Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Another Daily Telegraph expenses story.
Millionaire Conservative MP Brian Binley is unrepentent. "I won't let the Telegraph bring me down".
This came after it was revealed that Binley, despite a ban on MPs renting homes from firms in which they have an interest, did so anyway. The ban was pointed out to him and he appealed to the Speaker. The appeal took 2 years for the speaker to deal with, in which time Binley claimed �57,000.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps -expenses/5553901/MPs-expenses-Tory-claims-570 00-to-rent-flat-from-own-company.html
Is the Daily Telegraph getting too big for its boots?
This came after it was revealed that Binley, despite a ban on MPs renting homes from firms in which they have an interest, did so anyway. The ban was pointed out to him and he appealed to the Speaker. The appeal took 2 years for the speaker to deal with, in which time Binley claimed �57,000.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps -expenses/5553901/MPs-expenses-Tory-claims-570 00-to-rent-flat-from-own-company.html
Is the Daily Telegraph getting too big for its boots?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't really think of a Tory backbencher as my leader; I think he's probably best left to his constituents to eject if they feel so inclined. Seems like a good news story, though, so no shame on the Telegraph or printing it, though I remain concerned that in effect they bought stolen property in order to obtain the expenses details.
jno, sometimes a crime has to be committed for the greater good. If I have to break the speed limit to rush a dying person to hospital, that's what I do.
Do you not accept that principle, or do you believe it just shouldn't apply in this case?
Given that parliament had colluded to keep their expense details secret (despite the principle of openness explicitly stated in their rule book) by what method do you believe they could have been legitimately obtained?
Do you not accept that principle, or do you believe it just shouldn't apply in this case?
Given that parliament had colluded to keep their expense details secret (despite the principle of openness explicitly stated in their rule book) by what method do you believe they could have been legitimately obtained?
To whose greater good would it be, Ludwig, if - on your high-speed dash to the hospital - you knocked down and killed someone else? Drivers, even ambulance-drivers I believe, have been stopped and charged in such 'dashing' circumstances.
I'm as annoyed as everybody else is about what some MPs have been guilty of re expenses, but - though it may annoy us that certain information is unavailable to us - its theft is not justified and anyone who purchases it and makes use of it for their own ends is guilty of the crime of receiving, in my opinion.
I'm as annoyed as everybody else is about what some MPs have been guilty of re expenses, but - though it may annoy us that certain information is unavailable to us - its theft is not justified and anyone who purchases it and makes use of it for their own ends is guilty of the crime of receiving, in my opinion.
QM - '....It's theft is not justified....'. Ok, well we'll agree to disagree then - I believe it was justified.
If you don't like my speeding metaphor, pick one you do - A woman had to break the law and sit on a seat that said 'whites only' in order to start a process to end racial discrimination - any better?
And if you ever drop in front of my car with a heart attack I'll remember to tootle along to A&E at 28mph, ignoring any groans coming from the back seat.
If you don't like my speeding metaphor, pick one you do - A woman had to break the law and sit on a seat that said 'whites only' in order to start a process to end racial discrimination - any better?
And if you ever drop in front of my car with a heart attack I'll remember to tootle along to A&E at 28mph, ignoring any groans coming from the back seat.
I'm sure you are as honest as the day is long in reality, Ludwig, but imagine a couple of things...
a) Suppose I have what I believe is good reason to doubt your financial probity
b) You have put yourself up for local election.
With only the greater good of the electorate at heart, is it OK for me to pay a typist at your accountants' office to provide me with copies of returns, reports and other correspondence between them and you?
If it is not acceptable for you to be thus targeted, why should it be acceptable for anyone else?
The black woman you refer to was, obviously, totally open in her protest; she did not secretively pay, bribe or suborn anyone else to achieve her ends.
a) Suppose I have what I believe is good reason to doubt your financial probity
b) You have put yourself up for local election.
With only the greater good of the electorate at heart, is it OK for me to pay a typist at your accountants' office to provide me with copies of returns, reports and other correspondence between them and you?
If it is not acceptable for you to be thus targeted, why should it be acceptable for anyone else?
The black woman you refer to was, obviously, totally open in her protest; she did not secretively pay, bribe or suborn anyone else to achieve her ends.
"a) Suppose I have what I believe is good reason to doubt your financial probity
b) You have put yourself up for local election.
With only the greater good of the electorate at heart, is it OK for me to pay a typist at your accountants' office to provide me with copies of returns, reports and other correspondence between them and you? "
Actually, yes it is ok - if you know that I'm defrauding the taxpayer to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds whilst pontificating about greedy bankers and how we need to crack down on benefits scroungers and tax dodgers, I believe you would be justified in bringing my hypocrisy to light in such a manner.
The black woman broke the law QM, and that can never be justified can it?. Surely it would have been better to let the racist institution change itself through 'self-regulation' - maybe not, especially as self-regulation means 'being answerable to nobody and doing what we damn well please'.
Answer the question I asked jno..
Given that parliament had colluded to keep their expense details secret (despite the principle of openness explicitly stated in their rule book) by what method do you believe they could have been legitimately obtained?
b) You have put yourself up for local election.
With only the greater good of the electorate at heart, is it OK for me to pay a typist at your accountants' office to provide me with copies of returns, reports and other correspondence between them and you? "
Actually, yes it is ok - if you know that I'm defrauding the taxpayer to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds whilst pontificating about greedy bankers and how we need to crack down on benefits scroungers and tax dodgers, I believe you would be justified in bringing my hypocrisy to light in such a manner.
The black woman broke the law QM, and that can never be justified can it?. Surely it would have been better to let the racist institution change itself through 'self-regulation' - maybe not, especially as self-regulation means 'being answerable to nobody and doing what we damn well please'.
Answer the question I asked jno..
Given that parliament had colluded to keep their expense details secret (despite the principle of openness explicitly stated in their rule book) by what method do you believe they could have been legitimately obtained?
depends where you draw your lines, ludwig. By buying stolen property, the Telegraph has created a market for it. Other people will now be tempted to steal information in hopes that a newspaper will give them money for it. People with a secret already knock on Max Clifford's door for advice on how to make the maximum profit from it; but at least the secret is theirs to sell. Now there's profit in stealing other people's secrets. I think this a case of the greater good outweighed by an even greater evil.
Ludwig, I did not say - in the scenario I created - I "knew" you were a fraud, I said merely that I "believed" it.
And, if you cannot see the difference between a solitary, public protest against an unjust law and buying something from someone you know has no right to sell it, there's little point in continuing the discussion.
What the Telegraph did was not a whit different, morally speaking, from my buying a suit in the pub from the local shoplifter in the evening after a known robbery at a tailor's in the afternoon.
Would it be OK for me to state that I just wanted to examine the suit as evidence for a claim that the tailors were exploiting foreign seamstresses and selling shoddy goods?
I can just hear the policeman on my doorstep telling me, "We're sorry we suspected you, sir. We simply didn't realise you were acting in the greater good."
But I'll leave it at that.
And, if you cannot see the difference between a solitary, public protest against an unjust law and buying something from someone you know has no right to sell it, there's little point in continuing the discussion.
What the Telegraph did was not a whit different, morally speaking, from my buying a suit in the pub from the local shoplifter in the evening after a known robbery at a tailor's in the afternoon.
Would it be OK for me to state that I just wanted to examine the suit as evidence for a claim that the tailors were exploiting foreign seamstresses and selling shoddy goods?
I can just hear the policeman on my doorstep telling me, "We're sorry we suspected you, sir. We simply didn't realise you were acting in the greater good."
But I'll leave it at that.
jno - The Telegraph hasn't created a market at all. The market for stolen details, photos of the Queen's toilet, gossip about Russell Brand's underpants, leaked emails, internal government reports, taped phone conversations etc is well established. Sometimes the press publishes the information, sometimes it doesn't, depending on how much trouble it thinks it's going to get into balanced against how many papers it thinks it's going to sell.
In this particular case I think they made the right decision - it was in the public interest that this information came out.
QM - I'm sorry but I think you're talking nonsense. You're getting bogged down in nit-picking at the detail of my metaphors, and creating ludicrous ones of your own.
They only serve to illustrate a simple principle - that SOMETIMES the end justifies the means.
In this case I believe the means are justified by the end, and you clearly don't. Fair enough - I think you're in the minority though, thankfully.
..and neither of you has answered the question yet. How could reform have been brought about using 'legitimate' means only, given that parliament had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and were making up their own rules and keeping everything secret to ensure it stayed that way?
In this particular case I think they made the right decision - it was in the public interest that this information came out.
QM - I'm sorry but I think you're talking nonsense. You're getting bogged down in nit-picking at the detail of my metaphors, and creating ludicrous ones of your own.
They only serve to illustrate a simple principle - that SOMETIMES the end justifies the means.
In this case I believe the means are justified by the end, and you clearly don't. Fair enough - I think you're in the minority though, thankfully.
..and neither of you has answered the question yet. How could reform have been brought about using 'legitimate' means only, given that parliament had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and were making up their own rules and keeping everything secret to ensure it stayed that way?
It probably couldn't. I disagree with you on the existence of a market: there have long been leaked emails etc but these have - mostly - not involved either theft or payment for theft. (In other words, information has been leaked, on grounds of party politics or of conscience, by people who had legitimate access to it.) We haven't previously had the situation where anyone has had occasion to think, 'If I can hack into X's computer, serious newspapers will pay me for what I steal.' Is this situation worse than MPs cheating on expenses? I think it is; you obviously don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
"If I can hack into X's computer, serious newspapers will pay me for what I steal.'" - Yeah , no-ones ever had that thought before have they.
I honestly believe that what's peeving alot of Labour supporters about this whole affair is that it's shown that morally, their MPs seem to be in no better shape than the 'evil' Tories. If it proved otherwise and only the Tories were affected , and if it had been the Guardian that published it, we wouldn't be hearing a peep of protest from you guys. The data thief would be hailed as a working class hero most likely.
Don't shoot the messenger guys.
I honestly believe that what's peeving alot of Labour supporters about this whole affair is that it's shown that morally, their MPs seem to be in no better shape than the 'evil' Tories. If it proved otherwise and only the Tories were affected , and if it had been the Guardian that published it, we wouldn't be hearing a peep of protest from you guys. The data thief would be hailed as a working class hero most likely.
Don't shoot the messenger guys.
I suppose It's a bit like when MPs steal from the taxpayer - that's not a crime and the police aren't interested in that either, so swings and roundabouts really.
By the way have you seen the new government advert - "We're closing in on benefit cheats!". Brilliant. Someone must have pointed them in the direction of the palace of westminster. If they go at the right time they can round up a few hundred of the barstewards in one go.
By the way have you seen the new government advert - "We're closing in on benefit cheats!". Brilliant. Someone must have pointed them in the direction of the palace of westminster. If they go at the right time they can round up a few hundred of the barstewards in one go.
I had just to add this, as you persist in asking how the information would have come out without the totally dishonest way in which it did come out, Ludwig.
I think that's perfectly obvious...a year ago, a High Court decision was issued to the effect that it had to come out. Yes, there was much huffing and puffing - one of the main reasons the Speaker had to go, in fact - among all sorts of MPs, both guilty and innocent of expenses-rigging. Despite all of that, the High Court would have ensured that the truth emerged eventually, I feel sure, and probably not in the overly blacked-out way it has now appeared on the Internet.
In other words, it was coming, anyway, and criminal methods were totally unnecessary.
Now i>you ask yourself why the criminal methods were used if not...
a) for the Telegraph's commercial benefit
b) for Tories' political benefit, given that the opening salvos...invariably the most damning...were virtually all about Labour 'baddies' despite many of the most grotesque claims being from Conservative ones?
I think that's perfectly obvious...a year ago, a High Court decision was issued to the effect that it had to come out. Yes, there was much huffing and puffing - one of the main reasons the Speaker had to go, in fact - among all sorts of MPs, both guilty and innocent of expenses-rigging. Despite all of that, the High Court would have ensured that the truth emerged eventually, I feel sure, and probably not in the overly blacked-out way it has now appeared on the Internet.
In other words, it was coming, anyway, and criminal methods were totally unnecessary.
Now i>you ask yourself why the criminal methods were used if not...
a) for the Telegraph's commercial benefit
b) for Tories' political benefit, given that the opening salvos...invariably the most damning...were virtually all about Labour 'baddies' despite many of the most grotesque claims being from Conservative ones?
'Much huffing and puffing'..yes that's one way to put it.
It's impossible to say when or if the information would have come out, given the determination of everyone concerned to cover up their crimes.
I suspect we would have had to wait many years and many more duckhouses, mortgage payments and mock tudor beams down the line before we ended up getting the same laughably redacted stuff they've just issued.
It's impossible to say when or if the information would have come out, given the determination of everyone concerned to cover up their crimes.
I suspect we would have had to wait many years and many more duckhouses, mortgage payments and mock tudor beams down the line before we ended up getting the same laughably redacted stuff they've just issued.
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Crosswords17 mins ago
Can You Appreciate This Foreign Language...
Music28 mins ago
ChatterBank37 mins ago
Wokery Comes To Tourism Agency...
News47 mins ago
Is This Man A Bigger Liar Than Boris.
News58 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.