The Shame of The Elected By TITVS ADVXAS

Well the main topic in the news recently has been the expenses claimed by MPs. Notably the 'Second Home' payments whereby an MP may claim the interest upon a mortgage or the rent for a "second home" Redditch MP and Labour minister, Jaqui Smith has been the focus of many digs, especially as it was reported by the tabloids (and the broadsheets) that one expense claim was for several pay per view films including a couple of soft porn films her husband watched. Local MPs from my City, Birmingham, have logged the following statistics for the financial year 2007-2008.

MP 1; Salary circa £60,000; PLUS Expenses £90,000; Total £150,000 PER ANNUM.

MP 2; Salary circa £60,000; PLUS Expenses £100,000; Total £160,000 PER ANNUM.

MP 3; Salary circa £60,000; PLUS Expenses £120,000; Total £180,000 PER ANNUM.

To avoid embarrassment, these MPs will remain nameless, but their identity can be revealed if you blog me.

I am pasting here an article from The BNP main website, which although written with their own unique bias, is nevertheless valid and moreover truthful. The title is also a link to the original article.

"Crooks, Liars and Thieves: 113 Complaints against MP Expense Claims in Three Months, but Only One Investigated

The shocking arrogance of the Tory, Labour and Lib-Dem members of parliament has been revealed for all to see with the news that no less than 113 complaints about abuses were laid against individual MPs in just three months.
The MPs have their own safety valve for such complaints, and a body made up of, you guessed it, MPs, decides whether or not the complaints are valid. Not surprisingly, only one of the 113 complaints was ruled as “valid” despite the evidence being clear for all to see that gross abuse to the “second house” and expense claims system is widespread amongst the bloated parasites at the House of Treason on the River Thames.
The abuses have come to the fore once again with the claim by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith that her husband’s pornography viewing tastes were “accidentally” paid for by the taxpayer when the invoice for the two films called Who’s Nailin’ Palin and Belladonna’s Girl Train were submitted “by mistake” along with Mrs Smith’s other claims, which included five pay-per-view films which were all viewed at her family home in Redditch.
This “family home” is not to be confused with Ms Smith’s sister’s spare bedroom, for which she claimed “second house” expenses, ripping the taxpayer off once again.
The £67 movie bill was submitted last June and included two viewings of the film Ocean’s 13 - at £3.75 each - and an additional £3.50 to watch the film Surf’s Up.
Observers have pointed out that Ms Smith’s claim that she “mistakenly submitted the expenses claim” is clearly a pack of lies. No one would submit a claim of that nature without first checking it out thoroughly, especially at that level of government.
Indeed, an invoice for films with the titles such as those viewed by Mr Smith would leap out at even the casual observer, and it is near to impossible that Ms Smith could have missed them.
The reality is that the ruling elite have become so arrogant and dismissive of the public that they feel justified in getting the taxpayer to pay for absolutely everything.
As Home Secretary, Ms Smith already earns over £100K per year - and therefore has absolutely no need to claim for pay-per-view movies of any sort, never mind her husband’s interests.
The criminal gang at Westminster have created for themselves an almost foolproof protection racket. They have appointed a “Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards” who, at a nice salary of £108,000 a year for a four-day week, has the sole discretion to even consider telling the Standards and Privileges Committee about any abuses.
Mr John Lyon is the current holder of that office. If he rejects a complaint, or pursues it and then dismisses it, he does not have to publicly justify his decision. Only if he launches an investigation does he even have to tell the Standards and Privileges Committee. Even that is done in secret. That committee, which is comprised of ten MPs, then writes its own report and recommends what penalty, if any, an MP must pay.
According to the latest report issued by that body, a total of 113 complaints were lodged during a three month period but only one was investigated. Of the rest, 93 were dismissed summarily, three dismissed after a brief investigation, and 16 were carried forward and may still be under consideration.
Mr Lyon initially rejected a complaint into Jacqui Smith’s £116,000 second-home allowances, dismissing it without even asking to see any evidence - an indication of his partiality in the matter and a worrying indicator of the circumstances under which he rejected the other 96 complaints of which the public know.

The time has come for the British public to give these crooks, liars and thieves a kick in the ballots and vote BNP on June 4, 2009."

TITVS ADVXAS XXXI-III-MMIX