Should we leave it there - Maria Miller?

[mjw47]

Even the Mail on Sunday is calling for her to go!

 

I suspect some MPs would like her to get sacked much like a sacrificial lamb in the hope that the eyes of the press would then move elsewhere away from the rest of the charlatans and mountebanks.

 

Agreed, I was disgusted to read in the Times last year that MPs expenses had risen even further since the so called 'expenses scandal'.

 

Their level of contempt for the public is astounding.

 

A major part of the problem in my opinion is the voting system which we use.

 

If the purpose of voting is to reflect the wishes of the electorate then our system is not fit for purpose.

 

MPs know this, and are taking full advantage.

[Guest]

She's an arrogant person who views herself as part of the ruling class, hence the snooty attitude towards the investigators.

[taxman]

Even Norman Tebbit has said she should go calling her "arrogant and greedy".

[SpikeMac]

She's got no chance of keeping her job. Apart from the fact that her actions are morally repugnant, she's also being targeted by the press. They are still unhappy about Leveson.

 

This is now a power struggle between HMG and the papers. There's only one winner there. She'll be gone by Friday. Unfortunately, the appalling attitude that she exemplifies will linger on for much longer.

[salsafan]

If this was in a business, then this is or can be seen as a sackable offence. It depends if this was done deliberately or not. But if this means that there is a discrepancy between the Watchdog's figures, to that of the MP's actual expense amount, then that means there is a process issue in the government's structure. For a typical company, it is the Finance department's responsibility to ensure that expenses are inline, and when the company is not doing well, then everybody has to curb the line and reduce spending, and your purchasing department will take absolute control and put in guidelines and all suppliers have to go through them.

 

If Dave wants less of this kind of embarrassment, then he should and ought to give his MPs, or to protect their own interests and centralise this aspect of purchasing to begin with, and actually streamline his own structure first and foremost. It does not matter what the papers say. It is internal inefficiencies, and that unfortunately reflects on the credibility of the government as a whole.

 

Banking laws, and finance laws and various other concepts were created IN the UK. How can David and Nick do not champion this kind of ethics when the rest of the business world already know this ? It is very very silly to get caught out on expenses alone. This is stupid. He definitely needs to check out the expenses process, and consider implementing a simple but effective IT system in place if he needs to.

[Mecky]

Just watched the news. There's no way she'll survive in her current role

[tzijlstra]

Just watched the news. There's no way she'll survive in her current role

 

Agreed, pleased that the Lord whats-his-name spoke out against this in public. I give her a week.

[mjw47]

If this was in a business, then this is or can be seen as a sackable offence. It depends if this was done deliberately or not. But if this means that there is a discrepancy between the Watchdog's figures, to that of the MP's actual expense amount, then that means there is a process issue in the government's structure. For a typical company, it is the Finance department's responsibility to ensure that expenses are inline, and when the company is not doing well, then everybody has to curb the line and reduce spending, and your purchasing department will take absolute control and put in guidelines and all suppliers have to go through them.

 

If Dave wants less of this kind of embarrassment, then he should and ought to give his MPs, or to protect their own interests and centralise this aspect of purchasing to begin with, and actually streamline his own structure first and foremost. It does not matter what the papers say. It is internal inefficiencies, and that unfortunately reflects on the credibility of the government as a whole.

 

Banking laws, and finance laws and various other concepts were created IN the UK. How can David and Nick do not champion this kind of ethics when the rest of the business world already know this ? It is very very silly to get caught out on expenses alone. This is stupid. He definitely needs to check out the expenses process, and consider implementing a simple but effective IT system in place if he needs to.

 

This is, or should be, a very simple situation.

 

Expenses are for the recovery of money paid out in the process of carrying out your work, and purely for the benefit of the company or organisation who employ you.

 

There should be no element of personal gain involved in claiming expenses.

 

Any personal gain would be subject to tax and could not be classed as an expense.

 

In the case of contributions made by your employer toward moving expenses, or mortgage payments necessitated by your having to live in a particular locality to enable you to carry out your duties then these would be clearly stated and agreed with HMRC.

 

Maria Miller claimed £90,000 for a house which her parents lived in. The Independent Parliament Commission for Standards ruled that she should return the money.

 

The Commissions ruling was overturned by a Commons committee of MPs. As I see it the only way they can have found in her favor was by using their own lack of standards as a basis for judgment.

 

And they wonder why so many of us hold them in contempt.

[salsafan]

This is, or should be, a very simple situation.

 

Expenses are for the recovery of money paid out in the process of carrying out your work, and purely for the benefit of the company or organisation who employ you.

 

There should be no element of personal gain involved in claiming expenses.

 

Any personal gain would be subject to tax and could not be classed as an expense.

...

My point is. This is the law, right ? This is money. Figures cannot be wrong. So somebody somewhere is accountable for this mistake. Did she do it correctly, yes or no. It should be simple.

 

If she has been under investigation before, and she came out clean. Then this should be it. But how can then this be dragged up again ? How could other MPs actually put pressure on this situation ? I thought that she had been audited twice and came out clean.

 

Hudson's investigation lasted more than a year, and was handed in to the Commons Select Committee on Standards in February 2014.[18] The following month, the Telegraph reported that the committee was considering forcing Miller to repay thousands of pounds and apologise over her expenses claims.[19] The article said she was to be censured for abusing the parliamentary expenses system after overclaiming for her mortgage and making £1m profit on the sale of her house. Kathryn Hudson had recommended in her February report that Miller pay back £45,000,[20][21] but, on 3 April 2014, the MPs of the Standards Committee overruled their commissioner, ordering Miller to repay instead just £5,800 of wrongly claimed expenses and make a statement in the House of Commons to apologise for her "legalistic" lack of co-operation with the committee.[22] Appearing in the House of Commons on the same day, Miller spoke for approximately 32 seconds. The apology ordered of her is quoted verbatim:

 

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement in relation to today's report. The report resulted from an allegation made by the member for Bassetlaw. The committee has dismissed his allegation. The committee has recommended that I apologise to the House for my attitude to the commissioner's inquiries and I of course unreservedly apologise. I fully accept the recommendations of the committee and thank them for bringing this matter to an end.[23]

 

Miller is believed to be the first serving minister to be forced to apologise for their misuse of expenses.[24] David Cameron expressed his "full, strong, very warm support" for her,[25] but had to apologise for a "slip of the tongue" after claiming it was not Miller's fellow MPs on the Committee on Standards who had overruled Hudson, but rather its independent members who had "effectively […] had the casting vote". In fact, only MPs on the committee, not its lay members, can vote on its findings.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Miller

 

 

How could she be clean and then came out as not abiding by the law? In the above link, it states that her husband is a solicitor's. How can they not know the law, or that they would even contemplate either in hiring a public financial accountant in this respect ?

 

Do you see where I am going with this ? Is it because Public Financial laws have changed, what made her got caught in this kind of trap to begin with ? Figures are figures.

 

 

The whole thing is so stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal

 

So out of the original case, shouldn't there had been a clamp down and guidelines be put into place and actually draw a stricter control on this ? Because why does any PM allow his own team to get caught up in bureaucracies and dilute their own actual focus on their work ? Why would the situation re-occur all the time? And let so many individuals kick off at one another and things like that ? I know that this is a testing game for our current set of PMs isn't it ?

 

 

By the way, I do not like this kind of "witch hunt" attitude this kind of issue in parliament is creating on the general population. It is becoming a tad sadistic. It seems like it is also an emotive way out for most of the current economic situation as well.

 

Normally when emotions are high, there is always a scapegoat "made" to be shown as an example, and I wonder if she was "it". Someone in a mere simple position like the " Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Minister for Women and Equalities." These are seen as "fluffy" roles isn't it ? I do not see a witch hunt for Theresa May.

 

Just saying.

[banjodeano]

I wonder what would happen if a lot of people reported it as a crime with the police....

yeah....that sounds a good idea,

she should serve time in prison the thieving scumbag