‘Funny tinge’ Blairite who defected to Lib Dems demands £22,000 when she loses her seat – Nye Bevan News


“I cannot underestimate my horror in finding in the latest guidance these payments are only available if you stand in the same ‘seat’ – The implications of this are terrifying.”

“As you can imagine being an MP for a considerable amount of time these payments provided some comfort in the event of losing on election day.”

“Given I had no option but to move to another party and then no option but to move to a vacant candidacy, I honestly consider I am being discriminated against,” Smith claimed she had to run in a different seat because the Lib Dems had already selected a MP candidate in Penistone.

HER DECISION TO LEAVE LABOUR AND JOIN THE LIB DEMS WAS HER OWN.

She continued: “To be honest it is terrifying me and cannot say loud enough that I feel aggrieved that after serving our country for last 14 1/2 years I could lose everything because of this rule that if implemented would cost me around £22,000 in loss of Office Payment and 2 months net pay.”

 

Source: ‘Funny tinge’ Blairite who defected to Lib Dems demands £22,000 when she loses her seat – Nye Bevan News

I told a lie to claim benefits. Now I am an MP and I want to tell you why : Guardian.


Good on you Metiria Turei and no people should not falsely claim benefit but many do to survive and all cases some be looked at on their merit.

Fraud for greed should be pounced on, but fraud to live should be different. These people need help and the Society in which they live is not producing that help. It may be that they need help to run their life better so that fraud is not the manner to exist.

Punish the true fraudsters not those just wishing to live.

Society does look down on fraudsters and in many cases rightly so., but many in that Society are also fraudsters. How many try to avoid paying tax or should I say minimize our tax payments, for there are some legal ways to do so, such as ISAs.

But some of the biggest fraudsters are those who appear to have plenty to live on. Some have been MPs in the UK by fiddling expenses, some are Corporations who use many ways to minimize their tax liability many of them being legal, but for a few some that are not.

But why does it appear the person in the street is more likely to be charged than the Corporations, is it because they are easier targets, while Corporations can afford to bring in legal experts to argue when they are suspected of fraud.

Surely all should be equal in the eyes of the law and all should be prosecuted if fraud is suspected and the punishment fit the crime taking into account the circumstances.

The reality of needing to claim benefits also needs to looked at, as for some the need to claim benefits is a necessity not a luxury, as even with benefits they will never be anyway near a luxury status.

All in Government and also the press need to reflect on this and then and only then will the stigma of claiming benefits be lifted and also will the public view of persons on benefits.

The majority on benefits do need these benefits and the fraudsters and certainly so called scroungers are the very few, especially the latter. But are real people who need benefits newsworthy, unless there is a dramatic story more than likely leading to loss of life. The occasional benefit scrounger story is so more apparently newsworthy, so what does this say about ourselves and our so called Society.

SUBSTRATUMS

A homeless person in the centre of Auckland.
A homeless person in the centre of Auckland. Photograph: Phil Walter/Getty Images

Last weekend I revealed a lie, a lie that I decided to talk about because of the situation we as a society find ourselves in.

I am the co-leader of the Green party of Aotearoa New Zealand – the third biggest political party in our small democracy. We are two months from our general election, and we’re in a tight tussle to change the government.

Over the weekend, at our party’s AGM, we launched an incomes policy which would create the most significant changes to New Zealand’s welfare system in a generation. It’s a comprehensive piece of work that…

View original post 596 more words

Westminster child abuse allegations: MP with ‘penchant for small boys’ gave his word he was not a paedophile, newly discovered documents show


Original post from The Independent

‘…………….By IAN JOHNSTON

Papers contain 'striking example' of how crimes against children were treated much less seriously in the 1980s than they would be now
Papers contain ‘striking example’ of how crimes against children were treated much less seriously in the 1980s than they would be now

An investigation into claims in the 1980s that an MP had a “penchant for small boys” ended when he gave his word that he was not a paedophile, a review of government papers has discovered.

Peter Wanless, head of the NSPCC, and lawyer Richard Whittam QC, reported last year that there was no evidence that the government had destroyed documents about an alleged Establishment paedophile ring.

However, the Cabinet Office only belatedly discovered a number of other relevant documents, which have now been considered by the lawyers. They said they found no suggestion of a Whitehall cover-up in the new material, but added that the discovery of the files “illustrates the merit of a broader search of potentially relevant material both on and off the system”.

However, the papers did contain a “striking example” of how crimes against children were treated much less seriously than they would be now. The lawyers cited a document written in November 1986 about an unnamed MP accused by two sources of having a “penchant for small boys” by the then head of MI5, Sir Antony Duff, and sent to Sir Robert Armstrong, now Baron Armstrong of Ilminster but then Secretary of the Cabinet under Margaret Thatcher.

Sir Antony wrote: “At the present stage… the risks of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger.”

Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam wrote in a supplementary note to their formal review report that “the risk to children is not considered at all”.

The newly discovered documents also contain references to former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, Baroness Thatcher’s former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman and former minister Sir William van Straubenzee. All four men are now dead.

Clockwise from top left: former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, Baroness Thatcher’s former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former minister Sir William van Straubenzee and former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman (Getty)
Clockwise from top left: former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, Baroness Thatcher’s former Parliamentary Private Secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former minister Sir William van Straubenzee and former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman (Getty)

It is not known what the documents say about the four men, but the contents will likely be considered by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse under Justice Lowell Goddard.

Allegations that Baron Brittan was a paedophile were referred to by Private Eye in the 1980s, although the magazine said the allegations were a smear by MI5 because it was concerned he was planning to a shake up the service following the murder of police officer Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy.

The documents, whose existence was revealed in January, include some 1984 “correspondence with Harry Cohen MP”, who raised the allegations against Baron Brittan in Parliament in the late 1980s.

They also include material from 1980 and 1981, which is described as a “Prime Minister’s Office file” about “Security. Sir Peter Hayman: allegations against former public official of unnatural sexual proclivities; security aspects.”

In a written ministerial statement, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, said: “Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC, have now reviewed this additional material and produced a supplementary report.

Theresa May, Home Secretary (Getty Images)
Theresa May, Home Secretary (Getty Images)

“They have found nothing in these additional files and papers which leads them to alter the conclusions drawn in their original report, which was published in November 2014. They found ‘nothing to support a concern that files had been deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse’ and saw ‘no evidence to suggest PIE [the Paedophile Information Exchange] was ever funded by the Home Office because of sympathy for its aims’.”

Ms May added that the Home Office had “also uncovered some unregistered papers”, but these had not been considered by Mr Wanless and Mr Whittam as they were “outside the scope” of the original review.

The Home Secretary said it was “particularly important” for Government departments “to be able to search material both on and off record” as the Goddard Inquiry “will be asking for departments to produce relevant documents in the near future”………….’

MP wishes to shoot Stag


MP wants to shoot stag

While Mr Glyn Davies MP may have said what he said to interject some humor, by saying it he is encouraging others to do it..

While I appreciate looking at gardens, I also appreciate looking at nature and for me a living creature undertaking its love of life is more important than a few plants.

Plants can be replaced, when this beautiful stag is shot dead, he is lost forever.