poppet2 Posted May 14, 2013 Author Share Posted May 14, 2013 Not something I would wish on anyone...dirty, horrible places, and overpriced at £19 a room. Sounds perfect then for those MPs who have their snouts in the trough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Mr Duncan Smith, Mr Cameron, Mr Osborne and their friends on the tory right are motivated by much more than parliamentary salaries and expenses. I think you'll find that MP's from all sides of the house were embroiled in expense scandals. To suggest that one party is morally superior (or inferior) to another is once again paranoid foolishness feasted on by the gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiteowl Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I think you'll find that MP's from all sides of the house were embroiled in expense scandals. To suggest that one party is morally superior (or inferior) to another is once again paranoid foolishness feasted on by the gullible. I agree but I think the point most people have a problem with is that this man has spent £39 on a breakfast whilst claiming people can live for a week on £53 and other politicians have not. It stinks of hypocrisy, however as the Mirror has not provided enough details and as many others (including myself) have pointed out, breakfast can be a legitimate claim, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. So I guess he's done nothing wrong. The moral outrage on this storey probably depends on how you like your public figures. I'm not, and I don't think many are, big fans of people who say "do as I say, not as I do" as I don't think they have other peoples best interests at heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The whole story is a complete non event s**tstirring attempt by the Labour propaganda machine disguised as the Daily Mirror. Anyone who has travelled on business in your mid range business hotel will know that even a basic crappy buffet breakfast can be anything between £12 - £20 on top of the bill. One assumes that being a senior level politician IDS would be put in a higher level hotel so it is very likely charges would be even more. The fact remains that nobody knows what this claim was for. It could have been a breakfast meeting in a restaurant, an overnight stay which required breakfast and maybe a few morning coffees, or maybe he was just trying it on (like many other expense claimants do). Nobody knows. Certainly the Mirror doesn't. Good god, I have had client lunches and even tea and coffee sessions during meetings nearly three times that amount. Like it or not the civil service does have to incur a certain level of expense to operate. Their employees, servants and agents have costs that need paying. If a seemingly non authorised £39 breakfast charge is the biggest political issue the Mirror could choose from that day, I think their journalists need to look harder. If they were so thorough where is the detailed explanation as to why it was rejected. Lets get back to earth here. How many of those foamy mouthed commenters have ever shoved something through expenses. How many of them are self employed and ever tried shoving some reclaim on the tax return not strictly a genuine "business expense". Just the other day I heard someone boasting how they managed to get tax back for a telly and shiny new laptop for their alleged "work" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I agree but I think the point most people have a problem with is that this man has spent £39 on a breakfast whilst claiming people can live for a week on £53 and other politicians have not. It stinks of hypocrisy, however as the Mirror has not provided enough details and as many others (including myself) have pointed out, breakfast can be a legitimate claim, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. So I guess he's done nothing wrong. The moral outrage on this storey probably depends on how you like your public figures. I'm not, and I don't think many are, big fans of people who say "do as I say, not as I do" as I don't think they have other peoples best interests at heart. Which goes back to my moron comment earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpikeMac Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Which goes back to my moron comment earlier. Some might think that flinging insults around was moronic. I might, or might not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The Work and Pensions Secretary was Iain Duncan Smith’s claim he could live on £53 a week fell apart last night after evidence emerged of a £39 breakfast he tried to put on expenses. Yes, but was he trying to live on £53 a week at the time? The Mirror seems to view logic as the intellectual equivalent of silly putty. Are they trying to out do the Daily Mail in terms of fevered hyperbole? To be honest a rejected £39 claim falls into insignificance when compared to the £31,000 fiddled by Elliot Morley.. or have you all forgotten that..? Blotted from the memories of some on here. cognitive dissonance noun Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Some might think that flinging insults around was moronic. Flinging insults around could be seen as nasty or unnecessary. I don't like that type of thing. When people change stories, change wording etc., then make stupid conclusions with the results; and/or are generally lacking any good judgement, they are morons. I might, or might not agree. ---------- Post added 15-05-2013 at 00:57 ---------- Yes, but was he trying to live on £53 a week at the time? The Mirror seems to view logic as the intellectual equivalent of silly putty. Are they trying to out do the Daily Mail in terms of fevered hyperbole? Precisely. It's spreading everywhere in society I think. My thoughts are that logical thinking (or even basic reasoning) is being hampered in today's society by the availability of too much information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 I agree but I think the point most people have a problem with is that this man has spent £39 on a breakfast whilst claiming people can live for a week on £53 and other politicians have not. It stinks of hypocrisy, however as the Mirror has not provided enough details and as many others (including myself) have pointed out, breakfast can be a legitimate claim, we shouldn't jump to conclusions. So I guess he's done nothing wrong. The moral outrage on this storey probably depends on how you like your public figures. I'm not, and I don't think many are, big fans of people who say "do as I say, not as I do" as I don't think they have other peoples best interests at heart. Agree. However, if it was considered a 'legitimate claim', then surely it would not have been refused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 I've been trying to find out more about this claim but can't seem to see anything other than the Mirror's article, or ones using Mirror's information (sky News and Reddit). Can anyone find any other news sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.