show/hide profile info
Register to take part

GREEDY GOVERNMENT

  • 2 Replies
  • 1040 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Online the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3510
  • +75/-0
GREEDY GOVERNMENT
« on: October 19, 2012, 12:04:47 AM »
Greedy government - they just can't stop lining their own pockets while they empty yours.

Is that what the energy fluff was all about, covering up bad news?!.........

Here we go again.. ding, ding, round 2..

New post on Guy Fawkes' blog

Revealed: How MPs are Rent-Swapping

by WikiGuido



Another batch of politicians, another expenses scandal. This morning's Telegraph reveals that John Bercow is attempting to cover-up the publication of another round explosive expenses documents that would expose a property merry-go-round between rent-swapping MPs. Guido gives the "How-To" low-down on how sleazy MPs are swapping their rent to line their own pockets.

The first and most simple method of rent-swapping involves the MPs who make money renting out their own previously taxpayer-funded properties while claiming expenses to rent out homes nearby. According to The Telegraph Chris Bryant rents out his mansion flat in Bloomsbury while claiming ?2,000 expenses for rent on another London property. We have repeatedly asked him for an explanation this morning without receiving any reply. The Speaker claims the truth cannot be released because it would pose a security risk. Laughable, Guido and anyone else who wants to know, already knows where he lives.

The second, far more serious, category of rent-swapping covers a handful of MPs suspected of renting out properties to each other, effectively an "I'll pay yours if you pay mine" scheme. MPs are banned from renting homes to relatives but a loophole in the rules allows them to trouser huge sums of money by renting out properties to other current and former MPs. Bercow cites security reasons for not revealing the address or names of landlords, but there is absolutely no reason why he cannot release the names of the MPs involved in this form of rent-swapping. It is a cover up.

There is also potentially a third category: the so-called "phantom" rent swap. This involves the possibility of MPs telling the authorities they have moved when in reality they have not, and then swapping their rent on the quiet.

If these people were claiming housing benefit "Rent Swapping" like this would fall into the category of benefit fraud plain and simple, it is in the parlance of welfare fraud investigators a "contrived tenancy" punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

Stay tuned. There is more to come...


WikiGuido | October 18, 2012 at 11:01 am | Tags: Cash, Chris Bryant, Expenses, Sleaze, Snouts in the Trough | Categories: default | URL: http://wp.me/pvx79-vVR





-[email protected]~-

Buy Blacks Law Dictionary - Amazon
[email protected]~-

*

Online the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3510
  • +75/-0
Re: GREEDY GOVERNMENT
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2012, 12:07:50 AM »

New post on ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE

ARTICLE / VIDEO: Expenses scandal: MPs block details of new expenses
by Watt Tyler

The Speaker of the House of Commons is attempting to block the publication of MPs? expenses that are believed to show that some rent their taxpayer-funded homes to each other.
 
John Bercow has written to the expenses regulator warning him not to disclose official documents that show the identities of MPs? landlords for ?security? reasons.
 
Publication of the names, which was supposed to take place today, would expose the extent to which MPs are exploiting a loophole in the rules that allows politicians to rent their homes to one another. The loophole means that MPs can still effectively build up property nest eggs at taxpayers? expense, despite official attempts to stop the practice following the expenses scandal.
 
Sources at the expenses regulator confirmed that ?some MPs? were engaged in the practice.
 
In a letter released last night, it emerged that Mr Bercow had written to the regulator claiming that publication of details of MPs? landlords jeopardised their security and had led to ?grave concerns? in the House of Commons.
 
?The processing of the data ? could involve causing unwarranted damage and distress,? the Speaker wrote in the letter to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa). ?I should be grateful if you and your colleagues would reconsider such a plan.?
 
Read on:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/9615992/Expenses-scandal-MPs-block-details-of-new-expenses.html
 

Watt Tyler | 18/10/2012 at 18:18 | Tags: Abuse, Cancer, Conservative Party, Corrupt Politicians, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Lib-Dem, New Labour, Nick Clegg, Parasite, State-crime, Thieves, Traitor, Treason | Categories: Articles | URL: http://wp.me/pB2VP-11N





 



*

Online the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3510
  • +75/-0
Re: GREEDY GOVERNMENT
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2012, 12:12:10 AM »
(2012) New Labour M.P. Luciana Berger -CASH FOR QUESTIONS?
Posted by Watt Tyler on 18/10/2012


Luciana Berger is shocked that Guido would possibly see a link between her pushing for property development tax cuts in the Commons and taking money from property developers:

?It is clearly defamatory to suggest there is any link between the donation to my constituency party and my question in parliament. My question in the Commons was motivated by a constituent?s concern about the availability of private rented accommodation. It was completely unconnected to any donation to me or Liverpool Wavertree Constituency Party.?

The notion that it?s all hunky-dory because the donation was to her local party and not directly to her bank account is laughable. And note that she only mentions one donation ? we raised two. Now, while we have your attention Luciana, perhaps you could explain another donation that has caught our eye?



According the Electoral Commission in April 2011, Berger?s Liverpool Wavertree CLP received ?5,000 from a company called ?Purple Apple Facilities Management?. According to Companies House, as of 31 March 2010 Purple Apple was ?dormant? and it was later dissolved. HMRC say?dormant? is a term for ?any company or organisation that is not active, trading or carrying on business activity?. Now the problem for Luciana lies in Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. A company is only permissible as a donor if it is a company which ?is carrying on business in the United Kingdom?. Purple Apple were not however carrying out any business in the UK. So why was Luciana?s team accepting donations from them?

Hat tip:  http://order-order.com/2012/10/18/luciana-bergers-dodgy-dormant-donation/



 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)



COMODO SECURE

Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL