Friday, 29 May 2009

Roger Gale’s expenses appear in the Daily Telegraph

“Roger Gale claimed £624.98 for a television and stand and £250.30 for a TV aerial. Also claimed £1,700 for redecoration, plumbing and electrical works at his second home in London”

Ed. I waited to add my thoughts on this one until my ire cooled a little, as I didn’t want to seem unreasonably critical of Roger and as he ranks 446th out of 645 this puts him in the top 200 in terms of MPs that have fleeced us the least.

£875 just to watch TV, the trouble is that our MPs have lost touch with the real world, it doesn’t seem to matter much that some of them are saying sorry and paying the money back.

Rogers total expenses last year were £137,337 click here for some more detail, the problem for me is once one realises that part of there expenses look unreasonable one starts to wonder about the rest.

Now for me being in business if I got caught having made an unjustifiable expense it would trigger a tax inspection, by that I mean that the taxman would have a very close look at my books and if there was much wrong with them I would be looking at fines, prison and bankruptcy.

It is no excuse saying MPs wages are too low as MPs know what their wages will be when they stand for election.

10 comments:

  1. i thought he said he only had a room in a flat. Seems a lot for tv stand and aerial. Couldn't he have nipped up to Argos for those items?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michael I would of expected better of you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe the Telegraph might get round to Dr Ladyman and ask who else lives in his flat in London and what are they paying towards its upkeep?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I know it's not following this thread, but I see that Mark Nottingham's misfortune and distress - the lightening strike on his home - are causes of merriment and sarcasm over on Village Voices - the blog of local political turncoat and Tory Planning Chair, Ken Gregory.

    Although to a lesser extent, the local Tory Spin "Doctor", Simeon Moores, is also smirking.

    Well if proof were needed of the gutter-level moral standing of the local Tory Group, those two individuals provide it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've posted on Gregory's blog accusing him of being smug etc. Let's see if he puts it up later today.

    I thought his comments were a cheap shot.

    Steve Ladyman, I believe, shares his London flat with his step-son, Joe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Doctor Pfizer Steve has a history of not wishing to raise inquiry into fees and expenses charged to public funds.

    In the 1990s 1200 people were awarded legal aid to sue NHS/Pharmaceutical Industry over negligent prescription of corticosteroid drugs.

    One such case was a former athlete who ended up in scaffolding in a wheelchair through the bone weakening side effects of the drug.

    The barrister, Simon Levene, was involved with the genric lead solicitor (Evill and Coleman) in deciding there should be no genric case (one case made for all 1200 victims) but that the 1200 cases should be pursued separately (Oh would that be 1200 separately charged barrister opinions ?)

    Then came a prior ruling that any expert being sued could not give expert evidence against NHS/pharamceutical industry.

    Thus the suspicion that some ringer claims were set up to take out the most potentially damaging expert witnesses (IE Those who could support the cases and get justice for the victims of negligent drug prescription and in some cases concealed research using unwitting NHS patients)

    After that experts selected for the expert panel charged sums like £1300 per hour (thirteen hundred pounds per hour) to give 1200 expert opinions undermining all 1200 cases.

    Is that about 8 million in opinions paid for by legal aid ?

    Then the barristers fees

    1200 opinions saying that the Bolam Defence (A privilege of the Mengele's in pharamceuticals and NHS) would be too much of an obstacle and thus all 1200 legal aid certs were cancelled.

    Say the solicitors and the barristers made the same as the "Experts". That means Legal Aid paid out £20,000 per claimant to lawyers and bogus experts without even one case seeing its day in Court.

    One lawyer (leading medical negligence solicitor Morgan Cole of Cardiff) found itself taken before the Office for Supervision of Solicitors. They were adjudged as the worst case of poor service ever investigated. The maximum compensation under Law Society then was £1000. Morgan Cole were ordered to pay their client £1000.

    "Doctor" Steve Ladyman did not want to know about the denial of justice to NHS/Pharmaceutical Industry victims. Just like he did not want to know about the death of a child at Guys during failure of a Petbow backup generator (which cut power to life support). Ladyman helped the company to 7 million of public grant ... but the death of a child when a Petbow failed ... "Not his concern".

    Don't vote for it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 20.53 Better than what?

    23.46 I believe that they will get round to all of them in the end.

    00.06 Do you know if Mark is ok? I am afraid I haven’t had a chance to get out, to get a Gazette. (I am practicing alliteration after studying the they work for you site)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Both our MPs seem to be pretty much ok when it comes to expenses, Its a shame that two people who work hard for their residents become tarred with the same brush as the few who are truely awfull.
    In fact Kent seems to have a decent bunch of representatives at Westminster.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ken I think the problem for me here is working out what would be reasonable, there is no marker to go by as some of the MPs that have claimed outrageously appear to have done so within the rules.

    They seem to be saying; we made the rules, the rules were wrong, we will make new rules. Which begs the question, are those who would have been outside the rules, had the new rules been introduced, in the right or in the wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ken, its a shame the decent representitives at Wesminster can't stretch to TDC offices and we have to put up with you lot.

    Roll on next year I say.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.