim the money for my London travel, even though it's cost me nothing as I have a ticket already?

Sorry I can't quite see how that analogy compares.

Do you think his daughter should be out of pocket? Because they are related.

Unless I am mistaken - we are helping to pay for him to stay at his daughter's flat (in Notting Hill), when he has a flat of his own in Pimlico (much nearer Parliament) that he lets his son stay at for nothing. If that is that case, yes, his daughter should let him stay at her flat for nothing and should be "out of pocket" as you put it. If she has a problem with that, why doesn't she tell him to use his Pimlico flat, and his son pay for somewhere else to live like normal people do? Or they could share the Pimlico flat (again,like normal people do)? Actually, the most completely obvious solution, is that he stay in his Pimlico flat, and the son either stay free, or rent, the daughter's flat. Why are normal, hard working, tax paying Britons paying thousands of pounds to this man for things that he clearly doesn't need to do his job as an MP? The only reason, I can think of, why they would have come up with that weird arrangement, is to rip off the British tax payer.

(The analogy was all about claiming for something that has actually cost you nothing.)