0725 [0715] Hrs GMT London Thursday 21 May 2009: KHOODEELAAR! No to “abuse of Parliament for Big Business Crossrail agenda...” Campaign multi-featured and many-dimensioned ‘greetings’ to Ruth Kelly, to be disclosed as another Crossrail agenda-peddler now featuring in the List of Cash Claimants at the expense of the public! KHOODEELAAR! campaign is ‘dedicating’ these commentaries to Ruth Kelly, Geoff Hoon and of course Alistair Darling. So far, these three have been identified as having taken money by abusing their positions as MPs and or as ministers in the Blaired regime, whether fronted by Blair himself or by G Brown. The core moral query in our commentaries is this: Why should any of these individuals be allowed to expect that the public should believe them? That the public should have any MORE regard for what they [these individuals, Kelly, Hoon and Darling] say or claim than any ordinary member of the constituencies, in their neighborhoods and in the communities? Why should the public accept as tenable the rationale these individuals proffer behind the decision/s they make in office and in the name of the public? For instance, when Alistair Darling [while in post as the Crossrail, Bug Business agenda peddling ‘UK Department’ !!!! ‘for’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Transport] allowed BASSAM of Brighton [in the House of PEE-rs] to sneak in a statement to the effect that £100 Million had been paid by the Govt to the Crossrail outfit in 2005 under the ‘Railways Act 2005’, Bassam did not say what that money was paid for. In the actual ‘Railways Act 2005’ there is no mention of any accountability for public money by the CLRL outfit. Or by anyone else that got given part of that money. In the years that have followed since that particular allocation, KHOODEELAAR! has asked questions affecting all constitutional., legal and democratic aspects and implications of that decision. With Alistair Darling, with Douglas Alexander [we remember him, more on him at an appropriate stage soon], Ruth Kelly and Geoff Hoon. No reply has been received. No comment has been made by any of them in parliament. The question is: what have they been hiding? And whose idea was it to sneak in a ‘Railways Act 2005’ IN THE FIRST PLACE? Why we ask? Because it reads like a charter for thieves at the expense of the public. We shall comment more on the absurdity, the immorality and the sheer blatant theft of constitutionality by the perpetrators of a parasitic parliament as opposed to a democratic, an accountable, a transparent and ethical and a just Parliament in Britain....
[To be continued]
AADHIKARonline is quoting below from the London DAILY TELEGRAPH group's wb site:
"
Miss Kelly, the former Cabinet minister, used her taxpayer-funded second home allowances to pay for £31,000 of rebuilding, refurbishment and appliances at the house in her Bolton West constituency. Some of the renovations and furnishings were needed after a water pipe burst while Miss Kelly was staying at her designated main home in London. At the time of the flooding, Miss Kelly was the financial secretary to the Treasury. Miss Kelly has confirmed to the Telegraph that the building and contents of the house were covered by an insurance policy, but that she chose to pay for the work from her expenses. Last night Miss Kelly said “with the passage of time”, she “can’t now recall” why she did not make a claim on insurance. “I acted in good faith throughout and have broken neither the spirit nor the letter of the rules,” she said. On Monday, the Telegraph disclosed how Miss Kelly, who served as education secretary, communities secretary and transport secretary, claimed £31,000 to redecorate and refurbish the house between 2004 and 2008. She told the Telegraph that some of the costs had been caused by the burst pipe. Since then the newspaper has asked her whether or not the property was insured. She has since confirmed that it was. In 2004, she was paid more than £13,000 for building and maintenance work at the house, which she bought with her husband Derek Gadd for £109,000 in 2001. The following year, she claimed about £2,500 for painting, curtains, plumbing and other work. In the first four months of 2006, she claimed £15,363 for furnishings and appliances. She tried to claim £3,600 for a sofa and chairs from the upmarket BoConcept retailer, £2,355 for a dining table and chairs, and £2,000 for a 37-inch plasma television. The claims were reduced for being excessive. A £1,625 claim for a garden table, chairs and parasol was rejected. Several purchases were made in London stores and delivered to her house in Bolton at a cost to taxpayers of £380. She also claimed £1,275 for a sideboard, £530 for a dishwasher and £570 for a washing machine. A further £780 was claimed for curtains and rails, £625 for a coffee table and £160 for a rug. Over the next two years, Miss Kelly claimed: £1,511 for work on her patio and repairs; £1,424 for building and redecoration; £650 on kitchen equipment; £330 on Ikea bathroom and bedroom items; £450 on maintenance and £300 on gardening. She has claimed almost £120,000 in second home expenses since 2001. She declined to say how much had been used to cover the costs of the flood damage, but said that the furniture would not have been covered as “it was about 30 years old”. Correspondence shows that another MP, Fabian Hamilton, was made to pay for £295 of damage caused to his bathroom and kitchen by leaking pipes. He confirmed that the cost could be met from his home insurance after being told to check by the fees office in June 2004. Miss Kelly resigned as transport secretary last September to spend more time with her family. She plans to stand down at the next election. Before being elected she worked as an economics writer for the Guardian newspaper. On Wednesday night, she said: “The fees office said the costs could be claimed under the allowances system and, on provision of receipts, they would judge what were reasonable amounts for reimbursement, the remainder of which I would be liable for myself.”MPs' expenses: Ruth Kelly claimed thousands for damage despite insurance
Ruth Kelly claimed thousands of pounds in expenses to pay for damage caused to her home by flooding, although at the time she had a building insurance policy.
"
No comments:
Post a Comment