Expenses fraud is a crime: No ifs no buts
"Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has launched a High Court legal challenge to stop details of Gordon Brown's personal expenses claims being made public".
How many times have I heard the government state if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear?
There is something wrong with the government challenging its own legislation in the High Court. There is something wrong with the government employing a firm of lawyers at the public's expense to prevent the public examining MPs expenses. It is ridiculous to claim that it is on security grounds, a desire to keep MPs addresses secret, that the government is acting. Even more absurd is the claim "It is also arguing that MPs should not have to disclose the details of their expenses because they did not know at the time they made the claims that they would be made public". If there is nothing dodgy what difference does it make?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
2 comments:
There can only be ONE reason that they don't want their expense claims to be made public.
Very good point you make too Jailhouse:
"How many times have I heard the government state if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear?"
I second that motion!
Post a Comment