If our members of parliament think that the British public can be bought off with the introduction of a new “independent” auditing body to oversee the ‘Fees Office’, then they are sadly mistaken. It is clear, that whatever the legality of the rules governing MP’s allowances and expenses, there has been a consistent and blatant attempt by many to exploit hard-earned taxpayers money. Some ’Honourable’ Members have even admitted that there was a culture of MP’s being encouraged to fleece the system for as much as they can, others have confirmed that the allowances were considered a right, a method by which they could supplement what they considered to be unreasonably low salaries.

In other words, many of these honourable members have been nothing of the sort, instead they have been leeches on the public purse. Many MP’s have been contemptuous and dismissive of the very people that elected them into parliament. Another fudge will not restore the trust and confidence in our MP’s or, for that matter, the parliamentary system that allowed it to happen. We can never ever again automatically, consider MP’s honourable, honest or filled with integrity. And, the bottom line, is they have no-one else to blame other than themselves, because the vast majority of them have been filling their boots with our money.

I am angered by the members of parliament that arrogantly insist that they are underpaid. On what measure if you please? The vast majority of MP’s came from a background that consisted of politics, journalism, teaching or unions. Few, if any of them, had any business experience, that is of course, one of the principal reasons that their business initiatives always fail! MP’s are not measured on the same basis as ‘normal’ people, politics is full of cronyism, as a consequence, MP’s are promoted on loyalty, not merit. They keep their jobs even when they fail and they retain their salaries even if they have done something you and I would have been dismissed for. They have other perks that the ordinary man or woman in the street could only dream of and I am NOT including their lavish expenses, allowances and pensions. The vast majority of these snivelling, egotistical leeches would not have survived in the real world, which is probably why they tried politics in the first place. If they think they are worth more, then go, good riddance, we will not miss you, that is a firm promise.

Trust and confidence in our MP’s has been destroyed, not by us, but by them. Even the few that were not dipping into our pockets, stood idly by whilst the rest did…..they said and they did nothing. In my book, that makes them no better that the leeches that have helped themselves to our money. Since 1997, the overall tax intake increased cumulatively by £1.2trillion. The only people, it would appear, not to have felt the impact, were the lawmakers that introduced or supported these despicable and unjustifiable raids on our pay packets. The pimps that insisted that our money was theirs to take, squander and plunder. If they (our MP’s) think they will be easily of quickly forgiven, they truly are very sadly mistaken. The decent thing to do would be to resign and let a new batch of MP’s come in, ordinary folk, that have a track record of success or experience outside politics, who can offer real value and life experience. Only then will we have an opportunity to get rid of the stench of self-gratification and suspicion of a corrupt system.

The public is entitled to expect and demand a fully independent audit of MP’s expenses, but this must be completed by an audit firm that is not linked to the public sector in any way, in other words, they must not have previously had a contract with the public sector and must undertake not to accept one in the future. There must be no way that the independent auditors can be influenced by the people they will be auditing. Further, an eminent barrister must be appointed to provide a definitive interpretation of the rules contained in the ‘Green Book’. The auditors must then compare claims that have been paid against this interpretation and every single claim that does not fall within the terms must be immediately repaid by the MP’s concerned. No exceptions. This audit should cover, at the very least, the last 10 years. Furthermore, an assessment must be completed, whereby a panel of 3 judges determine whether, in their opinion,  any criminal offences have been committed by any MP, such as attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage, deception, fraud etc. Those that are considered to have a case to answer, must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If anyone in the ‘Fees Office’ has been complicit in the criminal process, then they too must be prosecuted, they were paid to do a job and if they failed, then they must accept the price. We want no exceptions, no whitewash and no excuses. The decision of whether or not a prosecution can take place must be left to the judges, not the CPS.

In addition, HMRC must conduct their own independent investigation without fear or favour. It is clear, from the admissions of our own MP’s, that some have profited from the sale of second homes. It is not difficult to determine whether or not this can be classed as a capital gain. HMRC must look at the records held at the ‘Fees Office’ and use this to determine which property was classed by the minister as their primary residence, i.e. the property where no second home allowance was paid. Any property that was clearly not the primary residence must, therefore, be subject to capital gains tax. Where MP’s have played the game by transferring the allowances between several properties, the HMRC must make an assessment and then issue a tax demand. The same as they would for anyone else. Remember, it was Gordon Brown and this government that tightened the laws relating to unpaid taxes, whereas, for the most part, it is up to the ‘innocent’ tax payer to prove that they have not profited, rather than the revenue services to prove that they have. So let them become the ‘victims’ of their own laws. Anything less would be unacceptable and unjust.

A friend of mine recently discovered that his business had been incorrectly accounting for VAT to which the VAT office was not entitled. This had happened over a period of 6 years. When he entered his claim, he was told he could only go back for a maximum of 3 years and when they eventually reimbursed him, he was even “fined” 5% of the value of the reclaim, because the VAT office determined that he had gained through “enrichment”. That is correct, he made a legitimate mistake in favour of HMRC and as a consequence, has had his reclaim reduced by 5%! These are the rules brought in by Gordon Brown and his government, they must be judged by exactly the same rules. That is to say, if they have been enriched through their failure to declare the fact that a ‘capital gain’ was due on the sale of a property, then they must been fined, made to pay interest, as well as repaying the tax.

Much has been made by MP’s about the fact that they were encouraged to milk the system of allowances by ‘house elders’. That is no excuse and I will supply a personal example. In 1979, I was provided with a company car with my job and, on the first day, I went around to the local garage to fill it up with petrol. As I recall, I put about £4 worth of petrol in the car and was handed a receipt for twice the amount. I queried this and was told that it was “standard practice” for everyone that worked for the company. I insisted on being given a new receipt for the correct amount. I then raised this with my manager, who said that “we are so poorly paid, this is considered a perk of the job, everyone does it and even senior management accept the practice, don’t worry“. I refused to be corrupted, I knew this was dishonest and I can honestly say, that from that day to this, I have never fiddled, taken advantage of, or ‘worked’ my expenses or allowances. In other words, it is for the individual to determine whether or not they will succumb to or support a corrupt system, in my view, each and every MP was given the same choice I was and the vast majority chose to ‘work the system’. So much for honesty, judgement and integrity.

Now, it will not have passed anyone’s notice that MP’s, brave souls that they are, have openly blamed the officials at the ‘Fees Office’ stating that expenses were approved by them, so it was okay. They should be reminded, that the Fees Office rules clearly state that ‘Your signature effectively certifies that the amount claimed has been spent on the additional costs necessarily incurred’. Quite right! In the private sector, the primary responsibility for an expense claim falls to the person that is submitting the claim. The individual that authorises the claim is obliged to determine the voracity of the claim at face value, but they will not, in most cases, be able to (nor expected to) investigate each claim or receipt. Nonetheless, if a dishonest claim has been entered, it is the claimant that can and will be held responsible. Over the years I have had responsibility for authorising expenses, I have always been diligent and never knowingly signed off on a dishonest claim. However, I have, on more that one occasion, disciplined or dismissed people that have deliberately entered a dishonest claim, such as false petrol receipts, exaggerated mileage claims and/or false overnight claims. MP’s must abide by the very same rules as the private sector. I can confidently state, that the experience I have had in business, in relation to expenses, are commonplace, in other words, most employers will not accept any level of dishonesty from their employees because they know it is a slippery slope.

• For all those MP’s that have claimed that their claims were within the rules, let me remind them what some of those rules are (extracts), then perhaps they would like to reflect.
• Additional Costs Allowance claims must be “above reproach” and MPs “must avoid any arrangement which may give rise to an accusation that you or someone close to you is benefiting from public funds”
• MP’s expenses and allowances can only be claimed ”for the purpose of performing their parliamentary duties.”
• “You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money.”

Here is something else MP’s are obliged to consider: MP’s are allowed to claim for maintenance, cleaning and “necessary repairs“, as well as furnishings and white goods. Therefore, among the questions MPs are urged to ask themselves before making claims is, “How comfortable do I feel with the knowledge that my claim will be available to the public under Freedom of Information.”

Former chairman of the committee for standards in public life, Sir Alistair Graham, said the expenses system had to be decided in the public and taxpayers’ interest, by an independent outside body. He said, “It is depressing to keep hearing [MPs] saying ‘well, it’s the system that was wrong and we are changing the system’. “The question you have to ask is who devised the system? MPs devised the system under their self-regulating arrangements and that’s what must change for the future.”

Lets hear from Harriet Harman; Asked about claims MPs have been claiming one property is their “second home” under the allowance, but not for the purposes of council tax or capital gains tax, she refused to give a “gut instinct judgement” on whether it was a breach of the rules. However, she said: “Normally it would be the same for council tax, for tax if there was a sale of the property… normally there would be a consistency on that.” - Lets have this point put to the test, we don’t need any MP’s ‘gut instincts’, if they are subject to the same rules as the rest of us, then we already know the answer, so it is time for HMRC to act…and NOW!

I will sum up by reproducing two statements attributed to Harriett Harman. The reader can draw their own conclusions from what she says, or rather, what her statements imply.

“We do not have the level of corruption that remains in many other countries”. “We have recognised that the system needs sorting out”. “We need a new system“.

“MPs believe in the cause of public service and that’s why they’re in public service and I believe our House of Commons is not scarred by corruption on the scale of other political systems.”

Game, set and match!

Footnote: I believe it is time that parliament was modernised to reflect the modern day. A good start would to remove the automatic address of ‘the honourable’ or the ‘right honourable’ when referring to MP’s. It is blatantly obvious to any bystander, that this title cannot be automatically conveyed on MP’s, but must be earned.

It is worthwhile checking out this article on MP’s Expense Claims!

How could Harriet Harman, rumoured to be vying for Gordon Brown’s job, miss the golden opportunity that presented itself at Prime Minister’s Question time? Now I am no fan of Ms Harman, in fact, that would be an understatement, but who could fail to squirm as she ‘performed’ in place of the prime minister.

It was clear from her replies, and I use that term loosely, that she was neither prepared nor capable of dealing with any questions, least of all those posed by William Hague, a serious bruiser on such occasions. It would probably be too kind to describe her performance as inept, but to all and sundry, it was an embarrassing experience. Miliband was unable to contain his amusement, whilst Straw, Darling and others looked incredibly uncomfortable. You could almost hear them in unison saying ‘when will this be over’. It makes you wonder whether there ought to be a deputy for the deputy PM. Lets face it, I have seen better, more polished performances from children at their annual nativity play…and yes, I mean it.

They do say that if you give someone enough rope, they will hang themselves and I suspect that those in the ‘Stop Harriet Campaign’, were more than happy to hand it to her. A first year student would know how important it is to prepare before you present or accept questions. Harman clearly failed to do this, worst still, this was in front of her fellow MP’s and the television cameras. If that is not clear evidence of a bad judgement call, I don’t know what is? Failing which, it could just be the arrogance of office, but one thing is for certain, she has demonstrated that she is unlikely ever to be a suitable candidate for Labour leadership. After all, we know that New Labour like polished performances, even if they lack must substance, in Harman’s case, it appears that she has neither.

Whilst I am not surprised that two of the most inept women in politics (Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman) are pushing a bill to allow a prosecution without intent, I am shocked that the rest of the cabinet have allowed them to announce it. I am of course referring to the proposal to change the law relating to prostitution and trafficking.

Now let me put my cards on the table. I do not and have never used a prostitute. Nor, do I pretend to understand why a woman would want to sell her body or a man pay for sex without the usual intimacy. That may make me a little square or old fashioned and I will accept that criticsm, albeit I have a right to my opinion. However, I do respect a woman’s right to sell her body if she wishes and a man’s to pay for sex if that is his will. Two consenting adults conducting a transaction that hurts no-one is none of my business. Therefore, whilst I must confess I do not fully understand the motivation for the two parties, I do not judge either party, nor do I say they should have the right to make that choice removed.

My concern here is the fact that these two cabinet ministers a peddling a piece of legislation that if introduced in its current form, will change some of the fundamentals of our criminal laws in this country and add nothing to the cause of vulnerable prostitutes. This is because Smith and Harman now intend to introduce legislation that will make it an offence if a man has sex with a woman who is under the control of a third party, such as a pimp, or has been trafficked or forced into prostitution against her will. Here is the issue, The home secretary has made clear that under the proposed legislation it will not be enough for a man to say “I didn’t know”. The new offence will include a “strict liability” test so that police will only have to prove that the man paid for sex, and that the woman had been trafficked. There will be no need to prove he knew it at the time.

In other words, even if the man asked the prostitute if she had been trafficked, was working under duress, or for a pimp and she says NO, if he pays for sex with her, he will still be guilty of an offence, which could even result in a prosecution for rape, which comes with a potential life tariff. Therefore, in spite of the fact that it could be argued that the man was diligent and had no intent, he could still be found guilty of one of the most serious offences on the statute book. Not only that, but if the Metropolitan Police figures are to believed, some 70% of prostitutes would fall into this category, which means a man seeking out the services of a prostitute has, in effect, a 70% chance of committing an imprisonable offence.

I am no law expert, but by introducing a “strict liability” clause into criminal law, (I believe it is already used in civil law), means a serious criminal offence can be committed without there being any intent. Now I know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but this legislation means that even if a man asked the necessary questions and was given the appropriate responses, he is still playing a game of Russian Roulette, with odds that would not be lawful in a casino! Worst still, the man doesn’t even need to have sex in order to commit the offence, he just has to conduct the transaction. This type of law is without precedence in a developed country.

My other concern is, what message does it send out to women who have been raped in the conventionally accepted sense (sorry I couldn’t find a better way of describing this). Rape is one of the most abhorrent crimes on the statute book, yet here, a man can be charged and found guilty of rape, for having sex with a prostitute that has been trafficked or is under the control of a pimp, even if he believed this was not the case. Now compare this with a man that stalks and rapes his victim, or one where a young girl is fed with a date rape drug and subsequently raped, are these offences the same? Because theoretically the charge and sentence would be identical, just brought under different criminal Acts.

Without wishing to be melodramatic about the whole issue, is it not possible that some men will take the view that if they have a 2 in 3 chance of being charged with rape for having sex with a prostitute, that they may as well take their chances elsewhere? A ridiculous or plausible suggestion? This proposed legislation, it will achieve nothing. I strongly suspect that if the Police do bring prosecutions, that even though the judges are only there to intepret and implement the law, they may well demonstrate their contempt for this legislation when it comes to sentencing.

Even the English Collective of Prostitutes has rang the alarm bells saying that they believe it will make prostitutes more, not less vulnerable and run the risk of driving prostitution underground. In fact a spokesperson for the Collective even stated that they believe the governments claim that “most” prostitutes have been trafficked is a “complete fabrication”. Nicki Adams from the Collective is quoted as saying: “What we do know is that women from all walks of life, also working as teachers and students, are also working in prostitution. It’s consenting sex.”

One question I have is that if 70% of the women working as prostitutes have been trafficked or are controlled by pimps, why can’t the police go in and rescue them? By implication, the police are suggesting that they know that 2 out of every 3 prostitutes they find, will have been trafficked or under the control of a pimp. By not ’saving’ these women, they are in effect, allowing them to act as an Agent Provocateur. Quite frankly the whole thing is a complete mess.

Surely there is no logic in introducing a new law that attempts to create a situation where a man can be found guilty of a serious charge even though there may well be no criminal intent. My own view, is that the government should have been more forthright. If they wanted to make prostitution illegal, then they should have done so. Of course they wouldn’t because there would have been a massive backlash in what is accepted as the oldest profession in the world. This legislation if passed, poses a massive risk that if two consenting adults conduct a transaction for sex, one could face very, very serious charges. What will these men do in the face of such dire consequences, will they accept the risk, will they look elsewhere? I would hate to speculate what the consequences of this ill-though out, draconian, unwanted law would be.

I have lived in a country where prostitution is legal. Women work from brothels which are licensed and controlled. This takes most, albeit not all, prostitutes off the street. It means the police know where they are and the authorities can keep an eye on things. Charities have access to the prostitutes and can raise the alarm if anything is untoward. The public do not have to put up with prostitutes walking the street or industrial estates at night. Prostitutes are in a relatively safe and protected environment. The prostitutes earn a living and the men get to have sex with a consenting partner, albeit for sex. Legislation can no more stop prostitution than it can prevent drug use. Introducing a law that seeks to criminalise sex with a prostitute in this way is an appalling use of the legislature and a clear abuse of power.

I am fortunate that I do not live in an area frequented by prostitutes. So I can say in all honesty, they don’t bother me. A transaction that takes place out of sight, between two consenting adults is okay with me. I don’t find it objectionable. On the other hand, girls that have been forced into prostitution by a pimp or trafficker are entitled to expect the protection of the law. The police have existing powers to prosecute the pimps and traffickers. If so many girls fall under this new legislation, then it must be easy pickings for the police. So why don’t they get off their backsides and prosecute the scum that would seek to profit at the expense of these victims of crime? The police in this country have gone soft, they don’t want to have the problem of investigating and proving crime anymore, they just want the laws changed so that virtually everything we do or say can lead to a prosecution and now, if this bill becomes law, there won’t even have to be intent.

I recently heard Harriet Harman give an interview in which I was reminded that her position in government is that of Minister of Women. Now, I have to confess that I can’t remember what subject she was being interviewed on because to be honest, whenever she comes on TV, I find she has little of interest to say and therefore, I just switch off, mentally that is!

Quite apart from whether or not Harriet Harman is the right person to represent women, other than of course the fact that she is one, I am left wondering why women need their own minister? If I were a woman, I would find it quite patronising that this politically correct Labour government felt that women were so weak or under-represented, that they needed their very own Minister for Women. The reality is, today more and more women are in powerful and highly influential positions, they have achieved this, with the notable exception of politics, on merit. So why did this government believe that women should be sectioned off and dealt with as if they were ‘different’ rather than equals? Surely this weakens the cause, if you can describe it as such, rather than strengthens it?

I believe it is as wrong to practice positive discrimination as it is to practice any form of discrimination. The implication that women need a minister to represent their individual interests whilst men do not is simply ludicrous. I ask myself, what next, a Minister for Fat People, a Minister for Drug Users, a Minister for Transsexuals? Quite frankly it is ridiculous. In my opinion, this is not about equality, it is about discrimination, it is to suggest that women are incapable of fighting their corner.

I have seen a number of TV programmes recently where every successful women interviewed stated that gender was not an issue. Furthermore, they made clear that they did not want people (specifically men) to believe that they got where they were based on the fact that there were different rules for women. But based on the fact that their success was through merit. Quite rightly so. I can honestly state that when I was looking at recruiting or promoting people, I did so on ability and merit, not gender or race and I know many, many people that adopt a similar philosophy.

The other problem is when you create a job such as Minister for Women, you find that the minister is having to scratch around for something to do, in other words, they feel have to create new legislation to justify their jobs. In a recent example, I recall the Minister of Women speaking up for the rights of prostitutes and guess what? The prostitutes when asked, made clear that they felt the Minister of Women had no idea what they needed and worst still, the proposed legislation was likely to end up with the prostitutes being less protected than if the minister did nothing. Needless to say, in this particular example, the Minister of Women claimed she knew better because all the prostitutes she has spoken to said something different.

I do not deny that there was a need in the past to introduce legislation that ensured women were treated equally and I believe for the most part, that legislation and education has achieved that goal. There is now a risk that legislation for the sake of legislation will have a detrimental affect as will, for example, suggesting that women should be placed in certain positions based on gender rather than ability. It will weaken what was an otherwise perfectly reasonable, legitimate and worthwhile cause.

One example in terms of politics, is David Cameron’s suggestion that women should be selected to stand for parliament based on gender because they are under-represented, rather than because they are the best candidate. I can say, with all honesty and humility, that it would not bother me what race, or gender a candidate was, provided I felt that they could represent my interests. David Cameron’s actions may be politically correct, but they set back the cause of women by decades, the last thing women want to believe is that men are questioning whether they achieved their position based on being the best candidate or their gender. It is as much about perception as it is reality.

Just in case any women out there decide that this post is anti-women, I would ask them to read it again, I am for equality, not against and I am against any form of discrimination, be that against women or men.