Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
so they don't have any accountability to us.
Apparently they are a bit cheeky with expenses though, but it doesn't affect us.
or banks which have since been propped up by the government
Criticising someone for cheating on their expenses when you do the same is clear cut hypocrisy - regardless if the person you're criticising is stealing from the public while you're merely stealing from a private concern.
it might seem hypocritical if not, but that's the difference between public and private sector employment.
so they can do what they like.
I wonder if they go receipt hunting? I don't do that. Honest.
That said, they're not claiming their 12-hour drinks binges at the cricket from my tax money.
of course they are
It's the abuse of the second home allowance system that's the real story, not people claiming money back because they bought their constituents some biscuits.
Meths is at his best with threads like 'lost my chair, who's got it' and 'pulling a bogie and accidentally getting a hair: worse than being buried in three-week old chorizo?'
the intelligence is not listed.
to the recession was for the Government to vote to abolish the monarchy and sell off all the Queens property. And then I realized that she doesn't actually own £1 trillion worth of property so I pushed abandon reply for the only time in my life.
I imagine that thread would have gone something like this one
It would be blissfully perfect.
The two brothers that own the Telegraph are embroiled in a complex tax evasion scam/loophole that as far as I'm concerned is very much the public's business.
next week, "the police like fighting: WHO KNEW?!"
and they said their expense claims are squeezed, and I quote, as tightly as a duck's arsehole at the moment. And this was said before the MP troughing it become a scandal. It's more a reflection of the shaky financial state of newspapers rather than any ethical epiphany though.
although it would be nice to think that those that are orchestrating this campaign are doing so knowing that they are clear of hypocrisy.
However, as mattj says, the Barclay Brothers haven't been entirely squeaky clean when it comes to their tax contributions, and they did try to blackmail the voters of Sark by threatening to ruin the island economically if their favoured candidates lost the election.
And the less said about the Telegraph's former proprietor, Lord Conrad Black, and his convictions for fraud and obstructing justice, the better.
The undermining of democracy is reprehensible, whether or not the victims are virtuous.
And the Barclay Brothers were hardly campaigning for the tightening of its tax regime either, were they?
it's those at the bottom of the ladder (cleaners, temporary staff, those in the catering and retail trade) that have suffered the most as a result. Those that worked in the banking sector, despite the CREDIT CRUNCH, are much more likely to find another job, or to have a financial buffer any way.
You can argue that even those at the bottom of the ladder are complicit in the whole system (construction workers on the Death Star, yadda yadda...), but if a wrong has been committed, those affected do not deserve to be ignored because of where they live.
When the Barclays closed down all of their shops and hotels, 140 people lost their jobs.