View Single Post
Old 29-01-2008, 19:51   #31
ntluser
Inactive
 
ntluser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 78
Services: Virgin Media XL Telephone,TV with Tivo box & Superhub3 upto 150Mb Broadband, Sky World, & Freeview+
Posts: 1,901
ntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of societyntluser is a pillar of society
Smile Re: Another MP in trouble?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers View Post
You don't have to submit to HMRC timesheets for your employees.
As long as you can show how much you've paid them, and that they've paid the required amount of tax, they're happy. I used to run my own business with my ex as my company secretary!

This has nothing to do with there being a relationship between the person paid and the person paying.
Had he paid Mrs Mop off the street the same amount and Conway not been able to provide evidence that the work was done by her, he'd be in the same state.

Can you please understand, the issue is not that a family member was employed, but that Conway is unable to prove that the person paid to do the work actually did it.
You'll also notice that the comittee is unable to provide any evidence that his son did not do the work, it acknowledges the work was done and his son was qualified to do the work.
It also acknowledges that his son was on the lowest pay scale, so not over paid.
The issue of overpayment comes from the bonuses, which the comittee disagrees with.

Storm, teacup, severely dealt with by the party which makes a change from how Labour treat similar cases.
However, if you do have the timesheets your case does a lot more credible.

If he had paid a complete stranger there would be less suspicion of collusion. It would't mean any collusion wasn't there just that it appears less likely.

You stress that the committee were unable to prove things against him.

I stress that he was unable to prove his complete innocence and as an MP I would have expected that he would have appreciated the need for scrupulous transparency and good business organisation.

If he had got away with this there would be no change and indeed this sloppiness would continue. Now MPs have had another warning shot fired across their bows with the message that they need to get their affairs in order.

I doubt if we will agree on this as I am fed up with sleaze in government particularly as MPs are paid 2 or 3 times the average national salary and many honest people exist on a lot less. I seriously question if we have any MPs with sufficient integrity to do what's best for the country but's that another story.
ntluser is offline   Reply With Quote