msgbartop
and his Coffee-Break Brain-Dump
msgbarbottom

11 Jan 11 moneysupermarket.com attempt to bribe and blackmail me

moneysupermarket logo

moneysupermarket.com sent me an email recently asking me to publish an article featuring their new TV advert. They went further and hinted at an editorial line besmirching the character of Lord Prescott.

So I published the article. READ IT HERE

But they didn’t like what I wrote.

So they asked me to remove it …and then tried to bribe and blackmail me…. they really don’t want people to read the article

So here follows the correspondence below, which I publish in full because I think this is now a public interest matter. That means it is subject to a greater responsibility to the public than confidentiality footnotes on emails. Under the Freedom of Information Act, it allows publication of such information in order to make people aware that in this case there are  dubious practices being used to stifle my right of free speech. Why? All because I have called the bluff of a famous and national company who are not only paying a distinguished former Deputy Prime Minister to be in a national TV advertisement, but at the same time they launching an underground campaign to damage his reputation.

Received via the contact form on daveyates.co.uk

***********

From    X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)
Email    *************@moneysupermarket.com
Website    http://www.moneysupermarket.com

Message

Hi,

My name is X and I work for Moneysupermarket.com. We have recently done a video together with former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and I was wondering if you would like to feature it on your website. I decided to contact you due to the nature of your website which I think features some very informative articles on a wide variety of topics. Having previously mentioned him in the past I I felt that you would be interested in featuring this video which hows Prescott in out latest car insurance advertisement and is rather amusing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWpW_5X2EYE). However, it has proved to be an opinion splitter with some people thinking it shows him in a good light and others thinking that he is cashing in on attacking a voter. If you are interested in featuring this video on your website, please let me know. All we would ask in return is a link back to us to acknowledge that we created the advertisement.

Thanks X

****************

From: Dave Yates
To:
X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)

X

I have included the link and a small article on my site. If you would like to discuss any of this further, please contact me by email or on the number below.

Kind regards
David

*******************

From: X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)
To: Dave Yates

Hi David,
I apologise for the fact the email was unwelcome and the point has been taken. You will not be contacted again.

Can I please request that the whole blog mention be removed along with our video?

Thanks
X

*********************

From: Dave Yates
To:
X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)

X

The approach is very welcome. I just think that since you have a commercial objective, you should be prepared to attach a commercial incentive to the request. I do not make a living out of my online activities, yet I still have to pay for the services you wish to market via my website. There is an equitable arrangement just shouting out here and I think you should consider it.

Please reconsider my counter offer.

Thanks
David

**********************
From: X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)
To: Dave Yates

Hi David,
We would be prepared to pay for any such request and if you had asked about the prospect I would have gladly complied. This is something which still isn’t out of the question if the blog mention is removed.

I must advise that the mention of email grammar errors would not be viewed favourably by wordpress due to the potential it has to offend people with dyslexia.

If you could let me know once your post is removed I think we can move on from the matter.

Thanks
X

******************

From: Dave Yates
To:
X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)

X

I’m a little surprised at your response.

I assume that what you are saying is that you are prepared to bribe me with some form of discount vouchers if I pull down the article. On the other hand, you are also prepared to blackmail me since, if I do not, you will try to get WordPress to jump all over me for being insensitive to dyslexic people.

On a point of order, WordPress do not host this Blog, I do. I use the WordPress platform, but as far as publishing standards are concerned, it is none of their business. Additionally, I would go as far as to say that you are incorrect on two levels:

1. As one of few accredited WordPress consultants in the UK, I can tell you that it is not part of the WordPress remit to police publishing standards. It is their objective to provide a publishing platform for others to use. What gets written is not really of any concern to them.

2. The standards of grammar, spelling and so on in an email, even if you are dyslexic, are easily managed via grammar and spelling checks through standard software. You are in a job that involves distributing PR to people who write, either for a living, or as a pastime. It makes you fair game for this sort of criticism.

In the meantime, please let me know what sort of thing you have in mind as far as the discounts are involved.

Many thanks
David

********************

From: X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)
To:
David Yates

Hi David,
I did not attempt to bribe anyone I was merely pointing out a legal opinion I have that it was quite dangerous to say such things in this day and age more for the protection of your website than anything. Of course I can not be certain of this as I haven’t consulted our legal department on the matter.

Additionally, as I understand it you are attempting to bribe us by saying that you will only take this down if we met your demands which again, in my opinion, is legally dubious. This is proven once again by your reference at the bottom of the email to discounts.

Can I suggest that you remove the blog post straight away and we can move on from the matter otherwise I will be forced to consult my manager and/or legal department.

Thanks
X

***********************

From: Dave Yates
To:
X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)

X

Let’s recap…

You asked me to publish this.

I did.

I publicly made the point that as a commercial organisation, with a commercial objective, you should be prepared to offer a commercial incentive – which I believe you should.

You didn’t like it and asked me to remove the blog post, suggesting that you might reward me somehow were I to do so. At that point it became a bribe to my mind. You concurrently implied that you would seek to have WordPress sanction me were I not to comply and remove the article. At that stage it became blackmail to my way of thinking.

I asked what sort of an inducement you had in mind.

You are now accusing me of seeking a bribe! Let me remind you, you offered me a bribe, not the other way around and at the same time you made a suggestion of blackmail. For your information, I am interested in how much because, I’ve never been offered a bribe before – it is a perfectly natural question.

Perhaps you should consult your manager and your legal department, I think bribery and blackmail are probably not good corporate strategies.

All the best
David

********************

From: X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)
To: Dave Yates


Hi David,
1) I never attempted to bribe anyone. I agree that a commercial incentive is a good idea in these cases and attempted to seek a commercial arrangement where we could feature the video and short text with the link back which would benefit us and also put a piece of material which could be of interest to your website readers

2) I made the suggestion that making jokes out of people’s writing could be viewed badly but never once mentioned contacting wordpress, was more a comment on how it could be viewed by others.

3) I requested you remove the post because it is obviously harmful to how we are seen. I don’t question that. I said that we could still continue under my initial intentions if the post was removed as I would ignore that the situation had occurred and realise we inconvenienced you with the email.

I am sorry how this situation has ended up after a harmless approach at a commercial agreement. Had you not published the blog entry you did and had instead approach me by email about the prospect of gaining a commercial incentive for publishing the company video I would have complied without question. I apologise if I have mistakenly read this as bribery but surely you can see why I see it this way just as I can see why you see it your way.

***************

From: X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)
To: Dave Yates


Hi David,
I would hate for all this to end in conflict so welcome any suggestions you have to rectify the situation?

Thanks
X

*****************

From: Dave Yates
To:
X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)

X

1) I never attempted to bribe anyone. I agree that a commercial incentive is a good idea in these cases and attempted to seek a commercial arrangement where we could feature the video and short text with the link back which would benefit us and also put a piece of material which could be of interest to your website readers

Bribe: Call it what you want. But it looks that way to me.
“benefit us and also put a piece of material which could be of interest to your website readers”: You presented this with the words “some people thinking it shows him in a good light and others thinking that he is cashing in on attacking a voter.” That is an invitation to scandalise the man. As someone with more than a bit of experience marketing brands via social media, I know an attempt at viral whispering when I see it.

2) I made the suggestion that making jokes out of people’s writing could be viewed badly but never once mentioned contacting wordpress, was more a comment on how it could be viewed by others.

That’s not how it came across to me.

3) I requested you remove the post because it is obviously harmful to how we are seen. I don’t question that. I said that we could still continue under my initial intentions if the post was removed as I would ignore that the situation had occurred and realise we inconvenienced you with the email.

You have not inconvenienced me with the email. It is exactly the sort of content that I like to feature. I rather think you wanted me to put the video up there with a backlink and some comment like “Look! bloody Prescott coining off the back of his assault and battery on that poor member of the public”

I am sorry how this situation has ended up after a harmless approach at a commercial agreement.

What was the commercial agreement?

Had you not published the blog entry you did and had instead approach me by email about the prospect of gaining a commercial incentive for publishing the company video I would have complied without question.

Don’t blame me for not being psychic. You asked me to publish it and I did. If there was an incentive, you should have approached me with that. The invitation was to put a copy of the vid on my blog with a backlink. Nothing else was mentioned.

I apologise if I have mistakenly read this as bribery but surely you can see why I see it this way just as I can see why you see it your way.

Well at least you can see my point of view and I thank you for that.

Kind regards
David

*****************

…then nothing. Do you think I’ve upset them?


10 Jan 11 MoneySupermarket v John Prescott – who’s taking the piss out of who? – I rather think you’re taking the piss out of me

I got this email this morning from Moneysupermarket.com

X (Name removed to protect the individual involved)
Email ************@moneysupermarket.com

Hi,

My name is X and I work for Moneysupermarket.com. We have recently done a video together with former deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and I was wondering if you would like to feature it on your website. I decided to contact you due to the nature of your website which I think features some very informative articles on a wide variety of topics. Having previously mentioned him in the past I I felt that you would be interested in featuring this video which hows Prescott in out latest car insurance advertisement and is rather amusing. However, it has proved to be an opinion splitter with some people thinking it shows him in a good light and others thinking that he is cashing in on attacking a voter. If you are interested in featuring this video on your website, please let me know. All we would ask in return is a link back to us to acknowledge that we created the advertisement.

Thanks X

For the moment I will skirt over the lousy grammar and spelling, and the rather slap-dash nature of the email. Next of all, I bet you haven’t read my blog. It does cover a wide range of topics, but none of it is interesting or informative, it’s largely shit. But you’re not after traffic are you – you want the backlink, the bit that only Google sees.

Here’s your backlink – But since this is a commercial request, it occurs to me that the only one not making money out of this is me. No discount voucher for my car insurance, no High Street retail vouchers …nothing. I might as well buy from confused.com. It’s a bit of an insult really. Still so long as I’m not getting anything out of this, neither are you because I have placed a “nofollow” attribute on your link, so bizarrely confused.com get more out of this than you do

Of greater concern to me X, indeed the real reason I am quite angered by your approach is the attempt to smear John Prescott. Like him or hate him, you have paid him to embarrass himself to advertise your company and now you are seeking to start a social media smear of him.Your email snidely drops the hint: However, it has proved to be an opinion splitter with some people thinking it shows him in a good light and others thinking that he is cashing in on attacking a voter”

So, since this is my blog, not your free advert, here’s my opinion. I think John Prescott is someone who, with little education, starting out labouring on merchant ships for a living, took the cause on to promote the the welfare of his fellow workers. Having done so, he became one of the most effective and respected union leaders of his generation. Entering mainstream politics, he saw the rise and fall of the loony left and New Labour and in spite of his ill-fitting image, he rose to become Deputy Prime Minister of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and now serves in the House of Lords.

He was never one to insult the electorate with twisted words, double talk and political expediency. If you hit him, he hit you back, verbally and physically. He came to the fore in a tough blue collar world and rose above most in the duplicitous white collar world.

I think it is shameful that having come to an arrangement to use him in a national TV campaign, you are now seeking to scandalise his motives in an underground PR campaign through blogs.

Nevertheless, had he written an email to me, I would bet that he would have had it proof read for typos, spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.

As for the point you raise, I think he is taking the piss out of himself; punch bag, Yale sweat shirt, etc. I think he knew what he was doing when it was filmed. I just think he doesn’t know what you are doing now in trying to denigrate him through a whispering campaign driven by bloggers on the social media scene.

Nevertheless, in the meantime, you need to stop taking the piss out of me. You may want to treat the former Deputy Prime Minister like crap, but don’t assume you can treat me the same. You want to promote your multimillion pound company through my blog, to help you make even more money. But you want to do it for free and smear someone who helped you promote your company in a TV advert. Well here’s your article, I hope you enjoyed it.

03 Sep 10 Phone hacking claims: John Prescott calls for police conduct inquiry

John Prescott today called for a judicial review of the conduct of the Metropolitan police force in relation to the allegations of phone hacking against the News of the World.

…makes you wonder what he’s got to hide

The former deputy prime minister was speaking after the paper confirmed it has suspended a journalist while it investigates new allegations of the unlawful interception of voicemail. The police have come under pressure after the New York Times quoted unnamed detectives alleging they had cut short their investigation because of their close relationship with the News of the World.

27 Sep 09 Iran tests new short-range missiles

Found this on ITN via iPhone:

- -

Iran has tested new missiles as its elite Revolutionary Guards begin several days of war games, state television has reported.

Iran’s English-language television channel, Press TV, confirmed the launch of two short-range missiles and showed what they say are the latest pictures of the military exercise.

- -

Makes you wonder. If the USA/UK invaded Iraq because of WMD that were never there, what will they do to Iran who have WMD that clearly are there?

14 May 09 Gordon Brown on Expenses and other problems

This just about sums up the entire fiasco concerning the government, in fact every single grubby, thieving, grasping MP. I came across this on You Tube. I suggest if you are offended by foul language you do not play the video.

What might make you use a few four letter words of your own is this list from The Times. It shows the expenses revealed in the latest round of  expenses abuse. And as every new revelation and grubby little member plays what used to be called ‘They don’t know so we don’t care” and is now called “Shit! Busted”. I hope the Time don’t mind me reposting it here – it really ought to be publicised as widely as possible. Personally I would like them to all resign and be suspended from standing for Parliament for ten years. It’s still better than the conviction and criminal record the rest of us would have faced if we had ever found a way of doing this in our own lives.

THE EYE-WATERING CLAIMS

  • Douglas Hogg Former Agriculture minister Mr Hogg has been paid more than £20,000 a year between 2004 and 2008 in second home allowances, it has been revealed. Among the costs itemised were £2,115 for having a moat cleared, £646.25 for “general repairs, stable etc” and £40 for piano tuning, the Telegraph said.
  • Hazel Blears The Communities Secretary claimed for three different properties in a single year, spending almost £5,000 of taxpayers’ money on furniture in three months. She also avoided capital gains tax on her £45,000 profit when she sold a London flat by telling Inland Revenue it was her main home, and thus exempt – despite its being registered with the Commons as her second home. On Tuesday night Ms Blears said she would voluntarily pay £13,332 to the taxman
  • Sir Michael Spicer Sir Michael, who is chairman of the influential Conservative 1922 Committee of back bench MPs, has claimed £620 for the installation of a chandelier and rewiring work and more than £1,000 for servicing an oven, The Daily Telegraph said. He also claimed more than £5,650 for gardening work at his Worcestershire manor house, as well as £4,000 for council tax on two homes. Other items reportedly claimed included £3,000 for roof repairs and £2,350 for work on his chimney.
  • John Prescott The taxpayer paid for the former deputy prime minister to fit the front of his home in Hull with mock Tudor boards and for his toilet seat to be repaired twice in two years.
  • David Heathcoat-Amory The Tory MP for Wells in Somerset reportedly claimed £388.80 for horse manure between 2004 and 2007. He also submitted a bill of £986.17 for heating oil in January 2008, and between July and September 2007 Mr Heathcoat-Amory also claimed £1,792.50 worth of invoices from a gardening firm.
  • David Miliband The Foreign Secretary claimed almost £30,000 for doing up his £120,000 constituency home over five years, it was reported. He spent up to £180 every three months on the garden at the property in South Shields. At the bottom of one receipt for £132.96 in April 2008, his gardener wrote a note questioning whether some of the work was necessary.
  • Alan Duncan The shadow leader of the Commons claimed thousands of pounds for his garden before agreeing with the fees office that the spending “could be considered excessive”. Millionaire Mr Duncan recouped £4,000 over three years. However, a £3,194 bill for gardening in March 2007 was not paid after officials responded suggesting that the claim might not be “within the spirit” of the rules, according to the Daily Telegraph. In a letter to the MP for Rutland and Melton, the fees office said that it expected gardening costs “to cover only basic essentials such as grass cutting”. In March 2007, Mr Duncan claimed £598 to overhaul a ride-on lawn-mower and then a further £41 to fix a puncture a month later. Mr Duncan is also said to have claimed £1,400 a month for mortgage interest on his home in Rutland. On Tuesday Mr Duncan refunded £4,704.86 of his gardening claims
  • Margaret Beckett The Housing Minister found herself in trouble with the Fees Office after attempting to claim £600 for hanging baskets and pot plants.
  • Michael Gove Mr Gove – the Shadow School Secretary and a close ally of Mr Cameron – spent more than £7,000 in five months furnishing a London property in 2006 before “flipping” his second home designation to a new property he bought in Surrey. He then apparently claimed more than £13,000 in stamp duty and other fees from his Parliamentary expenses for this property. On Tuesday Mr Gove repaid £7,000 of furniture costs and £500 he claimed for nights staying at the Garrick club in London
  • Ken Clarke The former Chancellor’s book-keeping skills “leave much to be desired” according to the newspaper. Mr Clarke, now Shadow Business Secretary, was apparently asked repeatedly to submit receipts for thousands of pounds in claims for security and cleaning at his second home in London. The records also revealed he does not claim a council tax discount of up to 10% to which he should be entitled having designated the property as his second home. On Tuesday Mr Clarke repaid £600 relating to council tax
  • Margaret Moran The Labour MP for Luton switched her second home to the house she shares with her partner, 100 miles from her constituency – just days before spending £22,500 on treating dry rot at the seafront property. On Tuesday Ms Moran promised to repay the £22,500
  • Francis Maude The Shadow Cabinet Office minister claimed almost £35,000 over two years for a mortgage on a London flat a few minutes walk from a house he already owned and then rented out. The taxpayer footed the £387.50 bill for moving his effects down the road. He also tried to claim mortgage interest on his family home in Sussex, but the arrangement was reportedly rejected by the Fees Office. On Tuesday party leader David Cameron banned Mr Maude from claiming the second homes allowance in future
  • Stephen Byers The former Labour Trade Secretary used the expenses system to claim more than £125,000 for the London flat owned by his partner. Over the past five years, Mr Byers spent more than £27,000 on redecoration, maintenance and appliances at the flat in Camden, north London. The claims included extensive renovations to the outside of the entire building, which consists of four flats. Documents showed Mr Byers put the entire £12,000 bill for the work – including his partner’s share – on expenses.
  • David Willetts The shadow innovation, universities and skills secretary claimed £115 plus VAT to replace 25 light bulbs at his second home in west London. On the same claim – part of a £2,191 invoice for odd jobs that included cleaning a shower head – Mr Willetts charged another £80 to “change light bulbs in bathroom”. But parliamentary authorities pared the bill back by more than £1,000, refusing to refund £175 for a dog enclosure and £750 for a shed base. According to the Telegraph, the fees office frequently cut his claims because of errors or overclaims. On Tuesday Mr Willetts repaid the £115 plus VAT for fitting the light bulbs
  • John Reid According to leaked receipts, the former Home Secretary appears to enjoy his creature comforts when in his Scottish constituency. Mr Reid’s claims included a £199 pouffe, a £370 armchair, an £899 sofa and a £29.99 a “black glitter toilet seat”.
  • James Arbuthnot Mr Arbuthnot claimed £1,471 for “grass, trim, pool, fuel” costs associated with the garden of his property in Hampshire. During the period May to October 2007, he also submitted a claim for £2,433 “for the expense of our housekeeper”. Furnishing he asked to be reimbursed included £728 for a new television and £100 for a sign at his new home. In total, the chairman of the Defence Select Committee has claimed £108,062 over the past five years – the maximum amount possible according to the paper. On Sunday he said he would be repaying the swimming pool work claims
  • Cheryl Gillan The shadow Welsh Secretary spent £4.47 of taxpayers’ money on dog food. The fees office also reduced a claim for a gas bill because the statement showed Ms Gillan’s account was in credit. On Sunday Ms Gillan said she would repay the £4.47 she had claimed by mistake
  • Oliver Letwin Mr Letwin, who is in charge of drawing up the Conservative general election manifesto, claimed more than £2,000 to replace a leaking pipe under his tennis court. He said he had been ordered to mend the pipe by the local water company and did not make any improvements to the court or his garden. The taxpayer also picked up the tab for regular services to his Aga cooker. On Tuesday Mr Letwin repaid the £2,000
  • Chris Huhne The Liberal Democrats home affairs spokesman regularly submits claims for food and groceries including pints of milk, fluffy dusters and chocolate biscuits. Millionaire Mr Huhne, who is MP for Eastleigh in Hampshire, also expensed a £119 trouser press which was delivered to his main London home. On Monday Mr Huhne said he had repaid the cost of the press
  • Lembit Opik The Liberal Democrat housing spokesman billed a £40 summons for the non-payment of council tax on a flat to his second home expenses. On Monday Mr Opik said he will pay back the £40
  • Andrew George The Liberal Democrat MP has claimed £847 a month for a riverside flat in London used by his student daughter, according to the Telegraph. Mr George, who is MP for St Ives in Cornwall, said his daughter Morvah, 21, had access to the property in Rotherhithe but was not the sole user.
  • Sir Menzies Campbell Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies spent nearly £10,000 of taxpayer funds refurbishing his central London flat. Among the items claimed were a new king-size bed worth £1,024, bed linen worth £373 and five cushions costing £176.25. He also claimed thousands of pounds of food over the summer recess. On Wednesday Sir Menzies said he would repay the £1,490.66 fee to the interior designer who oversaw the work on his flat
  • Julia Goldsworthy The Liberal Democrat local government spokesman spent thousands of pounds on furniture just days before the deadline for using up parliamentary allowances, it was reported. She bought a £999 TV, £1,500 of furniture in House of Fraser and a £1,200 leather rocking chair from upmarket furniture store Heal’s on March 28 and 29, 2006. The House of Commons financial year ends at the beginning of April, after which expenses incurred must be set against a new allowance. Ms Goldsworthy said that she had claimed “reasonable” costs for furnishings. On Wednesday Ms Goldsworthy said she would repay £1,005 she claimed for the chair

THE LEADERS

  • Gordon Brown Mr Brown used his expenses to pay his brother Andrew £6,577 for cleaning work at his Westminster flat between 2004 and 2006. The brothers shared the cleaner at their two flats. Under the arrangement, Andrew Brown paid the cleaner and the Prime Minister reimbursed his share of the cost.
  • David Cameron The Tory leader claimed a total of £82,450 on his second home allowance over five years. The majority of Mr Cameron’s claims were for mortgage interest and utility bills for his Oxfordshire constituency home. One exception was a £680 bill for repairs to the property, which included clearing wisteria and vines from a chimney, replacing outside lights and resealing his conservatory’s roof. The newspaper reported Mr Cameron’s expenses appeared relatively straightforward compared to other members of the shadow cabinet. On Tuesday Mr Cameron repaid the £680 maintenance bill
  • Nick Clegg The Liberal Democrat leader reportedly had his second home allowance docked last year after exceeding the £23,083 maximum by more than £100. Other claims made included £1,657.32 for food, and phone bills which included calls to Colombia and Vietnam. He said that when he sells his second home, any profit will go back to the taxpayer. On Tuesday Mr Clegg said he had paid back the £80.20 cost of the international calls

CABINET AND SHADOW CABINET

  • Alistair Darling The Chancellor “switched” the location of his second home four times in four years, allowing him to claim thousands of pounds towards the cost of his Edinburgh home and for the London flat, it was reported. The taxpayer contributed almost £10,000 towards the cost of furnishing the Chancellor’s London flat, including £2,074 for furniture and £2,339 for “magnolia” carpets. The public also footed the bills for £765 from Ikea and £768 from Marks and Spencer for a bed.
  • George Osborne The parliamentary authorities considered the Shadow Chancellor’s personal website too “political” to be publicly funded, the newspaper said.  After claiming £30 for a private company to host the site, Mr Osborne was told by an official: “I draw your attention to the ’Latest News’ section of your webpage. This includes some articles … which contain clearly political content and are therefore not acceptable on a publicly funded website.” He also put a £440.62 bill for a chauffeur company to drive him from Cheshire to London on November 11 2005 on expenses. While the invoice offered a 5 per cent discount for “prompt settlement”, Mr Osborne received the full amount. The records showed he also claimed hundreds of pounds for cleaning and remortgaged his second home in Cheshire, increasing his monthly mortgage interest bill from £1,560 a month to nearly £1,900. On Tuesday Mr Osborne refunded the £440.62 chauffeur’s bill
  • Lord Mandelson The Business Secretary claimed thousands of pounds for work on his constituency home in Hartlepool shortly after announcing his resignation as an MP, it was reported. He renovated the terrace house in 2004 and sold it for a £136,000 profit. Lord Mandelson’s spokesman insisted the expenditure was to repair the property, “not improve it”.
  • Geoff Hoon The Transport Secretary was able to switch his second home in a way which allowed him to improve his family home in Derbyshire at taxpayers’ expense before buying a London townhouse.
  • Chris Grayling The Shadow Home Secretary received thousands of pounds to renovate a London flat, even though his constituency home in Surrey is only 17 miles from Parliament. Mr Grayling, who already apparently owned three properties within the M25, bought the flat with loans subsidised by the taxpayer. In an unusual move, Mr Grayling negotiated an arrangement with the fees office that allowed him to claim £625 a month for mortgages on two separate properties – the main home in Ashtead, Surrey, and the new flat. An exception to the rules was made for the Epsom and Ewell MP because he was unable to obtain a 100% mortgage on the flat. He is also alleged to have delayed putting in claims for decorating and refurbishing costs so he could receive the maximum in Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) over consecutive years. On Tuesday Mr Cameron banned Mr Grayling from claiming the second homes allowance in future
  • Jack Straw The Justice Secretary claimed for the full cost of council tax, even though he received a 50% discount from his local authority. He repaid the money last summer, shortly after a High Court ruling requiring the receipts to be published. In a note to the fees office he wrote: “Accountancy does not appear to be my strongest suit.”
  • Nick Herbert The shadow environment secretary claimed back £10,000 of the £14,700 stamp duty when he bought a home with his partner in his constituency. He also charged for fees and a survey of the property in Arundel, West Sussex and claimed for the entire monthly mortgage interest even though his partner’s name was on the deeds.
  • Andy Burnham The Culture Secretary wrote a note to the fees office in which he pleaded for his expenses to be paid urgently and even wrote he “might be in line for a divorce” if the money did not materialise within days.
  • Andrew Lansley The Shadow Health Secretary spent thousands of pounds renovating a thatched Tudor country cottage – and sold it shortly afterwards. He redecorated with premium paint in some rooms at a cost of £2,000 and spent more than £500 having the driveway re-shingled. He is then said to have “flipped” his expenses to a Georgian flat in London, and claimed for thousands of pounds in furnishings, including a Laura Ashley sofa. On Tuesday Mr Lansley repaid £2,600 he claimed for house renovations
  • Shaun Woodward Taxpayers contributed almost £100,000 to help pay the mortgage on Mr Woodward’s £1.35 million flat – one of seven properties owned by the multi-millionaire Northern Ireland Secretary.
  • Caroline Flint The Europe minister put solicitors’ fees and stamp duty totalling £14,553 on her Parliamentary expenses after buying a central London flat.
  • Paul Murphy The Welsh Secretary used his second home allowance to buy the freehold on a flat close to Parliament, putting the arrangement fees and stamp duty on his expenses. He also claimed for decorating and furnishing costs, including £35 for a toilet roll holder, £537 for an oven, a £605 TV and a £449 sound system.
  • Douglas Alexander Mr Alexander’s constituency home was damaged in a house fire in 2007 after he spent more than £30,000 doing it up, the newspaper reported. The International Development Secretary told the fees office he was “under-insured” and claimed almost £2,000 on items lost in the fire, which he later repaid when his insurers reimbursed him.
  • Theresa Villiers The shadow transport secretary claimed nearly £16,000 in stamp duty and fees for a London flat, despite already having another house in the capital only 14 miles from Westminster, it was reported. On Tuesday Mr Cameron said that Ms Villiers would no longer claim the second homes allowance

BACKBENCHERS AND THE REST

  • Michael Martin Mr Martin, who as Commons speaker fought to prevent MPs’ expenses claims entering the public domain, spent more than £1,400 on chauffeurs in his Glasgow constituency.
  • Phil Hope The health minister for care services claimed £41,709 over five years on furniture and fittings for his “modest” two-bedroomed flat in south London. The items claimed included a new kitchen, seven doors, wooden flooring, bedroom furniture, chairs and tables, two bookcases, a television, a £120 barbecue and £61 of gardening materials – despite a Commons ban on claiming for garden equipment. On Wednesday Mr Hope promised to refund the £41,709 in full
  • Barry Gardiner The MP for Brent North made a profit of almost £200,000 from a flat mortgaged and renovated with the help of taxpayers’ cash, it was alleged.
  • Vera Baird QC Mrs Baird, who as Solicitor General is one of the Government’s top legal advisers, fell foul of expenses rules after trying to claim for Christmas decorations. Officials rejected the £268 invoice.
  • Sinn Fein Five Sinn Fein MPs raked in expenses of almost £500,000 for running a second home, despite not taking up their seats in the Commons. The party’s two most senior figures, president Gerry Adams and Northern Ireland deputy first minister Martin McGuinness, were said to have jointly claimed £3,600 a month to rent a shared two-bedroom flat in the capital, which a local estate agent suggested would be worth £1,400 a month.
  • The three other MPs together claimed £5,400 a month to rent a shared town house estimated to be worth around £1,800 a month.
  • John Gummer The former Tory cabinet minister claimed £9,000 a year for gardening, charging the taxpayer hundreds of pounds for treating insect “infestations” and removing moles and jackdaw nests from his Suffolk property, and for an annual “rodent service”.
  • Tony Blair The former Prime Minister was able to use his parliamentary expenses to remortgage his constituency home for £296,000 – nearly 10 times what he paid for it – just months before buying a west London house for £3.65 million. The claims, some of which were revealed last year under a Freedom of Information request, showed interest repayments on his constituency home amounted to almost a third of the new mortgage. The London town house was one of five properties owned by Mr Blair – reportedly worth a total of £10 million, the newspaper reported.
  • Kevin Brennan The junior minister was said to have had a £450 widescreen television delivered to his family home in Wales and then claimed it on his allowance for his second home in London.
  • Kitty Ussher The Department for Work and Pensions minister drew up a list of renovations she hoped to make to her London house and asked Commons officials to “pay as much as you are able!”
  • Iain Wright and Tom Watson Mr Wright, a junior housing minister, asked if he could buy furniture before he had even bought the property he shares with Mr Watson. He was told it would be better to wait until after the general election in case he lost his seat.
  • He told the Commons authorities: “It seems stupid to carry it over into next year when a large chunk of my (allowance) would go unused.”
  • Greg Barker Mr Barker – the first prominent Tory to be caught up in the expenses row – reportedly made a £320,000 profit on a flat he bought at the taxpayers’ expense.
  • Stewart Jackson The Tory communities spokesman has claimed more than £66,000 for his family home in Peterborough, the paper said. He billed the taxpayer for £304.10 for work on the swimming pool, and more than £11,000 in professional fees and costs incurred with the move to the property in 2005. According to the report, household items claimed include a £3,000 berber carpet, a £741 king size bed and £775 for plumbing work in his summer room. He said he would be repaying the money claimed for the swimming pool work.
  • David Davis The former shadow Home Secretary spent more than £10,000 of taxpayers’ money on home improvements in four years, including a £5,700 portico at his home in Yorkshire, it was disclosed. He also claimed more than £2,000 for the cost of mowing and rolling two paddocks at his home.
  • Sir Alan Haselhurst The Deputy Speaker has charged taxpayers almost £12,000 for gardening bills at his Essex farmhouse, the report said. He told the paper that the gardener “does all the heavy work which I don’t have the opportunity to do when I’m in London.”
  • Michael Ancram The former Conservative deputy leader charged the cost of having his swimming pool boiler serviced to his parliamentary allowances, it was reported. Records seen by the paper show £98.58 was claimed for the boiler repair, as well as more than £3,000 in cleaning costs and £1,250 of gardening expenses in a single year. He said none of his items claimed “could be considered extravagant or luxurious”.
  • Bob Marshall-Andrews The left wing Labour MP has claimed £118,000 for expenses at his second home, including stereo equipment, redecoration and a pair of Kenyan carpets, The Daily Telegraph said. In 2006 he claimed £750 on a “multi-room audio system” and £830 on a DVD recorder and other electrical goods. He has also claimed almost £1,300 for an intercom, brass name plaque and other door adornments. Mr Marshall-Andrews said the claims for his TV and DVD recorder were “met” from second home allowances “in error”. They were mainly for office use and should have been claimed accordingly, he told the paper. He added that all other claims were “within the spirit and letter of the law”.
  • Alan Reid The Liberal Dem MP for Argyll and Bute in Scotland has claimed more than £1,500 for staying in hotels and bed and breakfasts in his constituency, according to the Telegraph. The paper said he put in receipts for eight nights in Scottish lodgings during 2005/06, but was told by the Commons fees office that stays in constituency hotels could not be claimed. In 2007/08, he also claimed for three stays in Scottish hotels including one overlooking Loch Etive and one of the Isle of Bute, 38 miles from his designated second home.
  • Norman Baker The campaigning Liberal Democrat MP asked the Commons fees office if he could claim for a bicycle for use between his London flat and Parliament. The request was denied.

28 Oct 08 Quote of the Week

Courtesy of my Brother -in-Law, Duncan Bendall….

‘I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.’

Thomas Jefferson 1802

10 Oct 08 Going to Hell in a Ferrari with a bonus stuffed in it’s pocket.

In the beginning there was the word and the word was 120% mortgages for people who can’t afford to repay them.

And the bank saw that it was good because they could charge high interest rates. And other banks saw that it was good and they all traded with each other to get a bit of the high interest action.

Then the banks said unto the mortgage holders you may pay off the interest, but must not pay off the forbidden capital. They said this to people like Adam and Eve, who had a 120% mortgage on a semi-detached which they named Eden. The mortgage was at a high rate because Adam was self employed and Eve had a bit of a credit card problem. 

And lo, on the seventh day which came several times every day, the banks paid themselves massive bonuses and drove Ferrari cars to Heaven and other night clubs.

Then one day, having been to the estate agents to think about moving, Adam and Eve were walking in the garden of Eden and thought “our house is worth less than we paid for it”.

“Have an apple”, said Eve to Adam, because it helps to stretch the metaphor further. And he ate of the fruit while he thought about his company which had gone out of business.

They could not pay their mortgage. The banks cast them out from Eden, leaving them only with fig leaves to dress themselves in. The banks repossessed the house but could not sell it for anywhere near enough to cover the outstanding loan. Then the banks found out that this was happening all over the world and what used to pass as a financial system was now going to hell in a Ferrari with a bonus stuffed in its pocket.

And thereafter the people wandered, miserable and broke, while the bankers that emptied Eden don’t have mortgages themselves; they live in comparative paradise with their bonuses having paid off their own, subsidised home loans.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

30 Jul 08 Oil Pushers

Petrol prices have soared recently, threatening the way of of life in the UK. At the same time BP declare $16.2 Billion profits of which $8.7 Billion are from increased oil prices (BBC News). These are obscene profits and so we all blame them. But should we?

The Parable of The Drug Pusher

A man is introduced to heroin. After a while he cannot function without it. The drug pusher sold him the first score cheap, then charged more and more as time went on. The addict, had to find a way to pay for the heroin, because he was hooked and could not get through life without the drug.

One day the police arrested the drug dealer. During his court case, the drug dealer said that he had hiked the price to discourage the addict, being concerned about his health and welfare. This carried no sway with the jury, who found him guilty. In summing up, the judge tore into this defence for trying pass greed off as concern.

The dealer was sent down and the addict was gradually weened off the heroin through methadone prescriptions, ultimately adopting a life-style which was not drug fueled.

We are all entirely dependent upon petrol and individually we are as hooked to the stuff as a heroin addict is to smack. I cannot run my business without a car, my wife has a job and takes most of the responsibility for ferrying the children around; this is not possible without a car. We live in the countryside. We cannot survive without a car. There are no village shops any more. Buses come infrequently and at bizarre times. We have to go to out-of-town supermarkets to get everything from food to football boots as do all of us, no matter where we live. The overwhelming majority of people, whether urban or rural folk, have no choice. We have to buy petrol no matter how much it costs.

Dividing the Oil Spoils

Petrol actually retails at 57.65p per litre. The government add 120% to that (69.35p) in taxes so that we get to pay 127p per litre at the pump. (petrolprices.com  |  Tax tables). 

It breaks down to:

Fuel Cost: 127p
VAT: 19p
Duty: 50.35p

Government gets: 69.35p (55.6%)
Actual fuel cost: 57.65p (44.4%)

Last week it cost me £70 to fill my car up. £38.92 went to the government. £31.08 went to BP. Every time it goes up, so does the VAT component of that. Incidentally, the fuel duty will rise by a further 2p per litre once all the governments’ MPs stop worrying about losing their seats at the next election.

It’s All About ‘Green’ Backs

The government know we are hooked on petrol. They do not make the prices rise, but they do rake it in when it happens. They tell us that the massive fuel duty (amongst the highest in the world) is something to do with encouraging greener living. But somewhat like the heroin addict, we have no choice. We have to buy this energy narcotic, no matter how much it costs. The government are being disingenuous to suggest that fuel duty is all about concern for our environmental welfare.

I don’t believe it anyway. If the government want to save the environment, they should turn on their collective TV and look at the Olympic stadium pictures from Beijing. They should then apply an environmental tax on Chinese goods. The pollution produced in the manufacture of Chinese goods renders car fuel pollution in the UK a meaningless.

Happily in the parable of the drug pusher, the addict was provided with a viable route out of addiction and had an alternative lifestyle option. Unhappily we have no such escape. The latest injection of genius from the government proposes we should replace our cars for brand new, more fuel efficient ones. If we don’t it could mean facing an annual bill of £800 for car tax.

And what’s in it for us? More expense to buy a new car. Then we have to absorb the instant devaluation on our old cars which will have been rendered gas-guzzlers and therefore unsalable. All to achieve what will be a 15% cut in fuel use. If it costs you £15000 to buy a new car and you do 12,000 miles per year, you would have to drive it for between 8-10 years before you had made up the cost in fuel savings.

Does anyone win? Well yes the government do. They get more tax and duty from the sale of new cars and old ones. They will get more car tax money from those who cannot afford to make this change and they still rake it it in from fuel duty. In the meantime the environment will remain in a parlous state because everything still runs on petrol and no one is doing anything about China!  

Driving Profits

Certainly BP make huge profits. but they do not make much profit from petrol sold through forecourts. Their profits are largely derived from exploration, drilling and refining. And is $16 Billion too much? You would expect their profits to be straospheric, they are after all a global company. And let’s be realistic, their objective is to make good profits.

Talking of realistic, the government also taxes those profits, making further billions for the country from us (indirectly) through them. If some of BP’s profits need to be off-set against increased fuel prices, then look to the government. They have not only taken tax from BP and fuel duty and VAT from us but they actually exist to do these things on our behalf.

Slick Behaviour

We should not be complaining at BP for being successful. We should be buying shares in them. We should, however, be holding the government to account for profiteering at the expense, and misery of the very people whose best interests they are elected to represent. It’s a slick trick, because they get away with it. The environment is a holy cow, if you disagree, you get metaphorically tarred and feathered for being ungreen. In truth we ought to pour oily scorn on the government for using a petrol addiction to generate revenue while waving an environmental flag for effect.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,