Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

by HoratioTarr Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:33 pm

OUTRAGE has erupted after it was revealed more than 160 MPs have made a profit selling houses public money helped to pay for.

As much as £42million could have been made from selling these properties. Among those unveiled are Environmental Secretary Michael Gove, who made £870,000 on two homes, ex-Cabinet minister Maria Miller, who raked in more than £1.3million, according to the Daily Mirror. Tory chairman Graham Brady and Labour MP Hugh Bayley also pocketed money in this way.

Under parliamentary rules they are entitled to keep the money, but with trust in politicians at rock bottom critics have said they should hand the money back to the Treasury.

Campaigners have demanded that MPs in the spotlight of this scandal pay back the cash they made from their subsidised homes.

It has been said it would be the “right thing to do”.

A Daily Mirror investigation found that MPs made an average profit of £255,000 on selling their homes.
Of the 20 who made more than £500,000 in gross profit, 14 are Tories and six are from Labour.

Fourteen MPs sold two of these properties.

Labour MPs made an average of £193,000 profit on sales, while Tories averaged nearly double this - £417,000.

The properties in question are ones which politicians reclaimed thousands of pounds in mortgage interest payments under the discredited old expenses system.

Former chairman of the Committee of Standards in Public Life Sir Alistair Graham said: “People should not be making a profit.

“It was there to help them meet their public responsibilities. You should not be profiting out of special taxpayer funds.

“You should repay any gain you made over that period.”

He added: “The arrangement was made purely to take into account MPs who came from the north who would struggle to meet the housing costs.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1112163/MP-expenses-Michael-Gove-Graham-Brady-Maria-Miller-Hugh-Bayley

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:19 pm

Fucking fuckers! They should not only have to pay it back, they should have to pay fines.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:01 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Fucking fuckers! They should not only have to pay it back, they should have to pay fines.

Exactly! It is all a continuing part of the expenses scandal exposed by the British press a few years ago, and it did much to damage the reputation of MPs, Parliament and even democracy itself. It was no coincidence that demands from MPs and their "celebrity" cronies for greater "regulation" (for which read 'control') of the news media began almost immediately.

And the corruption is still going on.

Never has the stock of our politicians been so low, and revelations such as this one serve only to lower it even further.

Add to all this to the continuing farce over Brexit and I am seriously - really seriously - worried about the future of this country.

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:45 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Fucking fuckers! They should not only have to pay it back, they should have to pay fines.

Exactly! It is all a continuing part of the expenses scandal exposed by the British press a few years ago, and it did much to damage the reputation of MPs, Parliament and even democracy itself. It was no coincidence that demands from MPs and their "celebrity" cronies for greater "regulation" (for which read 'control') of the news media began almost immediately.

And the corruption is still going on.

Never has the stock of our politicians been so low, and revelations such as this one serve only to lower it even further.

Add to all this to the continuing farce over Brexit and I am seriously - really seriously - worried about the future of this country.

I think it's paramount that politicians are held to the same standard of behavior as the public. Once the people see corruption go unpunished, how can they help but lose faith in the system?

It reminds me of when Obama failed to go after George W. Bush administration officials who'd quite possibly committed major crimes. The calculus was that it would have been seen as a partisan maneuver, but I think that still means that the public ends up thinking politicians care more about the popularity of their party than about doing what's right.

by Syl Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:56 am

Yes, it makes the little old lady thread who didn't declare her bingo win seem insignificant.
One law for the rich another for the poor. Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:00 am

It's an old money laundering trick. Real estate eludes value, as all you need is some estimator who is willing to lie/cheat. It's an easy fungible to negotiate value. Trump knows--the Saudis apparently own some 6 townhomes in the tony 45th floor of Trump Tower--he has been laundering income for the Russians (notably from human trafficking and prostitution) and drug dealers for years...since banks will no longer touch him with 6 bankruptcies.

It is sometimes a way simply to deliver a payoff, which seems to be the case here. Former Navy pilot, and Congressman Duke Cunningham (real life Top Gun hero, played by Tom Cruise in the movie) got caught accepting a bribe via a transaction on his San Diego home.

Duke Cunningham

Former U.S. House of Representatives member, convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:21 am

Of course they should pay the money back out of the profits if they used public money. I'm tired of hearing that it's within parliamentary rules - we had all that with the expenses issue the first time.

The only way to solve this is to vote the whole lot out at the next election. That won't happen though because most people won't think about that kind of thing.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:34 am

Original Quill wrote:It's an old money laundering trick. Real estate eludes value, as all you need is some estimator who is willing to lie/cheat. It's an easy fungible to negotiate value. Trump knows--the Saudis apparently own some 6 townhomes in the tony 45th floor of Trump Tower--he has been laundering income for the Russians (notably from human trafficking and prostitution) and drug dealers for years...since banks will no longer touch him with 6 bankruptcies.

It is sometimes a way simply to deliver a payoff, which seems to be the case here. Former Navy pilot, and Congressman Duke Cunningham (real life Top Gun hero, played by Tom Cruise in the movie) got caught accepting a bribe via a transaction on his San Diego home.

Duke Cunningham

Former U.S. House of Representatives member, convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion

It's not the same thing. What these MPs have done is legal.

by JulesV Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:41 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
OUTRAGE has erupted after it was revealed more than 160 MPs have made a profit selling houses public money helped to pay for.

As much as £42million could have been made from selling these properties. Among those unveiled are Environmental Secretary Michael Gove, who made £870,000 on two homes, ex-Cabinet minister Maria Miller, who raked in more than £1.3million, according to the Daily Mirror. Tory chairman Graham Brady and Labour MP Hugh Bayley also pocketed money in this way.

Under parliamentary rules they are entitled to keep the money, but with trust in politicians at rock bottom critics have said they should hand the money back to the Treasury.

Campaigners have demanded that MPs in the spotlight of this scandal pay back the cash they made from their subsidised homes.

It has been said it would be the “right thing to do”.

A Daily Mirror investigation found that MPs made an average profit of £255,000 on selling their homes.
Of the 20 who made more than £500,000 in gross profit, 14 are Tories and six are from Labour.

Fourteen MPs sold two of these properties.

Labour MPs made an average of £193,000 profit on sales, while Tories averaged nearly double this - £417,000.

The properties in question are ones which politicians reclaimed thousands of pounds in mortgage interest payments under the discredited old expenses system.

Former chairman of the Committee of Standards in Public Life Sir Alistair Graham said: “People should not be making a profit.

“It was there to help them meet their public responsibilities. You should not be profiting out of special taxpayer funds.

“You should repay any gain you made over that period.”

He added: “The arrangement was made purely to take into account MPs who came from the north who would struggle to meet the housing costs.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1112163/MP-expenses-Michael-Gove-Graham-Brady-Maria-Miller-Hugh-Bayley

Yes and remember that many MPs have a law degree or access to expert legal advice. They know how to work the system to get the maximum allowances, perks and expense claims. They bleat that they have done nowt illegal, conveniently forgetting that legal is not quite the same as moral or ethical.

by JulesV Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:57 am

Original Quill wrote:It's an old money laundering trick. Real estate eludes value, as all you need is some estimator who is willing to lie/cheat. It's an easy fungible to negotiate value. Trump knows--the Saudis apparently own some 6 townhomes in the tony 45th floor of Trump Tower--he has been laundering income for the Russians (notably from human trafficking and prostitution) and drug dealers for years...since banks will no longer touch him with 6 bankruptcies.

It is sometimes a way simply to deliver a payoff, which seems to be the case here. Former Navy pilot, and Congressman Duke Cunningham (real life Top Gun hero, played by Tom Cruise in the movie) got caught accepting a bribe via a transaction on his San Diego home.

Duke Cunningham

Former U.S. House of Representatives member, convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud

and tax evasion

As you know our own laws are often quite different, OQ, eg tax liability. Laughing

I'll say this much tho - a political career is often just a gateway to a career in finance. MPs can earn far more in finance than they ever do in politics, …. and politics is merely a stepladder to greater things, where their heart truly lies. Particularly so for tory MPs. The salary of cabinet ministers rockets into the stratosphere when he/she leaves politics and take up directorships & consultancy roles in various financial firms.

Funnily enough the firms that employ them and pay them zillions of ££££'s after they leave parliament are firms for which they have done enormous favours Wink

in parliament using their parliamentary influence, usually thru lobbying.

by JulesV Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:06 am

The salary of George Osborne former chancellor of the exchequer instantly increased 5 or 6 fold when he left parliament & went into the finance industry. Big story ATT.

There's greed and there's obscene avarice.

by nicko Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:09 am

Most MP's are greedy, avaricious and only out for themselves , as this fuck up over Brexit shows !

by Original Quill Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:It's an old money laundering trick. Real estate eludes value, as all you need is some estimator who is willing to lie/cheat. It's an easy fungible to negotiate value. Trump knows--the Saudis apparently own some 6 townhomes in the tony 45th floor of Trump Tower--he has been laundering income for the Russians (notably from human trafficking and prostitution) and drug dealers for years...since banks will no longer touch him with 6 bankruptcies.

It is sometimes a way simply to deliver a payoff, which seems to be the case here. Former Navy pilot, and Congressman Duke Cunningham (real life Top Gun hero, played by Tom Cruise in the movie) got caught accepting a bribe via a transaction on his San Diego home.

It's not the same thing. What these MPs have done is legal.

Depends on intent. It's not legal if its done with fraudulent motive. It's just a legal 'bait and switch'.

In the US we have 'been there, done that'. Britain, you'll catch up one day soon, I'm sure.

by 'Wolfie Fri Apr 12, 2019 1:44 pm

Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER 1399249160

Just because a cartel of greedy and corrupt politicians manage to make various lurks, perks and loopholes "legal"...

Doesn't make those arramgements honest, fair, equitable or morally just..

Britain protects 'Establishment' paedophiles and sex offenders by declaring them "war heroes" and/or making them members of the 'House of Lords".

Britain's "democracy" has been broken for decades, not only a few months..

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not the same thing. What these MPs have done is legal.

Depends on intent. It's not legal if its done with fraudulent motive. It's just a legal 'bait and switch'.

In the US we have 'been there, done that'. Britain, you'll catch up one day soon, I'm sure.

It doesn't depend on intent. Intent doesn't matter because it's legal, so it can't be fraudulent - apart from morally fraudulent of course, which it is.

by HoratioTarr Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:51 pm

And these people sit in judgement on others and create laws to see we all behave ourselves.

by Vintage Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:04 pm

Its don't do as we do, just do as we say. How can it be lawful to use tax payers money to help buy a home then make a huge profit when you sell it and not pay back the 'loan' of tax payers money, even if its only the original sum, should be interest as well. It may be legal but its certainly immoral.

by HoratioTarr Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:09 pm

Vintage wrote:Its don't do as we do, just do as we say. How can it be lawful to use tax payers money to help buy a home then make a huge profit when you sell it and not pay back the 'loan' of tax payers money, even if its only the original sum, should be interest as well. It may be legal but its certainly immoral.

Exactly. And they've done the same thing with Brexit. Totally ignored the democracy and taken it into their own hands because most of them don't want to leave, so they'll make sure we don't. If the democratic vote gets slung aside, then it won't be long before it happens again, and this time it may be the ones wanting this vote overturned that'll be at the receiving end. Once you destroy a thing, it's very hard to put back together again. The trust is gone.

by HoratioTarr Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:10 pm

And another thing that pisses me off is these energy bosses getting million pound pay rises and bonuses while the majority of us are getting crippled by energy bills.

by JulesV Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:31 pm

The amount MPs claim just for accommodation - let alone other expenses and perks - is STAGGERING!! Shocked

Up to double/treble their basic salaries. The money comes straight out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Theresa needs to go, she's too divorced from reality. It's awesome how she can conjure up a billion or two ££££'s in heartbeat for her various idiotic vanity projects ……. yet she preaches condescending sermons ''there is no magic money tree'' to the plebs.

by Vintage Fri Apr 12, 2019 11:38 pm

Why don't the government have a block of flats and allocate the mps needing London accommodation a flat each in the block, it could have all the security requirements of a gated community etc and probably save a considerable amount of tax payers money.

by Tommy Monk Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:42 am

The "expenses scandal" first hit the news in 2009...

Taxpayers shouldn't have been funding 2nd homes for them (to keep/own/sell for profit) during the Labour govt from 1997 to 2010... and should not still be happening since 2010 either...!

But... who in parliament is going to vote for changes in law that put an end to MPs being allowed to have so many taxpayer funded perks...?

Yeah... like the MPs are going to vote to limit their ability to enjoy taxpayer funded financial gain...!?

lol!

by Original Quill Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:44 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Depends on intent. It's not legal if its done with fraudulent motive. It's just a legal 'bait and switch'.

In the US we have 'been there, done that'. Britain, you'll catch up one day soon, I'm sure.

It doesn't depend on intent. Intent doesn't matter because it's legal, so it can't be fraudulent - apart from morally fraudulent of course, which it is.

Think of what you are saying; to wit: fraud is legal in the UK. Any action that involves a 'bait and switch' is illegal, when the underlying purpose involves defrauding others. If it is not fraud to sell one's vote, so be it. However, methinks that would be elementary.

by Fred Moletrousers Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:50 pm

Vintage wrote:Why don't the government have a block of flats and allocate the mps needing London accommodation a flat each in the block, it could have all the security requirements of a gated community etc and probably save a considerable amount of tax payers money.

Exactly what I suggested to my MP immediately following exposure of the expenses scandal, in which she was one of the ones implicated.

I'm still waiting for her reply.........

by Fred Moletrousers Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:52 pm

Jules wrote:The amount MPs claim just for accommodation - let alone other expenses and perks - is STAGGERING!! Up to double/treble their basic salaries. The money comes straight out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Theresa needs to go, she's too divorced from reality. It's awesome how she can conjure up a billion or two ££££'s in heartbeat for her various idiotic vanity projects ……. yet she preaches condescending sermons ''there is no magic money tree'' to the plebs.

I suspect, Jules, that we are on opposing sides of the political divide....but you are so, so right!

Have one of my very, very rare green whatnots.........

by Andy Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:08 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Jules wrote:The amount MPs claim just for accommodation - let alone other expenses and perks - is STAGGERING!! Up to double/treble their basic salaries. The money comes straight out of the pockets of taxpayers.

Theresa needs to go, she's too divorced from reality. It's awesome how she can conjure up a billion or two ££££'s in heartbeat for her various idiotic vanity projects ……. yet she preaches condescending sermons ''there is no magic money tree'' to the plebs.

I suspect, Jules, that we are on opposing sides of the political divide....but you are so, so right!

Have one of my very, very rare green whatnots.........

Jules is the most sensible, level headed and politically astute poster I have come across in all of my forum life.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It doesn't depend on intent. Intent doesn't matter because it's legal, so it can't be fraudulent - apart from morally fraudulent of course, which it is.

Think of what you are saying; to wit: fraud is legal in the UK. Any action that involves a 'bait and switch' is illegal, when the underlying purpose involves defrauding others. If it is not fraud to sell one's vote, so be it. However, methinks that would be elementary.

Er no - fraud isn't legal in the UK generally. However, it's not technically fraud to make a profit in that manner if it's not against the law. However, it is morally reprehensible, and I'm sick of many MPs and polititians having no integrity whatsoever. If they can't behave properly, they should be made to, but who is going to make them do so?

by Original Quill Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:32 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Think of what you are saying; to wit: fraud is legal in the UK. Any action that involves a 'bait and switch' is illegal, when the underlying purpose involves defrauding others. If it is not fraud to sell one's vote, so be it. However, methinks that would be elementary.

Er no - fraud isn't legal in the UK generally. However, it's not technically fraud to make a profit in that manner if it's not against the law. However, it is morally reprehensible, and I'm sick of many MPs and polititians having no integrity whatsoever. If they can't behave properly, they should be made to, but who is going to make them do so?

As I say, it depends on intent. If they can avoid fraud charges when grossly and falsely inflating real estate prices, then there is a means by which fraud is legal in the UK.

It may be legal, but if it is, it's legal fraud. The law doesn't get to redefine reality, even if it makes it legal.

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Er no - fraud isn't legal in the UK generally. However, it's not technically fraud to make a profit in that manner if it's not against the law. However, it is morally reprehensible, and I'm sick of many MPs and polititians having no integrity whatsoever. If they can't behave properly, they should be made to, but who is going to make them do so?

As I say, it depends on intent. If they can avoid fraud charges when grossly and falsely inflating real estate prices, then there is a means by which fraud is legal in the UK.

It may be legal, but if it is, it's legal fraud. The law doesn't get to redefine reality, even if it makes it legal.

No, it doesn't depend on intent. Clearly, the intent here is to make a profit.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

As I say, it depends on intent. If they can avoid fraud charges when grossly and falsely inflating real estate prices, then there is a means by which fraud is legal in the UK.

It may be legal, but if it is, it's legal fraud. The law doesn't get to redefine reality, even if it makes it legal.

No, it doesn't depend on intent. Clearly, the intent here is to make a profit.

The intend of all fraud is to make a profit. Duh. If the purposes were to give away money, they wouldn't need such trickery.

by nicko Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:16 pm

They are almost all thieving , lying bastards, only in it for them selves . In all my years I have never known such a Government as corrupt as this !

by Raggamuffin Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:38 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No, it doesn't depend on intent. Clearly, the intent here is to make a profit.

The intend of all fraud is to make a profit. Duh. If the purposes were to give away money, they wouldn't need such trickery.

WTF are you arguing about? I already told you - what they did was legal, whatever their motive. Please just stop this.

by Original Quill Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:48 pm

I consider, under an international definition of crimes, that fraud is to be classified as a crime. If the UK sanctions a certain class of crimes to be legal, then that portion of the UK is lawless.

I admit, Idi Amin also countenanced a number of crimes. He said: "Even I have to forget the law sometimes."

by Sponsored content

Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER

Re: Westminster SCANDAL: Anger after 160 MPs profit from homes paid for by the TAXPAYER