reply to post by Britguy
I agree - don't even get me started on the disgusting expenses scandal - I think that is was all part of a larger engineered agenda - but it still
winds me up
I will copy you in on my latest correspondence with my MP -
Thank you for your email "The Big Issues" ...where you note :
"The Prime Minister has been asked to repay £12,000 for cleaning and gardening on his second home in Scotland because Legg has set new maximum
limits which now apply retrospectively.
Over the next few weeks, MP's can seek to clarify any issues with Sir Thomas as a detailed report will then be published giving information on
repayments requested from MP's. I think the main worry for MP's is that if they are asked to repay money because the rules have been changed and
applied retrospectively voters may question their honesty and intergrity. In these circumstances it would be very unfair to try to claim that an MP
had fiddled his or her expenses."
I interpret this as a defence of the media fuelled public scepticism of the actions of yourself and your collegues in respect of the use of taxpayers
money claimed as expenses.
Your argument reads:Gordon Brown (the boss man) did it.....the system allowed it.....it was within the framework of the law......requests for
repayment make us look guilty of a crime
I, like the majority of the voting public understand your argument which is wholly logical and factually correct for the majority of (but not all)
HOWEVER, you will never, ever win this debate with the general public - because morally, you are wrong
Just as an example, working on the logic of your argument then, for example : a Nazi officer rounding up prisoners to take to concentration camps is
beyond reprehension because:
The boss man did it....... the system allowed it......it was within the framework of the law.....subsequent laws passed in the Nuremburg Trials
regarding crimes against humanity made him look guilty
Even though the example is extreme - and the crime is not comparable - the logic is exactly the same! Can you not see that unless you operate on a
personal level in a responsible, honorable, ethical, moral manner, your actions being the same as others above you or within the framework of the law
is no defence because you will always fundamentally be in the wrong.
Sir Thomas Legg's report is based upon a personal "moral and reasonable" interpretation of what the taxpayer expense bill should be and therefore
will always be subject to challenge - however, the difference between Sir Legg's interpretation and actual payments made is so vast that the average
person/voter cannot fail to question the "honesty and integrity" of their constitutional representatives.
According to the Telegraph - Sir Thomas Legg has questioned the following regarding your expense claims
"David Borrow claims £1,300 per month in mortgage interest payments on a London flat which is designated as his second home, plus utilities and
I have also ascertained the following facts and figures:
Your expenses were £ 172, 607.00 between 2007 / 2008 on top of an annual salary of £ 63, 291.00
The average MP expense claim for 2007 / 2008 was £ 135,600.00
You claimed £ 37007.00 over and above the average MP
You had the 8th highest expenses claim of all UK Mp’s in 2007/2008
• 2nd home allowance 28083
• London supplement 0
• Office 21276
• Staffing 88173
• Central stationary 1677
• Stationary and postage 3772
• IT provision 1374
• Staff Cover 0
• Communications 19006
• Travel 14345
Since 2001, you have claimed an unbelievable £ 912, 397.00 in expenses on top of your salary.
However, if you can stand up - look your voters in the eye and state that every penny of the taxpayers money that you have personally spent was wholly
necessary, could not be reduced anywhere, and that you have behaved with honesty and integrity ....then you have nothing at all to worry about.
This would have been a better way to communicate with your voters, oppsed to the flawed generic argument which we have received from you.
Personally, I have always argued that MP's salary should be far higher - but that none should not be able to hold interests in any compaany /
organisation which may bias their view / corrupt their judgement - although this is now a moot point as unfortunately, in my opinion, we are so far
away from a fair uncorrupted democratic governance system in this country that the expenses scandal is just a minor distraction....a small visible
boil on the face of a bloated, disease ridden puss filled body.
I look forward to your future communications