Can Labour explain this please

As soldiers went short of kit, MoD wasted £½m on artwork like this


That is the headline to this article.

An extract;

Geoff Hoon spent nearly £560,000 of Ministry of Defence money on modern art while British soldiers were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan through lack of equipment.



The former Defence Secretary wasted the huge sum on 15 pieces of abstract art to hang on the walls of his department between 2003 and 2005.


Meanwhile, the Labour government faced criticism for putting servicemen and women in danger by scrimping on essential kit such as helicopters, radios and night goggles, and forcing their families to live in rundown military homes.

I want Hoon, and the rest of those Labour politicians to explain why did they spend so much money on art when there was a lack of equipment for our troops.

I wonder what was going through the mind of Hoon, other Labour politicians and civil service staff at the time.

Should we buy the best equipment for our troops or spend huge amounts of money on art to hang on the walls?
We all know the answer to that.

One word that comes to mind thinking of Hoon and the rest of the people who bought the art instead of equipment.

SCUM

Is anyone really shocked by this?

The Great Inertia Sector: A whistleblower's account of council work where staff pull six-month sickies

Most of us knew that this was going on, if you have tried to call a council department you know what I mean.

What should happen is that councils should be forced to work under what the private sector has work under. Every penny should be accounted for in every council. It is our money to begin with.

Any person who says they are sick should be forced to go to a known doctor and be assessed.

What has, and is still happening should never of been allowed to happen in the first place. The government should sack any and all slackers in the councils who refuse to change, and replace them with people who want to get things done for their communities.

Will it happen, who knows, but I'm not holding my breath.

Another council wasting money.

Status Quo hits back at Brighton council over 'insulting' website

Status Quo have lashed out at Brighton council over a bizarre new recruitment website which declares that fans of the rock band "need not apply" for four executive jobs.

That is the headline to this article

An extract;

Brighton and Hove City Council spent about £10,000 on the website SayNoToStatusQuo.co.uk, which is designed to attract radical candidates for four new £125,000 strategic director posts.

The website's home page is emblazoned with the words "Status Quo fans need not apply" in glittery gold lettering and pink thunderbolts.

Status Quo, who reached the peak of their popularity in the 1970s, now plan to hang a banner reading: "Councillors for Brighton and Hove need not attend" when they perform at the Brighton Centre in December.

Who gave the ok to spend £10,000 on this, and why pick on Status Quo fans?

The taxpayers of Brighton, and the whole country, are the ones who pay for the stupid ideas like this. We should be given value for money for all the millions we pay to the councils of this country.

Every council in the country needs to save money, so why does Brighton council need four £125,000, directors?

I hope the people of Brighton make the councils lives hell over this.

Is the EU trying make us all bankrupt?

Not only did the UK helped bail out the euro the other week, even though we aren't part of the Euro, but now the EU want us to pay to cut greenhouse emissions.

EU sets toughest targets to fight global warming

That is the headline to this article.

An extract;

Europe will introduce a surprise new plan today to combat global warming, committing Britain and the rest of the EU to the most ambitious targets in the world. The plan proposes a massive increase in the target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this decade.

The European Commission is determined to press ahead with the cuts despite the financial turmoil gripping the bloc, even though it would require Britain and other EU member states to impose far tougher financial penalties on their industries than are being considered by other large economies.

The plan, to cut emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, would cost the EU an extra £33 billion a year by 2020, according to a draft of the Commission’s communication leaked to The Times.

Do those bureaucrats in the EU not realise that the whole of the EU is in a financial mess, or don't they realise this because they live on another planet?

Sometimes I think that the bureaucrats want to bankrupt the countries in the EU on purpose, then they step in to take over the accounts of the countries, but on condition they give more powers to the bureaucrats.

These idiots who make these announcements, must live in a cocoon away from reality, because we all need to save money and make cuts to our spending, not spend more money to prevent something that could be a natural occurring event.

Has anyone wondered what the EU bureaucrats are doing to help save money?

Will they take a cut in their pay?

Will they save money, by cutting the amount of MEPs and bureaucrats?

What do you think?

Could this actually work?

I found this article through Daniel Hannan's blog.

It is very interesting to read and it looks like it has some good ideas, but I don't have the economic knowledge to know if this could actually work.

Have a read and see what you think.

The Emperor’s New Clothes: How to Pay off the National Debt & Give a 28.5% Tax Cut
By Toby Baxendale.

I offer a £1,000 reward for anyone who can tell me why this logically won’t work, practical politics, for now, being another matter.

What follows is an attempt to show you that this can be done.

Remember the story about the Emperor whose only concern was not the welfare of his people but the state of his clothes? Lacking a new outfit for his procession, he instructs the finest clothe-makers to propose designs. Step forward Slimus and Slick, promising that only clever people will be able to see their splendiferous garments; they will be invisible to anyone stupid. In exchange for gold coin – real money – they make something special for the King. The King, seeing nothing when presented with these designs made out of thin air, worries that he must be stupid because he pretended to the fraudsters that they were wonderful. Word goes round that only clever people can see the garments, so everyone cheers the naked King during his procession. It takes a small child, on top of his father’s shoulders, to exclaim: “the Emperor has got nothing on!” Everyone falls silent. Then, one by one, they start muttering, “the Emperor is naked!”

I am going to tell you that our Emperor – the government – has no clothes and is indeed naked with respect to our money. The sooner we realise this the better. Then we can make real progress and prevent the imminent misery. Indeed, the realisation of its nakedness should reveal that we have a unique moment in history to do something very special: to make banking secure, pay off the national debt, and even enable a 28.5% income-tax cut.

We all know what notes and coins are: money, or cash. It allows us to exchange the fruits of our work for the goods of others. When we deposit cash in Bank A – say £100 – we lend this money to the bank. This may come as a surprise to most, as we think what we deposit in a bank actually remains “ours” beyond this point. But as soon as you make a deposit it becomes the bank’s i.e. “theirs.” They then lend what is called credit of £100 to an entrepreneur, who banks it in bank B. Like magic, we now have you, who have a claim to “your” £100, and the entrepreneur, who also has an equally valid claim to “his” £100. This happens 33 times for every £100 deposited in the UK economy on average, meaning that for every £100 deposited, it is lent out to 33 people. Some of the banks did this up to 60 times. This cash cannot exist in two places at the same time, let alone 60 places at once. So what bank A does, is write you an IOU. Yes, your bank-statement is a mere IOU, the bank saying “ bank A owes you £100 on demand.” This is called a demand-deposit. We now see that demand-deposits are created out of thin air! Indeed, these are just ledger-entries from one bank customer to another.

Tesco groceries can be paid by electronic transfer. All we are doing is moving our bank’s IOU to Tesco’s bank in exchange for their groceries. This is how the world works. Do we care that we are buying goods and services out of thin air? Like the Emperor, does he care – as long as all believe he is clothed? Well, the customers of Northern Rock did. So when more than a small percentage of them asked for their IOUs from Northern Rock to be repaid – or, as they thought, for “their” money back – it could not be, as the bank had already lent it many times, making it impossible to reimburse all they owed. Indeed, if the government had not pledged to underwrite all deposits, then there would be a very good chance that the whole system would have collapsed.

If we accept that the Emperor is naked then the path to solving all our current financial problems becomes clearer.

Consider this following programme of reform:

Print cash and replace all the demand-deposits/IOUs that exist in the system with that cash. This means the government printing approx £850 billion in cash and injecting it directly into the vaults of the banks and into the accounts of individuals. Thus, if you deposited £100 once thinking it was “yours,” it now really exists in cash, with the bank acting as custodian of your money.

Mandate all banks to hold your cash (100% reserved) on demand at all times.

Wipe from the bank ledgers all the demand-deposits/IOUs as banks would not owe you money anymore. This means the “thin air” money disappears, to be replaced exactly with cash money. Note: this is not inflationary, as the cash replaces the demand-deposit which acted as money. As we have established, it is only thin-air that the banking system has created to facilitate the multiplicity of lending of the same bit of money, so its total replacement with cash would mean the money supply stays exactly the same.

Require all banks to lend real savings that people knowingly place with banks to lend to businesses to get a return of interest and capital back when the business repays that loan. This is nice, simple and safe utility banking. This is what Mervyn King advocates.

As you are not a creditor of the bank anymore, the banking system will only have its assets and its capital, i.e. no liabilities. This means that there never again could be a bank run.

As for the banks, not having you the depositor as a liability anymore, they will suddenly be £850 billion better off, with no current liabilities and only assets (loans to business etc), post reform. The government can now put those assets into Mutuals, which would then immediately pay off the national debt, and leave the banks in exactly the same position net worth wise as they were prior to the reform, owned by their existing shareholders. As the national debt is still just under the £850 billion, which would be available as surplus assets of the banks, this could still be achieved.

No national debt means no interest costs (currently £40 billion p.a) associated with paying for our borrowing. Therefore, give an immediate 28.5% income-tax cut. Total income-tax raised is £142 billion.

The boy in the story stood on his father’s shoulders. I stand on the shoulders of great men who have advocated part of this reform: Irving Fisher, the greatest American economist, the Nobel Prize winners Soddy, Hayek, Buchanan, Tobin, and Allais. Recently, Kotlikoff of Boston University has published an excellent book, “Jimmy Stewart is Dead” advocating a similar reform. It is endorsed by more Nobel Winners: Akerlof, Lucas, Fogel, Prescott, and Phelps. I count 36 endorsements from the great and the good for the book. All endorse Kotlikoff’s move to what he calls Limited Purpose Banking which is another way to get 100% reserved (i.e. secure) deposits backed by cash rather than thin-air.

The Economist Huerta De Soto, in “Money, Bank Credit & Economic Cycles,” has seen the opportunity that presents itself to reform for 100% money while also paying off the National Debt. Following on from this, I suggest a substantial wealth-creating tax cut for the people. Just like the boy in the story, I do hope that people start to realise that the emperor really has no clothes, and that an enlightened approach can address this.

If this could work, will the politicians use it, or at least consider it?

Is this a case of 'Do as we say and not as we do?'

EU imposes wage cuts on Spanish 'Protectorate', calls for budget primacy over sovereign parliaments

Spain has followed Ireland and Greece in imposing 1930s-era wage cuts to slash the budget deficit, complying with EU demands for further austerity in exchange for the €720bn `shock and awe’ rescue for eurozone debtors.

That is the headline to this article

All nations who are in debt should find ways to save money, that isn't my problem.

What I find annoying is the EU demanding countries make cuts in pay, to be eligible for the 720bn euro rescue package, when the EU ministers increase their own pay.

See Daniel Hannan's video here



Let's not get into the fact that the accountants of the EU haven't signed off on the EU's budgets for about the last 15 years.

See Daniel Hannan's video here



If these countries want to save money, don't give any more money to the EU until they practice what they preach.

The UK getting screwed by the EU again

British taxpayers ordered to bail out euro

Britain faces paying out billions of pounds under a European Union deal intended to prevent another financial crisis like the one in Greece.

That is the headline to this article

When did we join the Euro?

We still have the Pound, so why is Britain helping to bail out Greece?

The reason is we were signed up to the European Constitution, oh sorry, the Lisbon Treaty by an unelected Prime Minister.

When Gordon Brown signed the treaty we lost the veto.

An extract from the article.

“When the markets reopen Monday we will have in place a mechanism to defend the euro,” said President Sarkozy yesterday. “This is a full-scale mobilisation.”

Euro-zone leaders are attempting to get round objections from countries such as Britain by invoking Article 122 of the Lisbon Treaty, intended to enable a collective response to natural disasters. This does not need unanimous agreement.

Sounds like a dictatorship to me..

By doing so, Mr Sarkozy has ensured a speedy confrontation with a new British prime minister and other leaders of non-euro currency countries. All 27 EU finance ministers must be present, but because decision will be taken by qualified majority vote, the 16 euro zone leaders can ensure its passage.

This is another example of how much power the EU has over the UK.

We didn't sign up to the Euro, so why should the British Tax payer help to bail it out. Any how, we haven't got any money left.

This has to be a joke

The headline to the article

It's enough to make Dixon Of Dock Green blush: Security firms paid £23m to guard police stations

An extract;

Many will remember George Dixon faithfully standing guard underneath the old blue lamp.

But these days, you are just as likely to see private security staff outside a police station as an actual constable.

Figures have revealed police forces spend £23million on private security to protect their stations and headquarters

Far from the traditional image of a bobby keeping a lookout on the station steps - memorably portrayed by Jack Warner in the long-running TV series Dixon Of Dock Green - it seems that the safety of our police stations is being left in the hands of civilians.

Well, if it helps get the police out on the streets then I could live with that, but the police aren't on the streets they are still drowning in paperwork.

How much to blame is Gordon Brown for our current Economic situation.

Have a read of this blog by Subrosa It is a a great find.

Gordon Brown says this is a global financial problem. Yes it might be, but it was made a whole lot worse for this country by the decisions of Gordon Brown as chancellor and now as Prime Minister.

A few interesting facts about Gordon Brown

The MOD. A Military organisation run by civilians.

Thanks to http://twitter.com/IanPJ and http://twitter.com/veterans_uk for this find.

The MOD: Unfit for Purpose from http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/standpoint

Here are some extracts from the article that was published in 2008;

I am often asked why the MOD makes so many strange decisions and seems to care so little about the welfare of its personnel. People are surprised to read about expensive computer systems that fail to pay service members their proper salaries — or pay them late. Some are shocked by the apparent dumping of severely wounded personnel from Afghanistan and Iraq into civilian hospital wards, remote from their regiments and families, or the massive contracts for systems that are delivered late and don’t work properly, or the strange failure to publicise genuine successes and minor victories achieved “against the odds” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

None of these scandals — or many others less well known — would surprise anyone who knows the MOD and what it has become.

Most people still believe that the MOD is essentially a military organisation. It is not. It is an organisation dominated numerically, culturally and structurally by civil servants and consultants, many of whom are unsympathetic to its underlying purpose or even hostile to the military and its ethos. You just have to spend a few days at the MOD before you realise that the culture there is not just non-military, but anti-military.

The MOD has slipped from being one of the top five ministries to one of second or even third rank. Moreover, even if our top generals wanted to oppose some aspect of defence policy, they would find the MOD’s structure is now rigged so that civil servants increasingly come between them and the government.

Now the ratio of civilians to service-members is closer to six to one — not including the ever-growing numbers of consultants and Spads (special advisers) or the parallel government structures in the cabinet office and the PM’s policy unit which may be driving the ratio towards 12 to one. Essentially the military has lost command of its own HQ.

Worse still, the civil servants who now dominate the MOD are a different breed from those who staffed it in the 1980s. In those days there were still many civil servants who had served in the Second World War or Korea, or who had at least done national service. They respected and understood the armed services; they believed an effective military was important and had usually learnt essential skills of leadership and management. They were loyal to the Queen (then the head of the Civil Service), to the Civil Service itself and to its code, and to the service arm they were working for. They have all gone.

The real point of most MOD contracts is industrial strategy. We buy planes or vehicles or systems not because they are the best we can afford for the task in hand but because they mean jobs in some part of the country. Or because they further European integration. This is why we buy helicopters like the Merlin that cost more than three times the price of the US Blackhawk. As a result we don’t have decent airlift capacity in Afghanistan, and our infantry in Basra were the first British troops to go into battle without dedicated “on-call” air cover since the First World War.

Because the services haven’t had the budget increases they need to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is running out of everything. We’re running out of trucks, for instance. And when things break they aren’t being replaced. Increasingly one gets the impression that the civil servants don’t care if the forces are broken — their careers will not be affected. But it may also be that some civil servants and a body of politicians, from both Left and Right, would actually be happy for the military to be broken in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they will have truly achieved the Europeanisation of Britain’s armed forces along the lines of a purely defensive “UK Defence Force”. War will somehow have been abolished — until, of course, it returns at a time of our enemies’ choosing.

This has to change, the Government is sending our troops into battle with substandard equipment, if they're lucky.

The Government is meant to look after our military, why isn't it?

A Warning from America

I found this article at http://uknewsnetwork.blogspot.com/

This article is about the 'Cap and Trade' bill going through the system at the moment in the USA.

An extract;

A License Required for your house

Thinking about selling your house - A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

An extract;

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.

The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included.

This is worrying, if America is doing this now, will it happen in the UK in the future?

With the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all going on about global warming, will they produce something like what the Americans are doing right now.

We have the HIPs at the moment, what more could they do to the poor taxpayers of this country?

I'm pretty sure the EU has something up it's sleeve, similar to what the US up to.

They said they want to have an EU wide tax system.

Will they want to have an EU 'carbon neutral' home efficiency scheme in the pipeline?

How Labour has Taxed us all.

Thanks to Tory Totty for this find;

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/henry.tsmith/garbgate/item2/stealth.htm

When you see how much Gordon Brown and Labour have taken from our pockets you will be as shocked as I was.

Read what it says in the link for every tax and stealth tax Labour have taken from us all. Then you think of all the money they have taken from us and how they wasted it.

Have a look at the link and see if you are as shocked as i was.

Who ever signed this off must be insane.

Check this one out.



This is the shortest cycle lane in Britain

What were Cardiff council thinking when they signed off on this £2000 'cycle lane'.

Once again this is a prime example of how a lack of common sense is required if you work in the councils of the UK.

Whoever signed off on this, and the person who thought of the idea of an 8 foot cycle lane, should be paraded throughout Cardiff and tell all the council taxpayers why it was even thought of.

Dept of Government Waste

Thanks to Plato Says for this find

Dept of Government Waste launched




It does say at the end of the video that all the examples of waste are real.

An Early April Fools Joke, not 2

Going on from my previous blog An Early April Fools Joke, not.

Another blog by Anna Raccoon about waste in government.

The latest blog is called: - Newsflash: civil service stress update

Following on from an earlier excursion into yoga and other hobbies comes this harrowing tale of the utter waste endemic to government:

Worse though is the tale told by a friend. She had had a stressful couple of years as HR boss of a firm that was cutting half its staff and she decided when the time came for her to cut herself that she didn't need this any longer. She has a husband and family and wanted a routine sort of job without emotional strain, so she applied for and got one with the local authority, inputting data. It was boring and soothing and just what she needed but after a week she realised she was finishing the work given to her at lunchtime every day, so she asked the line manager – or possibly the Deputy Assistant Line Manager – for more. Shocked silence and sharp intake of breath.

You cannot be serious! That would count as undermining her colleagues or ‘rocking the boat’. She asked what she should do until five o’clock came and was told ‘Anything. Do your online Tesco shopping. Play Sudoku…just don`t ask for more work.’

There were seven full-time employees in that office and she says the work could have been done by a maximum of three and not busting a gut.

It’s not just that government spending can be cut. It must be cut.

This is just at one office in one local authority, so how much waste collectively is going on in the country as a whole, that's not including the waste the national government gets through. Should I mention the waste in the EU.

Government, local and national, should be put under the same scrutiny as a private business' accounts. The taxpayers should be getting value for money from the governments. If they ran a private business like they do our governments it would be bankrupt.

How many mistakes like this have the MOD done.

Once again thanks to http://twitter.com/IanPJ for this find.

The following comes from the Hounslow Chronicle.

An extract;

The Ministry of Defence faces a bill for hundreds of millions of pounds if the RAF's new fleet of tanker and transport aircraft is to be able to fly in war zones such as Afghanistan, the Whitehall spending watchdog has warned.

In a highly critical report, the National Audit Office said that the £10.5 billion private finance initiative (PFI) deal to provide 14 new Airbus A330-200 aircraft was already running five-and-a-half years behind schedule.

It warned that there could now be years of further delays if the MoD decided they should be "retro-fitted" with flight deck armour and other protective equipment to enable them to operate in "high threat environments".

So the new aircraft was not originally ordered with the protective armour for the flight deck. Ok.

An extract

The NAO said that when the MoD originally began work on the tanker aircraft procurement programme, it was not envisaged that they could be required to fly directly into conflict zones and no funding was provided for protective equipment.

Instead it was decided that the additional equipment would have to be "retro-fitted" once the RAF starts taking delivery of the aircraft next year - a process which the NAO said could cost "several hundred million pounds" if it goes ahead.

It's a military aircraft for crying out loud, didn't they think it just might be used in a war zone?

Did any of the pencil pushers in the MOD actually ask someone from the military where these aircraft might have to fly?

So basically money that could of been spent on better equipment for our troops, like body armour, better armoured vehicles, or even just better boots is swallowed up by the incompetence of the pencil pushers in the MOD.

Like what Ian PJ says:- It is seriously time to get rid of every non military dickhead from the MoD. Political bureaucrats are killing it.

How many projects like this is happening at the MOD.

I presume they do ask the military what they would like, but are they over ruled by the money men and then the troops on the ground get sub standard equipment?

Going by what we have been hearing over the last few months and years, the troops have been getting substandard equipment.

This must change, we cannot send our troops to a war zone without proper equipment.

In my opinion if our troops are sent out with sub standard equipment and are injured, or worse killed, then someone must answer for it.

Our troops know that when they join the military they may go to war, and they know the sacrifice they may have to make, but the MOD should at least make sure that they have the equipment to keep them as safe as possible.

If directors of a company can be charged with corporate manslaughter if someone dies from using sub standard equipment, then why can't the pen pushers, and government ministers, at the MOD be up on similar charges.

You cannot send troops to a war zone without proper equipment.

Green Taxes

When global warming, caused by CO2, is found to be a bunch of lies, will we be given all our money back that has been taken in so called Green Taxes?

Also will the increases in fuel duty that has been down to CO2 emissions be reduced?

What about the increase in fuel tax on the flights, will they be reduced?

I doubt it because the government only used the climate debate to increase the amount of money they take of the hard working people of this country.

An Early April Fools Joke, not

I have just read this blog from Anna Raccoons blog

I thought it was an April Fools joke at first, but it isn't.

Read the blog below;

I certainly had to indulge in some heavy breathing after reading this farrago of nonsense:

'Civil servants have been given counselling manuals advising them how to deal with stress-related boredom and a lack of work.'

Just savour that for a moment. Contemplate your busy day, the demands on your time, the endless worries about how you will make ends meet this month and then consider that even more of your tax is being spent on teaching people who don’t have enough work to justify their “jobs” how to be calm about the fact that they’re wasting their lives and stealing your money.

'In one booklet from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, officials said stress-related problems could be caused by having “too little work or responsibility” and suggested that pressured workers take up a hobby to alleviate anxiety.

The Department for International Development’s book warned workers to avoid becoming lethargic from “too little pressure” but allow for 20 per cent more time to complete tasks they feel could add to stress.

“Breathe in and out heavily a few times and imagine yourself being successful,” it advises workers.'

I’ve breathed in and out heavily a few times, I can tell you.

I think the yogis who came up with this inspiration have been spending a little too much time “on the mat”.

What the hell is going on with this government?

Maesdu Bridge

Yes this again.

I have been thinking about how to get the bridge built on time.

Have a look at this and see if you think it's better than what we have going on at the moment.



Yes I propose to call Santander and get Lewis Hamilton down and ask him to build Maesdu Bridge like he did in the advert.

If we all pitch in we could get it done in about a day.

The best thing about it is any 5 year old upwards can help build it.

I think at the rate they are building the bridge at the moment the 5 year olds will do a better job.

How to commit fraud and get away with it.

Of all the people who I thought would be charged with fraud Baroness Uddin would be high on the list.

According to the rules of the Hose of Lords, you only have to visit the 'main home' once a month for it to qualify as your main home.

An extract from an article in the Telegraph;

She was cleared of wrongdoing over her expenses claims after prosecutors admitted they could not press charges because House of Lords rules were so vague.

But Keir Starmer said that the Lords' interpretation meant it would “almost inevitably be necessary for the prosecution to prove, to the criminal standard” that any peer had not even visited their main home once a month.

“That presents a very real difficulty and we considered whether it would be open to the Crown Prosecution Service to advance a different definition of ‘only or main residence’ in any criminal proceedings. However, after careful consideration, we concluded that such a course would not be open to us,” he said.

Several other peers, including Lord Paul, have also been told they will not face any further action.

Her 'main home' was an empty flat for crying out loud. She didn't live there, there wasn't any furniture in the flat. She was living just 4 miles away from Parliament.

In the real world where you and I live that is fraud, so how can they get away with it?

We can't even vote Baroness Uddin out. She can carry on claiming expenses out of the taxpayers pockets because as long as she visits that flat just once a month she can claim it as her main home.

We are getting ripped off on a serious scale.

She should be stripped of her title and thrown out of the Lords.