Baroness Uddin - no prosecution.

[Sid Squid]

Disgusting.

Link.

A peer has really taken the wee over her expenses, she's stolen £100,000 pounds of our money - there's no other way to say it.

But she won't be prosecuted, I'm really angry about this.

[G]

Was always going to be the case... Robin Hood was always a myth, the rich and fat would never have let him get away with it.

[Bri w]

I think that the the expense rules were seriously flawed. What she did may well have been within the rules but morally she was robbing us blind and she knows it.

[Luckypants]

You may well be correct Sid, but what she did was within the rules - just! I cannot see a prosecution succeeding based on what is in that article. (and I have not followed this with any interest prior). I actually have some sympathy for those MPs who did not take the ****, just used the rules to their max (as we all do with expenses if we are honest) but get pilloried for it by the mob mentality.

The whole problem with the expenses row is that the rules were lax and poorly enforced, so many felt they could get away with some 'padding'. It is only stealing where these rules were breached, which it appears is quite hard to do!

Morally bankrupt rather than financially bankrupt.

I wonder whether her political party is proud to have her as a peer. I hope that her policitcal career is over.

Ed

[yorkie_chris]

Call me an idealist but to be elected should be a sacrifice, a service to your country. Not a businesslike means to grow rich. (, fat, and ugly in this case)

Scrap the lot, build a hotel next to the house of commons. Stay in it for free whenever you need to be in that London and earn a reasonable wage and bugger all else.

[Spiderman]

The rich is getting richer everyday.

None of these scumbags were ever going to get more than a slap on the wrist and we all knew it. Its the ones who got caught and said we'll i'll pay it back then like they were doing something so big by doing so that made me angriest.

its like a bank robber getting caught after fleeing and simply saying "well heres the money, so you dont need to hold me accountable for the theft since im giving it all back"

[yorkie_chris]

They've been taking the p*ss but within the rules, just.
Pretty hard to do anything other than not vote for them next time around in the case of MPs, but for peers I'd say no great loss, string them up.

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

I have not followed this with any interest prior

A bit of detail:

- Lives about 5 miles from Parliament but bought a flat in Maidstone, despite her own website saying that the East End is her home for over 30 years. Designated Maidstone as her main residence. Claimed ~£100,000 pounds in overnight expenses on the basis of staying away from her main home.
- Never lived in the the Maidstone flat, this verified by the neighbours who say unequivocally the flat is unfurnished and empty.
- Her actual home is a council flat in East London with a nicely subsidised rent, (yes, we're paying for that too). Given that she's a company director of a couple of well known firms how could she possibly qualify for subsidised rent accommodation?
- Her registrations as company director are at the London address.
- Registered to vote at that address too.

I think it's clear where she lives.

Also this from the Evening Standard:

"Baroness Uddin claimed a total of £29,675 for accommodation in 2007/8, a time when the maximum daily accommodation claim was £165 a day. Her bill represents a claim at the maximum possible rate for 179 days, that's more days than the Lords sat that year.

She's a thief.

[punyXpress]

Within the Rules?
'THEY' made the furfurfur Rules!