poppet2 Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claimed-breakfast-1810086 On the day the rich got a 5% tax cut, 600,000 council tenants had to find an extra 14% - 25% towards their rent and IDS expected the tax payer to pay for his £39.00 breakfast. So out of touch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Isn't that just the most retarded story ever? Based on a breakfast receipt from what like 2 or 3 years ago, probably more?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I've stayed away on business and submitted a breakfast receipt for a similar amount - you don't get much choice in some hotels. I don't get what the story is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted May 13, 2013 Author Share Posted May 13, 2013 I've stayed away on business and submitted a breakfast receipt for a similar amount - you don't get much choice in some hotels. I don't get what the story is? Try Travelodge, they charge from £19.00 for the room alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I've stayed away on business and submitted a breakfast receipt for a similar amount - you don't get much choice in some hotels. I don't get what the story is? The story is about double standards. Mr Duncan Smith likes to suggest that people can live on £53 per week, yet he sees no irony in enjoying a single breakfast that costs £39, and wants the taxpayers to pay the bill. And when I say taxpayers, I don't mean Google or KPMG or ebay or Vodafone, Boots, Dorothy Perkins, Betfair, Amey or any number of corporate villains, because they don't pay tax. I mean you and me, the ordinary people that make up the majority here in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Yea but the two events are YEARS apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 The story is about double standards. Mr Duncan Smith likes to suggest that people can live on £53 per week, yet he sees no irony in enjoying a single breakfast that costs £39, and wants the taxpayers to pay the bill. And when I say taxpayers, I don't mean Google or KPMG or ebay or Vodafone, Boots, Dorothy Perkins, Betfair, Amey or any number of corporate villains, because they don't pay tax. I mean you and me, the ordinary people that make up the majority here in the UK. Double ? I think it goes way beyond double. For starters he didn't receive any money. The claim was refused. End of non-story. I wonder what Dave prentice spends on hotels and breakfasts ? I doubt its in a travelodge and won't be one of their over priced breakfasts either. But I'm sure the cleaners and care workers who pay their subs won't mind. Well probably not anyway. There are plenty of things to take ids apart on. This is a cheap shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 Yea but the two events are YEARS apart. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a breakfast as expensive as £39, not this morning, not last year, not in 1998, never. Politicians enjoy the high life, and ordinary people foot the bill. Hypocrisy, sleeze, call it what you will, it is wrong, and we ordinary folk need to be aware of what is happening so that we can make informed decisions about MPs and politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I dont think the fact that he DIDNT get it is relevant. What is more relevant is that he EXPECTED to get it. Yet another money grabbing lazy sod on an overpaid gravy train Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted May 13, 2013 Share Posted May 13, 2013 I don't get what the story is? Just the usual Mirror hatred. This is the same paper that on Friday featured a front page story about Michael Le Vell (Kevin Webster) titled "Kev's new love". Inside was an article based entirely on "research" taken from Facebook of a woman who is staying with his neighbour and has become a friend. There was no evidence whatsoever about him having a "new love". ---------- Post added 13-05-2013 at 14:37 ---------- What is more relevant is that he EXPECTED to get it. Yet another money grabbing lazy sod on an overpaid gravy train The article mentions that it was his office that submitted the claim, not him directly. Do you have any evidence he was personally involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.