|
Post by Barney McGrew on Mar 29, 2014 6:58:32 GMT
Maria Miller 'to have to repay thousands of pounds and apologise over expenses claims' Culture Secretary to be censured for abusing parliamentary expenses system after overclaiming for her mortgage and making £1m profit on sale The Culture Secretary abused the Parliamentary expenses system by over-claiming for her mortgage and then failing to fully co-operate with an investigation into her conduct, The Telegraph can disclose. Maria Miller, the Culture secretary, is set to have to repay up to £5,000 and be censured for her claims - following an official Parliamentary inquiry which is expected to report as soon as this week. It can also be disclosed that Mrs Miller has recently sold the south London house at the centre of the scandal for a profit of more than £1million. The Cabinet minister, who has previously been supported by David Cameron, is expected to come under intense pressure to resign when the results of the official inquiry are made public. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/10729984/Maria-Miller-to-have-to-repay-thousands-of-pounds-and-apologise-over-expenses-claims.htmlI can see why she was the Culture Secretary. She was following the MPs culture of stealing from the taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Mar 29, 2014 20:31:32 GMT
After the recent scandal of MP’s making false claims I thought there were supposed to be controls to prevent that happening
|
|
|
Post by Ned Long on Apr 4, 2014 15:39:51 GMT
I cannot understand how she has got away with it.....well, I can; the question should have been why we ALLOW her and the rest of them to get away with it. Prior to becoming an MP, she and hubby purchased their home in London. That was their main residence. It was where they lived. Her parents moved in with them for care reasons, but it was still the family home. Then she gets elected, and rents a cottage in her constituency. To any normal person, this constituency cottage is now her second home. To any honest person, it remains so. But she simply "flips" homes, and her London family home becomes her second home, on which expenses can be claimed. She is not alone in having acted in this simply crooked manner. Many other honourable members have done the same, some more than once.
Not content with that, she then over a period, claims far more than she is allowed to. It was an "oversight",. of course. Nothing to worry about. A complaint is made, then investigated, and the original finding was that she should repay somewhere north of £40,000 as money claimed to which she was not entitled. This in turn is then over-ruled by a cabal of her fellow MPs, and she ends up having to repay only £6000, and apologise to the House. Her apology set new standards in sneering contempt for the "little people", and anyone who had dared to question her motives. She is a criminal. It should have been a criminal trial; not a slap on the wrist by her peers, and Cameron is simply wrong to defend her, and keep her on.
If someone shoplifts, and is then fined by the courts (say) £500, then, by the same token, that someone should get his or her friends and neighbours to rally round, claim that the fine is far too high, and that they should only pay £50. I can just see that happening! There may be a few totally honest MPs left in the House, but the vast majority still don't get it. They get away with behaviour that any member of the pubic would be prosecuted for; and they think it alright! Is it any wonder they are held in such low esteem?
|
|
|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 5, 2014 6:02:58 GMT
I cannot understand how she has got away with it.....well, I can; the question should have been why we ALLOW her and the rest of them to get away with it. Prior to becoming an MP, she and hubby purchased their home in London. That was their main residence. It was where they lived. Her parents moved in with them for care reasons, but it was still the family home. Then she gets elected, and rents a cottage in her constituency. To any normal person, this constituency cottage is now her second home. To any honest person, it remains so. But she simply "flips" homes, and her London family home becomes her second home, on which expenses can be claimed. She is not alone in having acted in this simply crooked manner. Many other honourable members have done the same, some more than once. Not content with that, she then over a period, claims far more than she is allowed to. It was an "oversight",. of course. Nothing to worry about. A complaint is made, then investigated, and the original finding was that she should repay somewhere north of £40,000 as money claimed to which she was not entitled. This in turn is then over-ruled by a cabal of her fellow MPs, and she ends up having to repay only £6000, and apologise to the House. Her apology set new standards in sneering contempt for the "little people", and anyone who had dared to question her motives. She is a criminal. It should have been a criminal trial; not a slap on the wrist by her peers, and Cameron is simply wrong to defend her, and keep her on. If someone shoplifts, and is then fined by the courts (say) £500, then, by the same token, that someone should get his or her friends and neighbours to rally round, claim that the fine is far too high, and that they should only pay £50. I can just see that happening! There may be a few totally honest MPs left in the House, but the vast majority still don't get it. They get away with behaviour that any member of the pubic would be prosecuted for; and they think it alright! Is it any wonder they are held in such low esteem? You've summed up the whole matter perfectly. The "apology " in the House wasn't an apology for her conduct in falsely claiming expenses or even an apology for obstructing the enquiry, only for her "attitude." Now she needs to apologise for her arrogance to Parliament and the general public both of which she obviously holds in such contempt.
|
|
|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 7, 2014 6:04:18 GMT
Culture Secretary Maria Miller is facing fresh questions about her expenses claims after it was reported that she stopped claiming a second home allowance at around the time MPs were asked to sign a declaration that they would pay tax on any such property when it was sold. Redesignating the house she shared with her parents in Wimbledon, south London, as her main home would mean that no capital gains tax was payable when it was sold at a reported profit of £1 million earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph reports. The tax is levied at 28% on profits made on the sale of second homes. A spokesman for Mrs Miller denied that she changed her second home designation in order to avoid having to sign the declaration.
They also pointed out that the first of three letters from parliamentary authorities was not sent until May 2009, and she stopped claiming all accommodation allowances in April that year. www.itv.com/news/update/2014-04-07/maria-miller-faces-expenses-questions-on-home-sale-tax/And of course although she is in the Cabinet she could not possibly have known the change was coming. Much. What do they take us for- complete morons?
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Apr 9, 2014 6:42:57 GMT
A spokesman for Mrs Miller denied that she changed her second home designation in order to avoid having to sign the declaration.
They also pointed out that the first of three letters from parliamentary authorities was not sent until May 2009, and she stopped claiming all accommodation allowances in April that year. www.itv.com/news/update/2014-04-07/maria-miller-faces-expenses-questions-on-home-sale-tax/And of course although she is in the Cabinet she could not possibly have known the change was coming. Much. What do they take us for- complete morons? The answwer to your question is yes that is exactly what they take us for
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Apr 9, 2014 7:23:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 10, 2014 5:54:37 GMT
Yes but she will still get £17,000 for resigning as a minister which is three times what she was told to repay. So she's still got away with the £45,000 she was originally told to repay originally plus the £17,000 minus the £5,000 she has to repay now. £57,000 profit for stealing plus the profit she will make on the house. Who said crime doesn't pay?
|
|