Talk:United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cabinet and Ministerial resignations[edit]

I have it that Hazel Blears stepping down was not related to the expenses scandal. The Wiki page for her placement of the cabinet ended On 3 June 2009 [sky news] makes no mention that she resigned over expenses. Surely it is misinformation to place her resignation in a light that suggests it was due to expenses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.146.63 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Legal case[edit]

I've started an article on the legal case here Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner. Francium12 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

you may wish to look at Freedom of information in the United Kingdom and Freedom of Information Act 2000 and possibly Heather Brooke. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged areas of abuse[edit]

Surely there is sufficient evidence of actual abuse to remove the WP:Weasel word "alleged" from the heading. It's already in the first sentence, which covers those areas which might or might not be actual. Since £500,000 has been repaid, 14+ resignations and police involvement makes the saga more than just "alleged". Trying to be WP:Bold here. leaky_caldron (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Any claims that have been admitted by an MP are not alleged. MPs resigning, paying back monies, or just excusing their actions are admitting the claim, and so it is not alleged. If a claim is made by the Telegraph, and the MP completely denies it, and the parliamentary blackwashed publication does not substantiate the claim, then it is still IMHO alleged. It is questionable whether unsusbtantiated claims should appear here due to WP:BLP, so I would say remove alleged from the heading. Martin451 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with removing "alleged" from the title.
Regarding BLP, that section is a description in list form, of the types of item reported by sources as "areas of abuse". It's not "accusations against specific MPs" per se (except where specifically stated and sourced); BLP is not really an issue unless specific accusations are mentioned in relation to a specific (named) MP. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Timeline of..." article needed[edit]

With the matter ongoing one way or another for months (or according to some, since 2005), and new material and phases happening almost every day or so for nearly 2 months now, this article is starting to need a "Timeline of..." subarticle to help capture how the scandal has developed and to provide a timeline of the issue for readers. Does someone want to try figuring one out? FT2 (Talk | email) 07:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Title: Expenses or allowances?[edit]

It sems to me that expenses have been permitted within the allowances system. 91.106.16.175 (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resignation of the Speaker-Biased and Seemingly opinionated[edit]

Under the section Resignation of the Speaker, the first sentence read "The resignation of the Speaker, an almost unprecedented event, was due to a perception by many[108][109] that he had contributed to the scandal by poor leadership and judgement. This included lax handling of the fees office, and defence of the status quo of vested interests rather than recognition of the more significant issues,[110][111] and that he therefore lacked the requisite authority to repair the harm done by the controversy." This information appears to be referenced with articles that would support this "view" or perspective of the late Speaker's style of leadership-or lack there of. The referenced articles DO NOT support this opening sentence, and in fact, one of the referenced articles is from an opinion, from a specialised news publication (The Whig) from Ontario, Canada. The other 3 articles referenced from the NY Times, Reuters, and BBC News, all seemed to basically report that it was the way Martin responded to the leak to the publication of the expenses,for one, attempting to enlist the services of Scotland Yard to investigate where the leak came from. An obvious extreme messure. He also personally attacked those MPs who criticized him than responding to public anger. In addition, it is referenced that the opposition party MUST have confidence in the Speaker as Cameron was quoted “a very important constitutional principle that the Opposition supports the Speaker's office and the role of the Speaker". Apparently, the opposition lost all confidence, even by Prime Minister Brown's own admission. Brown also did say that Martin had done a good job as Speaker but many things happen in the heat of the moment. He was referring to HOW Martin reacted to the inquiry of his expense reports, and the media's publication of the questionable expense reports by various MPs. It is not our place to opine as to the events, which may or may not have led up to this catastrophic event of the expense scandal of the MPs. It is also no secret that the Conservative Party, and their leader has opposed many calls and decisions made by the late Speaker. Dislike and opposition by the MINORITY party in the House of Commons, is not indicative of Martin's LEADSHIP skills. In addition to the manner in which he responded to the investigation of the expense reports, for example: calling on Scotland Yard's services, and noting so , publically to the entire House of Commons, is not only extreme but shows a clear misunderstanding of system protocol, and well, the law. Martin also made a horribly gross error in allowing the police to enter Westminster and search an MP's office without obtaining a search warrant. Whether it was in the moment, and being caught off guard, or a lack of understanding of the law, Martin got it wrong, and committed a gross error by allowing police to enter the MP's office, without a search warrant. Again, these are key events or conditions which COULD HAVE marked the end of Martin's career but to conclude as much by deeming his performance as Speaker as a poor leader, is an opinion, and an opinion not referenced by any article. I have made changes to the opening paragraph on "The Resignation of the Speaker" to reflect the information conveyed in the 3 articles referenced, on a factual basis.

Repayment[edit]

I've provided an update for information regarding Sir Thomas Legg's audit panel and Brown's repayment for expenses claimed for gardening and cleaning costs. It might need expanding though and possibly renaming. Presently the section is titled Repayment. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Independent audit" or "Outcome of independent audit" something like that would probably be better than repayment. Or "Repayment after independent audit" BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've changed it to independent audit as I agree that is a better description for the events covered in this section. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There was a story in several of yesterday's (14 October 2009) UK newspapers that several MP's are complaining about having to re-pay money that they have mis-appropriated. I'm not sure if the stories are true as, as they were in newspapers and I only saw the headlines.
Ah, the contemporary British MP - the morals of Grytpype-Thynne & Moriarty, and dependent on the whims and short attention span of the Neddie Seagoons of the British electorate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.44 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Goudie and other Lords' expenses?[edit]

Ought we not to have a section on peers involved in the expenses scandal, eg. Baroness Goudie?

--Mais oui! (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not read the above case, but the most obvious one is Baronees Uddin given that her case has gone to the polcie. Therefore I've added the section as requested.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Approval Of The Expenses[edit]

Nowhere in the article does it say who approved the expenses, apart from "Commons Authorities". Who are they? There is no explanation and no link. As a British voter, I would like to know. The approval of these expenses is just as damnable as the claiming of them. --New Thought (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pre-publication controversies" section[edit]

Isn't this a bit synthetic? An arbitrary collection of previous noteworthy incidents along the same lines isn't really necessary here, especially when some of them date back over a decade. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of Parliamentary Privilege to escape prosecution...is nothing new[edit]

It's interesting that much has been made by the four MPs to try and use their parliamentary privileges to try and get out of their legal problems. However this nothing new and should be mentioned - maybe in the a side bar - of other MPs that have tried to do the same thins. In August 1951 John Lewis MP for Bolton West tried to use Privilege to escape the law, after he hit a policeman in his car (he only backed up his car and struck the PC three times). Amazingly this little stunt is largely forgotten now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.32.156 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

R.E, the conservative group that unlocked Pandora's box[edit]

The group that unleashed this was WP:COI, as the shadow leadership attended. Was it a coincidental leak, when the govt. was unpopular.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES[edit]

Just as a reminder we cannot use sources like The Sun or The Daily Mail for anything remotely controversial on living people. I've taken some sub-standard sources out, and removed some material pending its verifiability with more reliable sources. --John (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

All official records of MPs’ expenses from before 2010 destroyed[edit]

I don't think the article at the moment mentions the fact that the Commons authorities in 2014 had destroyed all official records of MPs’ expenses from before 2010.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/03/mps-expenses-official-records-scandal-era-destroyed

I'll add it to the article if nobody objects. 92.24.17.80 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

The lead section is too long, and it provides a poor introduction to the subject of the article. I couldn't even make heads or tails of the first sentence.

Analyzed alone, the first sentence has an F-K reading ease score of -6.5 (yes, that's negative 6.5), and an F-K grade level of 28.8. Way too high to provide an accessible introduction even if this is a complex topic.

Analyzed as a whole, the lead is 8 paragraphs and over 800 words. It has an F-K grade level of 15.9 and an ARI score of 17.1, indicating that at least some college education, possibly even graduate-level, is required to fully understand the material in the lead. This is just way too high. Admittedly, I'm an American, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the contextual knowledge of the UK Government that a citizen would have, but I still think the lead needs to be drastically improved. —Darkwind (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)