Not a reference to the blustery nature of this evening's weather and the tidal surge that's expected to storm down the east coast of England overnight, but rather the unholy row that's been rumbling on over on One Voice in Thanet's blog.
One Voice made the, er, mistake of criticising the £134,308 worth of expenses that Sir Roger Wind, Tory MP for Thanet (Arsonists) clocked up last year, some of which went on employing Lady Rodge as his secretary.
Now let me make myself clear. It's far too late at night, and I'm far too sozzled, to wade into an argument which has so far generated 62 comments on OVIT's site. Except to say, of course, that I'm thoroughly jealous of all the attention. I will only add that Sir Rodgerem is a national Thanetian treasure, who has presided over more than 12 decades of year-on-year growth in his constituency. One has only to look at Margate, jewel in the Thanet crown, to understand the tireless work he has put into his constituency, and the fact that his dog has now won an award only goes to prove that he has the wellbeing of all, er, dogs at the centre of his warm, generous and munificent heart. We shall never see his like again (He's not actually dead - Ed.).
Pass the Krug, Elton!
14 comments:
He didn't make the 'mistake' of highlighting Mr Gale's expenses whilst ignoring Mr Balls and Mrs 'Balls' bigger raid on the tax-payers' purse ;as Thanetonians what our local MP claims is of general interest. The mistake OVIT made was in his scurrilous personal attack on Mr Gale's integrity; quite a different matter.
No, his mistake was to cross the tory mafia that exists in thanet. they hate him, like they hate you, ecr, because he persists with his criticism and doesn't shut up when the brown shirts turn iout to defend their chosen ones and spue out offensive language and claims. he'll probably end up in a tdc bin-bag one day given what *******s he's up against.
Me? Hated? Surely not!
anon 1252
I was first "Threatened" in Thanet in about 1981. A coffin was sent to my door. I imagine I was meant to quake in my boots.
The issue I connected this with was charity fundraising in Thanet at a boxing tournament.
I made some inquiries of my own including seeing the accounts for the evening by walking into the office of a local bookie.
For example I had, theretofore, thought that charity auctions gave all bid moneys to the charity.
For example on this tourney the accounts shew a moped or small motorbike donated which was bought at auction by the owner of Browns Transport and Demolition. However the accounts then shew ten pounds of the money paid into the charity proceeds and the remainder as returned to donor. Which seems rather like the tourney selling goods on commission ?
The organisers appointed Geoffrey Borg solicitors.
I received a letter threateneing me with action (presumably the tactic of coffin despathes had been recognised as ineefective hence the solicitor).
I made a crime complaint of fraud to Kent Police.
The crime file, as far as I could ascertain, was then taken over by DI Ken Sainsbury who, it was suggested, organised boxing within Kent Police.
The ABA informed me that they had received no completed accounts for the charity night and no floor plan (from which turnover might be calculated)
At this point (Kent Police covering up, threats failing and the solicitor getting a fight from me) I was visted by a boxing journo. I offered via Geoffrey Borg to meet the boxing charity cttee and take them on one after the other in their own ring just so long as the journo and a photographer could be there to record and later publish the outcomes.
These "Mafia" that you fear immediately sent a cheque to the charity I represented and Geoffrey Borg was instructed to write to me declining my offer of a meeting.
Thanet w-nkers mate.
Best wishes
Irritating Bloke.
PS The Kent Chief constable took a decision to exempt complaint against DI Sainsbury, in the charity matter, from the terms of ref of the investigating officers (into Sainsbury) from Northumbria Police.
An early example of Kent Police being protected from investigation by abuse of their pown Chief constable discretion.
Which was the start of my involvement in changing police complaints law (success April 2004 when the new legislation came into force)
The North of the Isle is really thriving under Sir Roger, one only has to look at how many North Islanders now have second homes in France and have wives bringing a large income in to see that.
What a petty little minded comment 8.01pm. There are many working blokes in Thanet who have their second homes in France; builders, plasters,cabbies etc. So what is the point of your comment? Get real!
think its a reference to the local tory mp roger gale who makes pointed remarks about others (opponents) being on the "gravy train" while he employs his wife, payig for her out of his parliamentray expenses. this greatly expands their joint income form public funds. he refuses to say how much he pays her.
I hardly think 11.55 that claiming expenses that are on or below average for 600+ MPs and employing your wife is 'having your nose in the trough or riding the gravy train! You will find that Mrs Gale runs Mr Gale's office efficiently and effectively and earns her salary legitimately and correctly. If some-one has to do that job, why not one's wife, if she is capable and effective?
I find all this petty carping and trivia pathetic. Mr Gale's and Dr Ladyman's expenses are legitimate and have presumably been scrutinised by the relevant Parliamentary watchdog and found to be so. If you consider that all MPs expenses are too high then I share that view.
However, when £6,000,000 + has been wasted in Thanet on a gallery that was not built and the project has been employing for the past 5 years a 'Director' whose gallery is still on Mr Chipperfield's drawing board, should this not concern you more?
The adverse comments made about Mr Gale's expenses here and elsewhere are clearly 'politically' inspired by some very small minded and petty people. Such personal attacks on an individual's honesty and integrity demean those who make them and expose them to all as the prejudiced bigots they really are.
I don;t think there's anything prejudiced about criticising Roger GAle for his expenses after all it's our money and we have a right to ask whether it has been well spent. With Dr Ladyman he was at least transport minister for a bit and and seemed to be much higher profile on the topics that affect Thanet while Roger just seems to be interested in animal welfare. Admittedly there are a lot of animals living in his constituency but he only seems interested in the four legged kind.
IMHO, lord lucan, it is one thing to employ your wife or husband if the business is your own. if you are using taxpayers money, the situation is different. sir roger wind is using OUR money to employ his wife, pay her, and therefore increase their household income. i'm not sure that's right. and the further criticism is that he is doing that while shouting about others who he thinks have their noses in the pig trough. a bit hypocrtitical. ive followed all this on ovit's blog and here. you said you weren't a roger wind supporter, but here you seem to giving off some intimate knowledge about him, his wife, and how she works. how do you know she's efficient?
And Sir Roger Windbag's expenses have doubled in the last five years, so we can only assume [as he won't tell us] that his wife's salary [and the overall household income] has doubled in that period. Have any other readers enjoyed a near 100% pay rise in the last five years?
4.52 and 9.20, Roger Gale is my MP until the constituency boundary changes come into force at the next election. As a member of his constituency I have had, on occasions, had to contact him on issues and solicit his assistance and support. This has got nothing to do with being a 'supporter'of his although give him credit for being an excellent constituency MP. That might explain why I am aware of how well his wife acts in regard to his constituency office.
I return to the basic point that I have made here and over on OVIT's blog. If you consider MP's expenses, salaries and pensions far too generous, as you clearly do, to single out Mr Gale and make attacks on his integrity and probity in regard to his expenses is a petty and vindictive stance.
If you consider MPs as a whole are on the hog's back in regard to remuneration, I heartily agree with you but you need to accept the influence of the majority of MPs sitting in the Commons for the past 10 years and therefore the 'Party' primarily responsible!
I think it is unwarranted to single out Mr Gale when others are costing the tax-payer far more. To move from the general principle to the particular and use that as an excuse to launch a scurrilous personal attack, as OVIT did, is unacceptable.
Ah Lord Lucan (I see you have named yourself after one almost as reputable as former Thanet South MP and Liar J Aitken ESQ), you seem to miss the point that we are talking about a LOCAL MP here who is paying his WIFE a decent cut of £80k of our money to deal with his diary and make him tea. Nice work if you can get it.
Maybe you can tell us why he will not disclose her salary.
Some of you chaps, 12.07,remind me of the Irish still banging on about Cromwell! In respect to Mrs Gale's salary, quite frankly its none of yours or mine business! If it is an issue then you would have greater credibility by making similar enquiries about ALL MPs who employ spouses/partners.
Post a Comment