ECCOnoob

7 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

Trump was bang average.

Harris was as terrible as usual.

Roll on November 5th🙄

'Bang average' is massively overstated. 

Trump looked, sounded and acted absolutely deranged.  He blew it without Harris even having to deliver any substance.  

Harris played him spectacularly. She knew exactly what nerves to touch and he fell for it every time. 

4 hours ago, Draggletail said:

There are still older people who don't have computers or smartphones who rely on letters for their NHS hospital appointments.

 

I think we are a bit beyond the whole simplistic "what about the elderly" 

Email and the use of mobile phones has been in existence for more than a third of the average lifetime. There are plenty of elderly, more than capable and proven users of basic internet functions, text messaging, emails, smartphones.... Yes, there might be a very small number of exceptions who may still rely on hard copy post - but I simply don't believe that the NHS needs to be sending out the volume of letters it does particularly for confirming appointments and circulars when the majority of population, even significantly older persons would not be befuddled by getting a text message or email instead. 

Just sounds like too much of a cop out to me. I don't want to learn and adapt is very different to I can't learn an adapt.  This is not newfangled tech anymore.

Home email programs were becoming commonplace by 1995. Text messaging by by 2000. Even the first generation of the iPhone has been in existence since 2007. 

Plenty of the older folks miraculously were able to cope with NHS apps during covid and QR codes. They learnt. Is it really so hard for them to get an appointment letter by  electronic means.   They coped perfectly well when pensions changed to electronic payments. They managed to cope with their plastic cards replacing passbooks, ATMs replacing bank cashiers, chip and pin replacing cheque books......

Times move on. 

3 hours ago, Draggletail said:

There are still older people who don't have computers or smartphones who rely on letters for their NHS hospital appointments.

 

. 

1 minute ago, Prettytom said:

Maybe you’d like to quantify “a very lot”.

 

And also consider that all of that “very lot” are getting a pension rise in excess of  twice the benefit cut.

 

When you’ve done that, do let us know how we balance the books after your mates gave all the money away to their mates.

You mean like our current government have just done.  Caving in to their union puppet masters with their ludicrous pay rises to their precious public sector. 

How much taxpayer money has been peed away on that.   

1 hour ago, Slighty batty said:

My first job out of uni was with the DHSS. We did occasionally give claimants vouchers for things like school uniforms, children’s shoes, rail travel to visit partner in prison etc, even food in some cases, but often they just sold the vouchers on for cash. Then they would come into the office pretending that they’d lost them, and demanding replacements. 

Just perhaps another example for even tighter controls then.   Mandatory ID checks, proper administration of the vouchers, maybe even go as far to have mandated centres where welfare claimants collect their supplies. 

With all the long technology these days it can't be that hard to run it.  Make it biometric if need be, other things are now. 

Amazon has entire shops where someone walks in automatically gets logged, tracked and walks out with their goods. I don't see why similar stuff can't be applied to welfare. 

Could go even further, apply the delivery tech available now.  A government mandated box of perfectly balanced supplies to get a family through a week . Forget all this free school lunch and breakfast club stuff, expecting teachers for feed malnourished kids.  It could all be tied in with the healthy eating drives the governments keep pushing for.  A mandated box of perfectly healthy balanced meals for a family of one, two, four, etc. no ifs or buts. If you're on welfare, that's what you get because that's what the government has decided you need. 

Seems a win win for a government and it's voters who seemingly strive  for more state control, state ownership, boo hiss the greedy private sector. Boo hiss neoliberalism, capitalism and global markets.  

If you are living off the government means surely right the government will decide exactly what you need to live on eat and how you will receive it. 

Bring something like that and let's see how many claimants for welfare then. For those who genuinely will need it or have no choice but to survive on it, they will be grateful for any methods of support. However, for those serial long-term unemployed and wasters expecting the state to fund their lifestyle, you watch how quick they would magically find some work if that's all they were being offered. 

40 minutes ago, geared said:

 

I bumped into a couple of old dears moaning about it the other day.

 

"I use that money for Christmas presents for the Grandkids"

"I was going to give it to xzy for some Holiday money"

 

Yes love this is the problem, it's to heat your home, not buy gifts.

 

Perhaps if it was given as some kind of credit via your energy company, it wouldn't have been seen as an easy target for cuts?

 

The same arguments could be applied to lots of other state benefits and allowances.  Why provide people with actual money at all.   

Why not fully control the whole system through direct to supplier payments, offset credits or vouchers to make sure Claimants are legitimately using a benefit for the purpose its supposed to provide.   You cant feed your kids..... here is some supermarket vouchers with restrictions on what can be purchased - no monthly direct payments, no lumps of cash in the bank to risk temptation of being spend on other things or falling into the wrong hands.   

You need rent support....   right here is a credit direct to your landlord/housing provider.   No messing around persuading a landlord to accept UC or risk tenants spending it on other things.   

You have someone with severe addictions, special needs or unable to manage their affairs.... controlled vouchers and payments for specific suppliers for rent, energy, travel and food. That's it.  No lump sum monies for them to have to manage, no long-winded administration and assessments to ensure a suitable guardian is in place, no risk of monies being used for drugs/substances/fraud.  Just a simple process of direct from government to supplier to end user.     

However, you even attempt to suggest such a strictly controlled welfare system and you can hear the screams, outrage and objections from a mile away. 

On 30/05/2024 at 12:30, pfifes said:

TNT Express was an international courier delivery services company with its headquarters in Hoofddorp, Netherlands. It was acquired by FedEx.  The likes of TNT don’t have to deliver UK letters for a flat fee regardless of destination.  That is the difference.  I’ve no issue with courier service btw, many are excellent, but they are what are and can choose the most profitable services for their business. Unlike Royal Mail who at present anyway  have deliver letters for a flat fee.  And it is case of ‘miss it when it’s gone’ if you think about on more than a superficial level. Even quite recently I can think of an instance where we needed to produce an  original (I.e. not downloaded and printed personally) statement/bill for ID/legal purposes. I guess this type of requirement will phase out gradually but the point I’m making is that we do take a lot for granted with regards to mail.

These I think are key points that keep being overlooked.   Even on this thread the gripes from people about Royal Mail mostly seem to be about parcels not letters.   Its all too easy to be saying Amazon is better or UPS leave my package where I ask them too...    But, as you quite rightly point out, none of those companies have to worry about a statutory obligation to deliver of a single piece of paper potentially from Lands End to The Shetlands for as low as 85p. 

There is no doubt that regular letter mail is dwindling, particularly in the business world.  I certainly remember the days of my office having sacks of incoming mail each morning, all to be sliced open, date stamped, sorted into our pigeon holes.  Piles of hard copy items to wade through each day, dictate and type responses to be printed, signed and sent out in similar huge sacks of outgoing mail each evening.   Now I can sometimes go at least 2-3 days without receiving a single piece of hard copy business post despite working in the legal sector which is still antiquated in many ways - Other types of industries are virtually post free and have been for some time. 

None of the 'courier companies' are going to want to touch the fixed priced letter post with a barge pole.  It has to be questioned how long its really is sustainable without some great reform.  People moan about the service taking longer and becoming more expensive but that's not surprising given its ever dwindling use.  Of course there are some exceptions of things which still require urgent hard copy delivery but there are now a range of services which could provide that not just RM.    For the rest of the generic bulk mail - one would suggest if its really that desperately urgent to still be clinging onto the rose tinted totally uneconomical methods of fixed price first and second class timeframes.   Certainly looking at the personal post I receive these days at least 3/4 goes strength in the bin and i'm sure i'm not alone with that - so makes me wonder why bother.

Would it be time for RM to bite the bullet and simply make general post once weekly instead?  Would it be time to split out the classes further and making first class delivery an ad hoc booked timed service like a courier with regular 'stamped' post just being once a week to x areas like say bin collection?     Perhaps its about time that some of those organisations clinging on to their antiquated systems sending letters for everything need dragging into the modern world (the NHS is a prime example of sending letters for the sake of it).  Maybe there needs to be more consideration on the real costs of and even any necessity of maintaining such a universal fixed price system. Particularly now with its massive drop in usage and massively increased (even previously non-existent) competition. 

4 hours ago, High Chaparral said:

What position of power does she have?   Sir Keir Starmer cancelled his planned holiday during the riots because he is the one who has the power

Only the fact that she's a cabinet minister and second in command to the PM.

You don't think that's a position of power?  The term applies to more than one person. You can't seriously think Kier Starmer runs the country solely on his own.  

1 hour ago, lavery549@yahoo said:

You are invited to your friends house for a meal . The meal comes & there is something you hate . What do you do ? 

Surely if they are friends long enough to reach having dinner with, they should have a  basic knowledge of things that you hate to eat.

OR, if they are friends, you should have no problem being able to apologise and politely decline you cant eat it because.....

It if neither of those things can be applied then you have to ask if you are actually at the friends level with them.  

4 minutes ago, Mister M said:

Really?

Try reading Alan Clarke's diaries - he begs to differ with you - and he was there.

Hardly a verbatim record of fact are they.  The serialisation of diaries from a flamboyant politician who was known for their sense of humour and dramatisation. 

Come on, you can hardly argue Thatcher was some delicate little flower filled with femininity and womanly charm.   

50 minutes ago, Mister M said:

 

When some ex-Tory MPs (e.g. Lia Nici - yeah, who?) and their dirty ******* friends in the press said that Angela Rayner was flashing her crotch at PMQ's, even Boris Johnson slapped them down calling it "tripe" from "misogynists".

Other people who know Parliament well said that from the vantage point of where the PM stands and where Angela Rayner sits, he wouldn't have even been able to see her crotch.

When Ministers from years ago said of Mrs Thatcher to get her own way, "she used her feminine wiles", would anyone like to suggest she flashed her growler?

Margaret Thatcher didn't need to use her 'feminine wiles'.  She had more balls and assertiveness than the majority of her cabinet. 

1 hour ago, High Chaparral said:

Most likely she was recognised by the audience and the DJ asked her to come on the stage.  It's petty to criticise her for enjoying herself on holiday. 

I highly doubt she was simply 'totally coincidentally' recognised in the crowd.

Secondly, it's not petty calling someone out for their apparent hypocrisy.  Our Ange in particular has form for it *cough* council house selling *cough* tax dodge *cough*

As I said earlier, she made big noises about MPs and Ministers being on holiday during crisis times when she was sitting on opposition benches. Why shouldn't the same criticism be thrown at her now that she's in a position of power. 

42 minutes ago, Mister M said:

And maybe you should try a different line. 

Your blatherings are too similar to that of West77 and Axe.

 

People have different ways of enjoying themselves an some of that will be about how they were brought up and what they are used to.

I know Vince Cable is a keen ballroom dancer, while there was some comment about it, it was never front page news.

 

Some of the newspapers have really gone to town on it!

Well maybe the mouthy mare should toughen up and learn that when you dish it out you need to be able to take it back. 

She was more than happy to criticise and jibe Tory MPs and Ministers taking holidays during so-called crises when she was in opposition.  She should know that the same sort of attacks are going to come back at her now they are in power. 

Our Ange was very vocal about her opposition MPs taking their luxury five-star grand vacations but seemly her VIP treatment and DJ deck access at some high profile club with celebrities in tow....  oh that's all just down to earth working class girl having a dance 🙄

2 hours ago, RollingJ said:

I'm not 'desperately seeking' any further information, and I am not suggesting they are doing anything illegally.

But you are clearly trying to suggest they are up to something. Hence why you keep making comments about their 'convenient' registered address with their accountants and pushing for information about being able to 'trace' them and where office operations are 'based'.

Just come out with it. What is it you are so suspicious of? 

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

You seem to struggle with quite a lot, but that is understandable -I struggle to see where you are coming from sometimes.

If they have an office in Vauxhall, bearing in mind this rather important, I would have thought,  position is described as 'remote working', one wonders if it is one of these 'rent by the hour' locations.

The comment re donors is irrelevant to this particular bit of the discussion.

I don't understand what more information you are so desperately seeking.  Legally and in terms of registration they operate from the address of stated on companies house. That is where their legal paperwork will be served and where any proceedings against them will be submitted.

The directors involved in this organisation are named and listed. You can even go further to see any links to other companies that they may also be linked to or named upon.

Just like nearly all organisations in the year 2024, most of the desk based jobs will be a hybrid arrangement. That is not an unusual.  It might be the case like 99.9% of their operations are done remotely, but so what? That happens with lots of companies these days.

Now, if you're trying to find out with personal registered addresses of the individual directors, then you're going to be disappointed. 

I really don't understand what you're pushing for?  It's a UK registered company at an identifiable UK address in Bristol office with a second UK address in Vauxhall. 

Their contacts for data control operations, freedom of information and data processing is all there to publicly stated on their website. There are individual LinkedIn profiles for several key staff, there's even something campaign pages from other separate organisations which are identify TaxJustice as legitimate, based where they say they are and with their office key persons and other detail matching. 

They can hardly be accused of not being transparent.  

1 hour ago, RollingJ said:

Further to my comment above, this 'Registered Address' makes it hard to trace this 'company', conveniently for them.

Significant amounts of companies use their accountants or lawyers officers as their registered address. It happens all the time. 

There are accountants offices with hundreds or even thousands of companies registered at their office address. 

CH still has a log of all the relevant paperwork, financial information, named directors, principals, accounts ledgers and shareholding splits.  

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10761736/filing-history?page=2

There's no great conspiracy. You don't have to be a great detective to work this stuff out. It's all there publicly available for anyone to have a good look if they put the effort in.

There has been investigations. According to reports, since the incident fire detectives have already got 19 companies and 58 individual suspects where they are currently investigating and preparing files for the CPS to consider whether they can potentially  bring any charges.

There's previously been 12,000 witness statements taken and a further 1600 as part of the public inquiry. There's been 300 hours worth of interviews. There's 27,000 individual physical exhibits (including the cladding itself and the insulation and other parts of the building) being stored. There's also a 152 million documents retrieved and under review.

The CPS and Metropolitan Police have already given public statements and directly corresponded with the victims to explain progress.  They have already gone through the first phase of the inquiry report which alone was over 800 pages. There's now another 580 plus page report to go through with over a thousand exhibit documents. 

No, it is not simply a "manslaughter" investigation, there are other potential criminal charges which could apply or in the alternative none at all. 

No, the defects in the cladding were not "obvious" because they weren't defects being looked for or even asked about as part of our government regulatory standards at the time that it was manufactured and installed.

How many more times do I have to say this.  It is not as simple as people are deludedly making out. People need to look beyond the emotive anger and look at the practical reality of the scale, size and complexity of what is having to be investigated.

It is widely reported what the authorities are doing and the amount of evidence they are having to go through. 

I am certainly not the one whose "not getting the point".   I've understood the point perfectly well right from day one. I made it  clear on this thread that those seeking justice are in for a very, very long ride and even after all that they are never going to be fully satisfied....exactly as I predicted. 

We are dealing with masses of changes in regulations, standards, governments, known facts, over decades worth of time.  Often there is no simple clear-cut point of blame and no simple clear-cut person to blame.

33 minutes ago, m williamson said:

 

Talk about missing the point.

 

The cladding used in Grenville Tower had failed fire tests for twelve years prior to the Grenville Tower fire.

The cladding did not meet building standards in England.

The disaster was predicted ten years before it happened by a consultant who was ignored. 

There is an email from Claude Wehrle technical manager for Arconic suggesting a coverup.

 

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrkOUWJgNtmGAQAVx8M34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1726870922/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bbc.com%2fnews%2fuk-56403431%23%3a~%3atext%3dThe%20cladding%20consistently%20failed%20fire%20tests%20for%2012%2cknown%20as%20%22rivet%22%20cladding%20systems%20and%20%22cassette%22%20systems./RK=2/RS=yORKGSMrGXW7RmFmMhV0RJ1ttKc-

 

 

However, it is not down to me or you or any other unconnected or unqualified person to speculate as to who is responsible. We have people in authority who's responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute these matters. 

 

Yes, it isn't something that can be dealt with in a matter of weeks, but over Seven Years have passed and they're talking about another Eighteen Months before trials commence.

 

My post was about The Laws Delay, seven years is a ridiculous amount of time to keep people waiting for answers.

 

 

 

 

 

Answers to what? That is the point. 

'Suggesting' something is 1000 miles away from proving something.   It is not as simple as saying it's "failed fire tests" . The cladding only failed certain fire tests in certain specific circumstances. It was still perfectly fine and approved for use in other circumstances. A piece of paper itself is not inherently dangerous and approved for safe for sale and use. However, if such piece of paper is being specifically used to dangle above naked flames or be continually sprayed with gasoline, it might then suddenly be deemed to fail safety standards. 

It all depends about what use, what circumstances and what questions were asked at the time the material was selected and specific tested for the specific circumstances of how it was going to be used. That is where the nuance and the complexities arise.

You keep banging about delays to the law, but as I am trying to tell you, there may not be a law which brings prosecution. Something can't be delayed if it doesn't exist. 

Yes we do have people in power to investigate but as I've tried to explain to you these investigations are vastly vastly complex with entirely shifting rule books in the decades since the block was built, the cladding applied and the present day. That is why it takes so long. It's the same with prosecution. You can argue 'delays' in prosecution all you want, but those people in power can only prosecute if there's actually been a criminal offence committed which, much as people want it to be, may not actually be the case.  

3 hours ago, High Chaparral said:

A lenient sentence.  Why wasn't he charged with attempted murder?

Depends on whether the acts committed fell under the legal definition of murder. 

3 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Because he will have got a solicitor who knows how to play the game . Either that or he is as thick as bar top .

It's not about "playing a legal game". It's the police that determine the charges and the CPS that determine whether to prosecute on them.   The prosecution and subsequent defence counsel will then present the case arguments based on the evidence. They don't make these things up on a whim.   

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

 

The tragedy happened over seven years ago and criminal trials aren't expected until a further eighteen months?

 

In Hamlets soliloquy ' To be or not to Be '  he laments the things that make life unhappy.  Two of which are " The insolence of Office " and " The laws delay ". In another of his plays Henry VI part II he has a character say " The first thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers. " Obviously the Bard was not a fan.

 

Shakespeare died in 1616, four hundred and eight years ago. There is still insolence from those in Office when dealing with the general public and the law still takes its own sweet time arriving at conclusions. Little changes, and you are correct, it's a disgrace.

Just what specific criminal charges against which specific individual person(s) provable beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law do you magically think can be brought? 

As I said earlier on this thread, inquiries like this always bring out the reaction and emotion of people quite understandably. But the reality is, there might never be a criminal charge resulting in a person going to prison. It is decades of institutional failure. Changing standards, changing procedures, changing laws, changing governments. 

Whenever anything that is happen, everyone always expects a head to be rolling but it's never that simple. 

Even if there has been negligence through various parties, that negligence is not always deliberate, known a time or even a criminal offence.  

If you think it's so easy, let's hear it. Just who exactly do you think is directly criminally culpable for this tragedy and on what grounds.

The architect of the building whose plans were approved by the local authority in charge at the time?  The individual contractors who built it following law, procedure, standards and regulations applicable at the time?  The owner of the manufacturer of the washing machine that malfunctioned and started the fire?  The owners of the individual residences who were illegally sub-leasing them out and therefore exceeding the anticipated  capacity of the building? The owner of manufacturer of the cladding material which approved deemed safe for use in specific circumstances and approved by our governmental regulatory body?  The chief of the Fire Service for failing to undertake a sufficient evacuation and rescue operation.....  

Can you not see now why any investigation (if successful at all) will take months or years to bring to a court.

4 hours ago, m williamson said:

 

What the hell does your keyboard warrior style of crap do to persuade anyone to take you seriously?

 

What it does is illustrate that dodgy dealings in order to line MPs pockets is not only commonplace it's practically institutionalised. Attacking the source of an article instead of addressing the point made doesn't do you any favours either. If you disagree provide alternative facts. 

Don't like a post do what most sensible posters do, ignore it.   

I have a better idea.  How about you start a thread of your own so you can rant away about corruption in government, covid contracts, wealth, privilege.....

You clearly have little more to add to this topic on the discussion

57 minutes ago, m williamson said:

 

Instead of defending the indefensible why don't you take note of what goes on in establishment circles?  Matt Hancock was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care when his friend and local pub landlord was given a £30 Million contract to provide PPE despite having no previous experience of the business. The landlord bought a £1.3 million country manor house a few months after getting the deal. 

An owner of an established PPE manufacturing business phoned  BBC Radio 2 to state that he had tried numerous times by email, phone and letter to contact someone to try to provide a quote for supply of his product. He never received the courtesy of a reply.

Obviously it's who you know, not what you know. 

 https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/revealed-full-list-of-firms-given-vip-access-to-lucrative-ppe-deals-301358/

 

As for how many other occupations are subject to the same scrutiny, my occupation was.  You can still be an MP if you have a criminal record providing that you were not sentenced to more than a year in jail.

No one could be employed in the industry I worked in with a criminal record involving theft, whether or not they received a prison sentence.

 

There is a serious amount of corruption among our political class whether you wish to believe it or not. We only get to hear about a small amount of it, coverups are endemic to the system " Not in the public interest " is the excuse.

What the hell has any of that crap got to do with whether or not MPs should get expenses? 

Ps:  quoting in the well-known dubious publication The London Economic to try and further argument isn't doing you any favours.  

1 hour ago, peak4 said:

I'm not sure that most people do have a problem with millionaires, particularly when you take property values into account.
Many folk, me included, do have an issue with the  rich who secrete their wealth in off-shore bank accounts to avoid tax.

Some people do like to use the term as a means of criticism, but that often involves hypocrisy, sometimes of the commentator, but also often of the person criticised.
 

Why? 

Lots of ordinary non-millionaires take steps to legally avoid / reduce their tax liabilities. They place things into trusts, they gift things out to their children, they sign up to pension schemes, they put their savings into ISA accounts, they utilise accountants to claim various allowances on business expenditures, charitable donations, they  take advantage of tax-free shopping facilities, they will make sure they maximise their personal spousal and residency band rates....

Tax avoidance is legal. If people don't like that, they can campaign to their MPs and parliament to change the law. However, until such time as they do, no one has a right to be criticising anyone else about using legal tax avoidance. 

Quite rightly, millionaires will have the most interest in taking such measures because they are at risk of having the biggest tax liability.  But it's all relative. If ordinary people can freely use tax avoidance / tax reduction measures without criticism, why do people think they're the right to criticise those with wealth. They are simply doing exactly the same just on a bigger scale.   

Seems like those critics are just showing pure jealousy. 

1 hour ago, cuttsie said:

Self employed ?????

Not necessarily.   Just a business expense. Most employees will be able to claim back their expenditure (or have it directly paid for) if they are travelling out of normal location,  accommodating or even purchasing things for the company for the reasons of company business. 

It's hardly a great mystery. Most normal people in the working world understand that concept very quickly. 

3 hours ago, m williamson said:

 

That's as fine an example of ' Whataboutery ' as I've come across in a long time.  People in other countries do the same and even worse, so our politicians should be allowed to fiddle the system to their hearts content and we shouldn't pass comment.

 

The repayment of accommodation and meals when working away from home are fully justifiable, providing it's genuinely claimed and not used for personal gain.

For years I worked in a business which entailed staying in hotels on several nights every month and also travelling on the Master Cutler for a monthly meeting at London Head Office. Breakfast on the way down and an evening meal on the return journey were also paid for by the company. However, receipts had to be provided and justified.

It was a security business and was exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Everyone in the industry was vetted. Anyone found fiddling their expenses was instantly dismissed and was unable to work in the industry again because of the vetting system.

 

Fifty two percent of MPs were found to have fiddled their expenses during the 2009 expenses scandal but they were simply allowed to repay the money stolen ( That's what obtaining money by deception is, stealing ) and then carry on as if nothing had happened. And it is still happening.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrkgOf97tVmMQQAXx8M34lQ;_ylu=Y29sbwNpcjIEcG9zAzMEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1726505981/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.opendemocracy.net%2fen%2fdark-money-investigations%2fparliament-expenses-scandal-mps-lords-claim-180m-flights-hotels-and-photoshoots%2f/RK=2/RS=qe9pMEyefbNoOvfHvsq7_F2JVoc-

 

What people in foreign countries do is not my concern, what the people we elect to govern this country do is very much my concern, and should be everyone's concern.

We all know about certain MPs fiddling their expenses. There's been huge scandals about it. Nobody's saying that those who commit fraud shouldn't be in penalised and punished for it. 

But that is not even remotely the same as generic whines about subsidised facilities, allowances and expense accounts used by MPs and entire parliamentary staffs, that most of use won't even think about, which (taking away the hysterics) is justifiable expenditure and claimable just like it is in any other business. 

You might have to be so bothered about what is happening in other countries but AnnaB must be because that's what she was obviously using us as this great comparison measure of how allegedly terrible we are.