Ms Smith (AKA Muppet No.3) & "fair and reasonable" allowances

Graham_Devon

I saw her on the news this morning (BBC). And she was justifying the BBQ it seemed, by saying they need to live like other people too.

Pretty much the same as saying what she did on R4 by saying it was the nature of the job which meant they needed to furnish a second property.

What I gathered is she was saying the BBQ was because she needs a second home and should be able to live like the rest of us, i.e. its not her fault she needs a second home, so why should she suffer because of it. Thats just what I gathered.

Trouble is, her second home, is what we all call our main home....and she doesnt seem to realise that shes buying nice expensive BBQ's for her family to enjoy on our money.

To answer the question which asked "can you not see why people are angry".....she stated "what people want, is for me to get on with the job and to be left to get on with doing a good job". No, dear, what we want is you out.

I do find her amusing though. One minute shes backing herself up saying she should be able to live normally like the rest of us. The next, shes saying its ok, her husband has said sorry, therefore its right he should keep his job no matter what.

shuze

Graham_Devon wrote: »

To answer the question which asked "can you not see why people are angry".....she stated "what people want, is for me to get on with the job and to be left to get on with doing a good job". No, dear, what we want is you out.

.

Yes, but surely the point is, we don't just want her out, we want a system whereby this exploitation of the taxpayer can't be repeated? Otherwise, what have we achieved?

ricll

the poor old dumb husband of hers got blamed for the scandal but to be fair with him he was just trying to have some fun in what must have been otherwise a nightmare of a life. Imagine you having to face Jacqui Smith in lingerie every single day of the week. You either go crazy or... buy some !!!!!! once in a while and remain sane.

PasturesNew

I've been in jobs where I've had to get up at 4am to travel to London, spend the night there in the cheapest hotel possible and I had a total of £20/day for all my meals and travel. I had to go without food because at times 3 meals and a taxi just didn't fit. As I had no idea where I was or how to use the underground etc, I had to use a taxi to get to the hotel in the evening and back to the office the next morning. £20 gone. I was living on the free biscuits in the cheap hotel room.

These people don't live in the real world at all!

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ricll wrote: »

the poor old dumb husband of hers got blamed for the scandal but to be fair with him he was just trying to have some fun in what must have been otherwise a nightmare of a life. Imagine you having to face Jacqui Smith in lingerie every single day of the week. You either go crazy or... buy some !!!!!! once in a while and remain sane.

lol


I suppose he was to blame for the tens of thousands she claimed fr renting a room of her sister also?

Dylanwing

To answer the question which asked "can you not see why people are angry".....she stated "what people want, is for me to get on with the job and to be left to get on with doing a good job". No, dear, what we want is you out.

I would be very happy for her to spend until the election sorting out her expenses, considering the pigs ear that she is making of her day job. I will try that one tomorrow, claiming £500 for a 30 mile trip, I'm sure the Civil Service would rather that I concentrated on my job rather than a few hundred pounds of questionable expenses!

Rochdale_Pioneers

I think she's jumped the shark describing them as fair and reasonable. Within the rules yes, but the reason for the hasty review of the rules is that they are anything but fair and reasonable.

To answer WTFooksters question about the difference between MPs and Bankers, I think its about £2tn. Odious though an 88p bath plug might be to some of you, MPs expenses are many zeroes lower than the cost to the UK of the bankers arrogance.

leveller2911

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I think she's jumped the shark describing them as fair and reasonable. Within the rules yes, but the reason for the hasty review of the rules is that they are anything but fair and reasonable.

To answer WTFooksters question about the difference between MPs and Bankers, I think its about £2tn. Odious though an 88p bath plug might be to some of you, MPs expenses are many zeroes lower than the cost to the UK of the bankers arrogance.

But they are 2 different animals Rochdale, bankers are self serving,morally corrupt idiots, MP,s are suppose to be "public servants" ............hold the front page, I take that back, they are 2 of the same..:rolleyes:

A_Nice_Englishman

I'm just pondering whether being humiliated in the media for a week or so would be worth a few tens of thousand pounds worth of luxury goods to me.

I think I'd probably consider such an offer

dacouch

RHYSDAD wrote: »

The worst part is the 'things can only get better' slogan/bollox they used in 97. Au contraire, i think you'll find that things could only have got worse.........

And here we are........

They were right....Things did get better...for MPs