36 thoughts on “Osborne update – are they kicking his paddock into the long grass?

  1. BevR (@britishroses1)

    We need to get a paper to run with this, do you know Sonia Poulton it’s possible that she would do it. Government needs reeling in from all directions, they think they are above the law and can treat us however they want to – major changes need to be make.

    1. Malcolm Burt

      Agreed it would be very supportive if we could get one of the national papers to go with this fraud.There clearly has been a mis-use of public funds& no one is above the law.The man needs to be forced to come clean & take the damage on the chin…if he is man enough.It would be jail if it was against a benefit claimant..

      1. Joan

        Have Private Eye cottoned onto this one yet? They may not have the coverage of a national daily but they aren’t in the Tory pocket,do tend to persevere on issues like this and have a good circulation figure.

    1. Mike Sivier

      Great! If anyone has read this – but hasn’t emailed the commissioner’s office – please do!
      And if you’re one of those pessimists who’s refusing to do it because “It won’t make any difference”, just remember that, if it doesn’t make any difference, YOU’re the reason!

      1. Chris Tandy

        I have sent off an e-mail as per your suggestion. I trust others have. I’ll put a link together on my FB page.

      2. Fiona

        I have sent an email and will let you know the outcome.! Keep up the great work, you give me and mine a bit of hope! Still waiting for the letter from ATOS to drop through the door… am dreading it!

  2. elizabeth maxwell

    I would be very inclined to contact Ian Hislop at Private eye as Joan suggests–dont be fobbed of——-PI can not be bought off!

  3. john ingamells

    I have emailed to enquire about the apparent lack of activity and clarity of the commissioner’s office. I have just sent it also enquiring about any criminal investigation and expanantion on the part of the commissioner. It does seem there is considerable reluctance to show any urgency in an investigation, as well as offering us with a reasonable justification of the commissioners office responsibilities.

  4. Jane

    http://www.parliament.uk/pcs, states “The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards deals with the application of the Code of Conduct and related Rules that apply to Members of Parliament. This includes the registration of financial interests held by MPs and the investigation of complaints about MPs who have allegedly breached the Code of Conduct or related Rules”

    Very suspicious that despite what their own website says, they are trying to fob you off and pass the buck. Another Tory cover up.

  5. Ray McHale

    I have not followed this issue too closely. If Osbourne had bought just the house, and not the paddock (and 2nd piece of land?) would his claims for mortgage support have been any less than was paid to him? It seems to me there is only an issue if his purchase of additional land was unnecessary (i.e. not part of an overall deal, and thus optional) and,secondly, this led to additional expense for the tax payer. If someone bought a property with additionall adjoining or nearby land as an add on, and chose to role that into a single mortgage for practical reasons, that in itself does not seem unreasonable. Clearly the question then is whether this optional decision led to more money being paid out by the taxpayer. Is there clear evidence that not purchasing the paddock would have reduced his expenses claim – or was the mortgage interest payment significantly higher than his expenses claim anyway?.

    I raise these points not to be critical, but so I can understand whether there is any basis for rejecting your allegations, that is defensible. I suppose my initial view is that the press would have taken this forward if they saw a case to answer (unless we believe they are all in the pockets of the Government).

    1. Mike Sivier

      My understanding is, he bought the house and two other titles, and mortgaged them all together. Because they were all separate titles, they would all have had price tags attached. His expenses claim covered the mortgage interest in full – in other words, the payment for all three titles. His claim stated that the money was ONLY to cover his use of the farmhouse, for Parliamentary duties. Therefore, it seems to me, he was lying about the purpose of the payments as they would have covered the interest costs on the other two titles as well (I’m being careful about my language for legal reasons). It is not unreasonable to roll three titles into a single mortgage for practical reasons, but Parliamentary rules mean that MPs must not claim for anything that is not used for the purposes of fulfilling their duties. Obviously a paddock has nothing to do with an MP’s duties and we know nothng of the other piece of land.

  6. J Jackson

    I have emailed, and shared your article on Facebook. I’m intigued to see what reply will come, if any.

    1. Mike Sivier

      They’re quite good at responding, in fact! I’m looking forward to seeing what happens. As I write this, I know that at least 62 people have emailed them (based on clickthroughs from the article). At least one person is writing a snail-mail letter and others may have chosen different ways to get in touch. So they may be a little snowed-under but they’ll probably get back to you at some point.

  7. Melanie Alderson

    Email sent, more people need to switch off Big Brother and do something to make a difference. I’m ashamed of the majority of people I know for their disinterest in the real world and preference for fakeality TV.

      1. elizabeth maxwell

        Yes Melanie !!–I’m fighting the Gov on welfare right now and it’s like raising the dead trying to get some interest–what the hell is wrong with people !! People have even blocked me from Facebook,

      2. Fiona

        Amusing… I have the exact sRE: Fraud
        Hide Details
        From
        Standards Commissioner
        To
        [email protected]
        Dear Ms Collins,

        Thank you for your e-mail of 16 January to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.

        The Commissioner has not accepted a complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP. There is therefore no current inquiry into Mr Osborne’s conduct.

        I hope it will be helpful if I explain how the Commissioner works. Before she could inquire into allegations against a Member, the Commissioner would need evidence, sufficient to support an inquiry, that the Member might have breached the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House. The rules on Members’ overnight expenses have been tightened considerably since Mr Osborne’s original expenses claims, and the Commissioner would assess the allegations against the rules as they were at the time of the alleged conduct. Without evidence of a breach of those rules, which had not already been inquired into, the Commissioner would not open an investigation.

        Any questions of criminal conduct would be a matter for the police, not for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It would be for the police to comment on any complaint that has been made to them.

        Yours sincerely,

        Heather Wood
        Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests
        ame bog standard email too!

  8. Fiona

    I agree with you Melanie, more people should get involved, especially our youth! My teenage daughter is interested, and her friends are more than willing to share their feelings and grievances about the way they are treated and what we are all leaving them! My problem with this fraud case is that our youth are being bashed, and accused about being criminals, but our so called government are a bunch of thieving and lying criminals! IDS [might as well be] a murderer, Cameron a Nazi, Osborne a thief… the list is endless… so what to tell the kids eh?

    1. Mike Sivier

      I just edited you a little bit to prevent us both getting libel writs!
      The problem with motivating young people is they find it very hard to see how anything they do can make a difference, and nobody wants to point the way because it isn’t in their interests to do it! I say: Just get involved. Go to meetings, read up on the Internet, and then open your mouths and voice your opinions. They are as valid as anybody else’s, from the highest expert to the humblest observer and they will make a difference.

  9. michelle

    I have emailed parliament as requested and urged my Facebook friends to do likewise. I truly hope this greedy man is held to account for his hypocrisy!

  10. MaryMary

    This is the reply I got:

    Thank you for your e-mail of 15 January to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.

    The Commissioner has not accepted a complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP. There is therefore no current inquiry into Mr Osborne’s conduct.

    I hope it will be helpful if I explain how the Commissioner works. Before she could inquire into allegations against a Member, the Commissioner would need evidence, sufficient to support an inquiry, that the Member might have breached the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House. The rules on Members’ overnight expenses have been tightened considerably since Mr Osborne’s original expenses claims, and the Commissioner would assess the allegations against the rules as they were at the time of the alleged conduct. Without evidence of a breach of those rules, which had not already been inquired into, the Commissioner would not open an investigation.

    Yours sincerely,

    Heather Wood

    Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests

  11. jaynel62

    Mike someone clearly is lying – I’ve also had the same response:

    Dear Ms Linney,

    Thank you for your e-mail of 16 January to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I have been asked to reply.

    The Commissioner has not accepted a complaint about Rt Hon George Osborne MP. There is therefore no current inquiry into Mr Osborne’s conduct.

    I hope it will be helpful if I explain how the Commissioner works. Before she could inquire into allegations against a Member, the Commissioner would need evidence, sufficient to support an inquiry, that the Member might have breached the Code of Conduct and the rules of the House. The rules on Members’ overnight expenses have been tightened considerably since Mr Osborne’s original expenses claims, and the Commissioner would assess the allegations against the rules as they were at the time of the alleged conduct. Without evidence of a breach of those rules, which had not already been inquired into, the Commissioner would not open an investigation.

    Allegations of criminal conduct such as fraud would be for the police, not the Commissioner, to consider.

    Yours sincerely,

    Heather Wood
    Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests

    I can only suppose they refuse to ACCEPT your original complaint?!

  12. Jane

    Me too, I got the exact same response and have suggested they compare the claim for expenses with the land registry plans not rocket science you would think, smacks of a cover up?

Comments are closed.