ForumGarden

Ask 100 people as to what "main home" means and I'd put money on almost all of them coming to the conclusion that it means the house that you spend most of your time in - where you live for the majority of your time - not a place where you perhaps stay once or twice occasionally or a house/flat that you rent out. It doesnt take too much consideration so why is there confusion over Baroness Uddin's "main home" ?

Baroness Uddin named an empty flat in Kent as her main home, while living just a few miles from Parliament. That meant she could claim £174 a night allowance and there is to be no prosecution as expected.

It seems that Michael Pownall, the Clerk of the Parliaments has set a gagging order over his memo explaining the definition of "main home" for the purpose of allowances. the memo apparantly is bound by the Official Secrets Act.

They seem to close ranks and make it all up as they go along. I'm sure Parliamentary privilidge was never meant to be used for such purposes. I thought it offered MP's the opportunity to debate openlywithin the H of P without risk of charges of deformation or slander. Seems it means you can do what you will and c0ck-a-snoop at the general public in the process





Labour peer Baroness Uddin escapes charges for 'fiddling expenses' thanks to Lords' loophole | Mail Online



Lords official signed gagging order over peers expenses memo - Telegraph

"It means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster (there is no immunity from arrest on criminal grounds)"

Parliamentary privilege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From what I can gather fraudulent claims on allowances would seem to be "criminal" so why arent we seeing Baroness Uddin in court ?

I get the feeling we are getting our pants pulled down

She either acted within the guidelines of the law or she didn't.

So how long will it be before this rule is amended?

K.Snyder;1296939 wrote: She either acted within the guidelines of the law or she didn't.

So how long will it be before this rule is amended?


As quoted from the Daily Mail...." But crucially 'main residence' is not defined in law or the expenses' rules "

It seems that Baroness Uddins (amongst many others) interpretation is far removed from mine - or any one elses. I and every other member of the public would be expected to understand very clearly what such a definition means, especially when we are considering the payment of an allowance. What makes the Learned Ladies and Gentlemen of both Houses interpret a very simple phrase very differently to the rest of us... as "make up the guidlines as you see fit. You'll probably get away with it. We always do " ?

A dictionary would at least go some way to giving a difinitive explanation of two simple English words, with very little arguement

I'm stuck on $174.00 a night allowance for this WHY??? you get paid if you have more than one residence. :-2

CARLA;1297002 wrote: I'm stuck on $174.00 a night allowance for this WHY??? you get paid if you have more than one residence. :-2


Members of the House of Commons ( MPs ) are payed expenses on top of their salary Members in the House of Lords (the second chamber ) in this case Baroness Uddin, arent paid a salary but can claim for expenses. In this case £174 a night. Its usual to pay for overnight expenses if their principal residence is a certain distance from Parliament. Some claim for a second residence but must declare their main home, the one where you would expect them to be living for the majority of time - which is what the row is all about - the greed of those in both Houses, some of which have been asked to pay back thousands in "fraudulent" expense claims. A few have been charged with fraud but have claimed Parliamentary Privilige as a way of "getting off"

Sounds like the USA politician as well bunch of out of touch crooks. :wah:

CARLA;1297008 wrote: Sounds like the USA politician as well bunch of out of touch crooks. :wah:


Well no one trusts a career politician. One doubts whether they are there for the proper reasons. The House of Commons is pretty much full of MPs who, shall we say, were partial to a little poetic licence when filling out their expense forms. Some were no less than fraudulent. It was wholesale noses-in-the-trough. Seems a few of the House of Lords didnt want to be left out either, donned their bibs and got stuck in

Snowfire;1297011 wrote: Seems a few of the House of Lords didnt want to be left out either, donned their bibs and got stuck in


I wonder how many of the hereditary peers fiddled their expenses, and how many of the "new ones" did.

Bill Sikes;1297044 wrote: I wonder how many of the hereditary peers fiddled their expenses, and how many of the "new ones" did.


I'd expect a law prohibiting a politician's immediate children from entering politics would serve greatly to minimize fraudulent advantages.