Lord Hanningfield, who was jailed for expenses fraud, has defended regularly "clocking in" to claim a £300 daily attendance allowance despite spending less than 40 minutes inside the House of Lords.
Yes.
Him again. He really is his own worst enemy, isn’t he?
Confronted about the claims by the newspaper, Lord Hanningfield said: "Lots of peers go in and check in for their expenses, but they are using their expenses for a lot of things, entertaining, meeting people, employing people."
He added: "Clocking in and out of Parliament is only part of being a peer."
"By the time I have people at home to help, time I have people in the House of Lords to help me, I spend something like £150 a day on expenses, so I don't really make any profit."
*grinds teeth*
He said: "I have to live, don't I? I don't do anything else. How do you think I am going to eat, how am I going to pay my electricity bills? "
Get a job?
He told the newspaper: "I can name 50 that do it. I see the same people go in and out as I do. I don't want to be persecuted."
Ah, yes. The ever reliable ‘Everyone else does it!’ excuse.
"Being a lord is not just going in the House of Lords. It's the post you have. I have 15 letters a day, I have all sorts of things like that," Lord Hanningfield said.
15 letters!?
Since October, he said, he had "dramatically" upped his contributions in the Lords - speaking twice and attending committees.
Oh, you poor soul! You must be just
exhausted…
"Let me explain again…"
What do you mean, ‘again’? You haven’t managed it yet!
"… I was trying to get myself organised after a nervous breakdown, a traumatic period."
Ah. Of course. The final resort of the modern-day scoundrel... :/
7 comments:
I thought that red scarf hanging over his shoulders yesterday and his french phrase was a piss taking gesture to remind everyone he dosen't give a fuck.
At the expense (no pun intended) of appearing to sympathise with Hanningfield, I blame the tw@ts who wrote the rules.
How hard is it to incorporate a phrase along the lines of "Expenses will only be paid for attendance exceeding a single period (of say) six hours in any one day."
Simples.
" I don't really make any profit"
The man is dealing with the business of the Nation, not his personal fiefdom.
We are no longer tied to the land. We are, supposedly, free born.
This man has taken my monies fraudulently, and has been punished. He should also lose his title as I consider him no more than a common criminal and not a 'Noble' Lord.
The one to blame are the ones that are making the rules - that's true. But what is equally true is, these are the same people that are defrauding the taxpayer.
Rickie-wrong expenses thief,that was McShane sentenced today you are talking about but there's not much difference between them.
McShanes supporters are already defending him in the Guardian,he will have a job waiting for him when he comes out.
Jaded
"...a piss taking gesture to remind everyone he dosen't give a fuck."
As if a reminder should even be needed... :/
"... I blame the tw@ts who wrote the rules. "
You can't blame a pig for wallowing in mud. Best remove the mud.
"The man is dealing with the business of the Nation, not his personal fiefdom."
Ah, if only more of them took this view. Some must. But they seem few and far between.
"...but there's not much difference between them."
Spot on!
" I don't really make any profit"
spend £150
+ claim £300
= 100% PROFIT.
£150 for doing the square root of fuck all. Greedy bastard.
XX Joe Public said...
How hard is it to incorporate a phrase along the lines of "Expenses will only be paid for attendance exceeding a single period (of say) six hours in any one day." XX
The biggest mistake is having the very people who will benefit from them, write the rules in the first place.
Talk about being offered a blank cheque!
Post a Comment