The idea that the UK is the most sexist country in the world is going to have a few more people reaching for UKIP membership forms I would have thought.
Why? The idea that the UK is the most sexist country in the world is so ridiculous that people are more likely to go in the other direction.
A wee bit of negative media attention from the Times, and Farage and his supporters go into some kind of hysterical/outraged meltdown. Farage needs to get some advice from Cameron, Miliband and Clegg on how to cope with this kind of day to day scrutiny fast, or he needs to get out of the kitchen.
You're kidding, aren't you?
Those are the last three people he should ask.
Your boy Cameron really played a great game over Maria Miller, didn't he?
STimes maybe but it's very much the outrider for it's Daily and where the more serious investigations start and generally end up. As Mr Herdson felt so free to lay into the Indy (with some justification as on a general level they have made some pretty big blunders) then it's only fair to point out that they are far from alone. None of the broadsheets have weathered these far more cut-throat years with any aplomb and some have been sailing very close to the wind indeed.
That Cohen piece on Oakeshott is cutting - and 100% right.
I did a follow up post on this but it got lost in the ether.
So a shorter version to serve the reading and concentration capabilities of Bobafett.
Farage needs to give a true and fair account of expenditure by his office in Lymington. Competent governance of a political party which is funded by the taxpayer should involve keeping full financial records and being able to account for both income and receipts. This applies regardless of whether the EP requires such accounts to be audited or even presented for approval.
There appears to be little doubt that such records were kept. The statements of Samuel-Camps indicate as much.
So once true and fair statements are made public the question will move to whether there was a deficit or surplus on the allowance and, if so, how was it funded or reallocated. This may be where UKIP and Farage have difficulty but speculation should be deferred until the financial statements are provided.
Whatever the outcome to such inquiry, The Times has accepted that, due to the nature of the EP allowance system, it is highly unlikely that either Farage or UKIP has broken the law. What is at issue is whether the party and its leader have followed best practice and due care in the handling of public monies.
This is a legitimate question to put to any party seeking office and power and The Times are perfectly in order to ask it of Farage.
I did a follow up post on this but it got lost in the ether.
So a shorter version to serve the reading and concentration capabilities of Bobafett.
Farage needs to give a true and fair account of expenditure by his office in Lymington. Competent governance of a political party which is funded by the taxpayer should involve keeping full financial records and being able to account for both income and receipts. This applies regardless of whether the EP requires such accounts to be audited or even presented for approval.
There appears to be little doubt that such records were kept. The statements of Samuel-Camps indicate as much.
So once true and fair statements are made public the question will move to whether there was a deficit or surplus on the allowance and, if so, how was it funded or reallocated. This may be where UKIP and Farage have difficulty but speculation should be deferred until the financial statements are provided.
Whatever the outcome to such inquiry, The Times has accepted that, due to the nature of the EP allowance system, it is highly unlikely that either Farage or UKIP has broken the law. What is at issue is whether the party and its leader have followed best practice and due care in the handling of public monies.
This is a legitimate question to put to any party seeking office and power and The Times are perfectly in order to ask it of Farage.
Why don't you ask the same question of the EU itself? How many years is it now that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts, fifteen?
The whole stinking bureaucratic monolith is corrupt from the top down and should be disbanded immediately
I did a follow up post on this but it got lost in the ether.
So a shorter version to serve the reading and concentration capabilities of Bobafett.
Farage needs to give a true and fair account of expenditure by his office in Lymington. Competent governance of a political party which is funded by the taxpayer should involve keeping full financial records and being able to account for both income and receipts. This applies regardless of whether the EP requires such accounts to be audited or even presented for approval.
There appears to be little doubt that such records were kept. The statements of Samuel-Camps indicate as much.
So once true and fair statements are made public the question will move to whether there was a deficit or surplus on the allowance and, if so, how was it funded or reallocated. This may be where UKIP and Farage have difficulty but speculation should be deferred until the financial statements are provided.
Whatever the outcome to such inquiry, The Times has accepted that, due to the nature of the EP allowance system, it is highly unlikely that either Farage or UKIP has broken the law. What is at issue is whether the party and its leader have followed best practice and due care in the handling of public monies.
This is a legitimate question to put to any party seeking office and power and The Times are perfectly in order to ask it of Farage.
Why don't you ask the same question of the EU itself? How many years is it now that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts, fifteen?
The whole stinking bureaucratic monolith is corrupt from the top down and should be disbanded immediately
Farage should be leading by example.
If he cannot account for his own spending, how can he judge the EU?
If she'd said the UK was the most sexist country in NW Europe it might have been close to the truth. And she's from South Africa where some reports have the number of rapes per day at 3,600:
STimes maybe but it's very much the outrider for it's Daily and where the more serious investigations start and generally end up. As Mr Herdson felt so free to lay into the Indy (with some justification as on a general level they have made some pretty big blunders) then it's only fair to point out that they are far from alone. None of the broadsheets have weathered these far more cut-throat years with any aplomb and some have been sailing very close to the wind indeed.
That Cohen piece on Oakeshott is cutting - and 100% right.
It was also one of the more polite responses believe it or not. Some veteran journos (the serious ones who have done the foreign correspondent and home affairs briefs) were FAR more blunt. That was indeed a turning point that went by with barely a whimper.
Totally OT, but I just got myself an iPad. Any top tips for apps (why doesn't PB have one -- it'd be much nicer to comment using a mobile orientated interface)?
I did a follow up post on this but it got lost in the ether.
So a shorter version to serve the reading and concentration capabilities of Bobafett.
Farage needs to give a true and fair account of expenditure by his office in Lymington. Competent governance of a political party which is funded by the taxpayer should involve keeping full financial records and being able to account for both income and receipts. This applies regardless of whether the EP requires such accounts to be audited or even presented for approval.
There appears to be little doubt that such records were kept. The statements of Samuel-Camps indicate as much.
So once true and fair statements are made public the question will move to whether there was a deficit or surplus on the allowance and, if so, how was it funded or reallocated. This may be where UKIP and Farage have difficulty but speculation should be deferred until the financial statements are provided.
Whatever the outcome to such inquiry, The Times has accepted that, due to the nature of the EP allowance system, it is highly unlikely that either Farage or UKIP has broken the law. What is at issue is whether the party and its leader have followed best practice and due care in the handling of public monies.
This is a legitimate question to put to any party seeking office and power and The Times are perfectly in order to ask it of Farage.
Why don't you ask the same question of the EU itself? How many years is it now that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts, fifteen?
The whole stinking bureaucratic monolith is corrupt from the top down and should be disbanded immediately
Direct from the European court of auditors
"The annual report on the EU budget for 2012 financial year was published today (5/11/2013) by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). As independent auditor, the ECA has signed off the 2012 accounts of the European Union, as it has done each year since the 2007 financial year. "
Totally OT, but I just got myself an iPad. Any top tips for apps (why doesn't PB have one -- it'd be much nicer to comment using a mobile orientated interface)?
Some of the ones on my iPad:
GoogleDrive, BBC iPlayer, 4oD, Brushes, Chrome, iPlayer Radio, iA Writer, Skype, Harbor Master.
Totally OT, but I just got myself an iPad. Any top tips for apps (why doesn't PB have one -- it'd be much nicer to comment using a mobile orientated interface)?
Some of the ones on my iPad:
GoogleDrive, BBC iPlayer, 4oD, Brushes, Chrome, iPlayer Radio, iA Writer, Skype, Harbor Master.
Ah google drive is a good one. Is the Writer one something to take notes with a stylus? I might give Harbour master a miss.. I play too many games as is!!
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
A very feisty interview between Sky's Dermot Murnaghan and Nigel Farage (available on The Times' website) querying whether their under-suspicion office must contain a sauna to run up £3000 p.a. in electricity charges. Nigel really loses it, explaining that they have "banks of computers" etc. The grin on Dermot's face at this point is classic!
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Much like Maria MIller was within the rules (as ruled by the commission)?
Back to three points with YouGov. Tories at core support in government against a ridiculous neverwas who is relying on last years Ashcroft polling and saint Nincompoop and the new politics which the Times has covered in excrement in just two days. Nigel's Farage's swan song in UK politics will be 'but it was within the rules!'
I did a follow up post on this but it got lost in the ether.
So a shorter version to serve the reading and concentration capabilities of Bobafett.
Farage needs to give a true and fair account of expenditure by his office in Lymington. Competent governance of a political party which is funded by the taxpayer should involve keeping full financial records and being able to account for both income and receipts. This applies regardless of whether the EP requires such accounts to be audited or even presented for approval.
There appears to be little doubt that such records were kept. The statements of Samuel-Camps indicate as much.
So once true and fair statements are made public the question will move to whether there was a deficit or surplus on the allowance and, if so, how was it funded or reallocated. This may be where UKIP and Farage have difficulty but speculation should be deferred until the financial statements are provided.
Whatever the outcome to such inquiry, The Times has accepted that, due to the nature of the EP allowance system, it is highly unlikely that either Farage or UKIP has broken the law. What is at issue is whether the party and its leader have followed best practice and due care in the handling of public monies.
This is a legitimate question to put to any party seeking office and power and The Times are perfectly in order to ask it of Farage.
Why don't you ask the same question of the EU itself? How many years is it now that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts, fifteen?
The whole stinking bureaucratic monolith is corrupt from the top down and should be disbanded immediately
Direct from the European court of auditors
"The annual report on the EU budget for 2012 financial year was published today (5/11/2013) by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). As independent auditor, the ECA has signed off the 2012 accounts of the European Union, as it has done each year since the 2007 financial year. "
"Auditors yesterday refused to sign off the EU accounts for the 19th year in succession as they revealed that the spending errors are 23 per cent up on the year before."
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Much like Maria MIller was within the rules (as ruled by the commission)?
I'll get my coat....
Precisely like that, yes. Scumbag chancers, and the new politics stinks like the old.
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Not really
Spot the difference
One claimed for stuff they weren't entitled to and spent it on luxuries for their private life
The other took an allowance he was given and spent it on the party's cause
If you don't see the difference, you're a typical PBer
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Not really
Spot the difference
One claimed for stuff they weren't entitled to and spent it on luxuries for their private life
The other took an allowance he was given and spent it on the party's cause
If you don't see the difference, you're a typical PBer
If you do, you're a member of the general public
Genuine question - is it proven that it was used for party funds? I thought the article said it went to Farage's account?
A very feisty interview between Sky's Dermot Murnaghan and Nigel Farage (available on The Times' website) querying whether their under-suspicion office must contain a sauna to run up £3000 p.a. in electricity charges. Nigel really loses it, explaining that they have "banks of computers" etc. The grin on Dermot's face at this point is classic!
'Banks of computers'.
It all sounds la bit 'Billion Dollar Brain'. What's he doing in that office - High Frequency Trading?
The idea that the UK is the most sexist country in the world is going to have a few more people reaching for UKIP membership forms I would have thought.
Is it UKIP policy now to leave the UN as well as the EU?
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Not really
Spot the difference
One claimed for stuff they weren't entitled to and spent it on luxuries for their private life
The other took an allowance he was given and spent it on the party's cause
If you don't see the difference, you're a typical PBer
If you do, you're a member of the general public
Farage was entitled. It was his cash. He trousered it, eagerly. The public will determine if that was reasonable. That it didn't occur to Farage that this was a waste of taxpayers money is neither here nor there and I'm sure the public will support his spending their money on party stuff. The electorate love that shit.
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Not really
Spot the difference
One claimed for stuff they weren't entitled to and spent it on luxuries for their private life
The other took an allowance he was given and spent it on the party's cause
If you don't see the difference, you're a typical PBer
If you do, you're a member of the general public
The general public will see another chancer politician, grabbing and spending loot. They'll assume he's spent it on Pasties, Moats or Wide screen TVs for his ducks, same as the others.
Farage really is no better than the rest of them. Don't pretend otherwise.
The idea that the UK is the most sexist country in the world is going to have a few more people reaching for UKIP membership forms I would have thought.
Is it UKIP policy now to leave the UN as well as the EU?
I don't know, I don't support the party. I disagree with their policies on HS2 and wind farms.
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Not really
Spot the difference
One claimed for stuff they weren't entitled to and spent it on luxuries for their private life
The other took an allowance he was given and spent it on the party's cause
If you don't see the difference, you're a typical PBer
If you do, you're a member of the general public
Genuine question - is it proven that it was used for party funds? I thought the article said it went to Farage's account?
I don't think I have seen it alleged otherwise.
As I read it, the funds were paid to Fsrage, same as any other MEP, and he used them as he saw fit.
That could be to pay for petrol, train fares, broadband I don't know. But it hasn't even been alleged that he personally profited as far as I can see
The Times seem to want to conflate EU allowances with Westminster expenses, and hope no kind spots the difference
A very feisty interview between Sky's Dermot Murnaghan and Nigel Farage (available on The Times' website) querying whether their under-suspicion office must contain a sauna to run up £3000 p.a. in electricity charges. Nigel really loses it, explaining that they have "banks of computers" etc. The grin on Dermot's face at this point is classic!
'Banks of computers'.
It all sounds la bit 'Billion Dollar Brain'. What's he doing in that office - High Frequency Trading?
The computers are making plans for Nigel. They just want the best for him.
A very feisty interview between Sky's Dermot Murnaghan and Nigel Farage (available on The Times' website) querying whether their under-suspicion office must contain a sauna to run up £3000 p.a. in electricity charges. Nigel really loses it, explaining that they have "banks of computers" etc. The grin on Dermot's face at this point is classic!
Here's the link to Sky's 9.5 minute video of the Murnghan vs Farage interview:
As I read it, the funds were paid to Fsrage, same as any other MEP, and he used them as he saw fit.
That could be to pay for petrol, train fares, broadband I don't know. But it hasn't even been alleged that he personally profited as far as I can see
The Times seem to want to conflate EU allowances with Westminster expenses, and hope no kind spots the difference
It is telling that no EU institution has decided to investigate the claims, only the UK electoral commission (do they even have jurisdiction over EU allowances?)
A very feisty interview between Sky's Dermot Murnaghan and Nigel Farage (available on The Times' website) querying whether their under-suspicion office must contain a sauna to run up £3000 p.a. in electricity charges. Nigel really loses it, explaining that they have "banks of computers" etc. The grin on Dermot's face at this point is classic!
Here's the link to Sky's 9.5 minute video of the Murnghan vs Farage interview:
I did a follow up post on this but it got lost in the ether.
So a shorter version to serve the reading and concentration capabilities of Bobafett.
There appears to be little doubt that such records were kept. The statements of Samuel-Camps indicate as much.
So once true and fair statements are made public the question will move to whether there was a deficit or surplus on the allowance and, if so, how was it funded or reallocated. This may be where UKIP and Farage have difficulty but speculation should be deferred until the financial statements are provided.
Whatever the outcome to such inquiry, The Times has accepted that, due to the nature of the EP allowance system, it is highly unlikely that either Farage or UKIP has broken the law. What is at issue is whether the party and its leader have followed best practice and due care in the handling of public monies.
This is a legitimate question to put to any party seeking office and power and The Times are perfectly in order to ask it of Farage.
Why don't you ask the same question of the EU itself? How many years is it now that the auditors have refused to sign off the accounts, fifteen?
The whole stinking bureaucratic monolith is corrupt from the top down and should be disbanded immediately
Direct from the European court of auditors
"The annual report on the EU budget for 2012 financial year was published today (5/11/2013) by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). As independent auditor, the ECA has signed off the 2012 accounts of the European Union, as it has done each year since the 2007 financial year. "
"Auditors yesterday refused to sign off the EU accounts for the 19th year in succession as they revealed that the spending errors are 23 per cent up on the year before."
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Not really
Spot the difference
One claimed for stuff they weren't entitled to and spent it on luxuries for their private life
The other took an allowance he was given and spent it on the party's cause
If you don't see the difference, you're a typical PBer
If you do, you're a member of the general public
Genuine question - is it proven that it was used for party funds? I thought the article said it went to Farage's account?
I don't think I have seen it alleged otherwise.
As I read it, the funds were paid to Fsrage, same as any other MEP, and he used them as he saw fit.
That could be to pay for petrol, train fares, broadband I don't know. But it hasn't even been alleged that he personally profited as far as I can see
The Times seem to want to conflate EU allowances with Westminster expenses, and hope no kind spots the difference
It's appears to be no different to those MP's renting space off Unions or Party's and funnelling expenses money back to their own political machines. All within the rules of course.
Farage has done nothing wrong, everything he has done is within the rules. Just like everything Gordon Brown did with expenses was within the rules. And Dave and his Wisteria, and Menzies and his interior designer, all within the rules. What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe. Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
Not really
Spot the difference
One claimed for stuff they weren't entitled to and spent it on luxuries for their private life
The other took an allowance he was given and spent it on the party's cause
If you don't see the difference, you're a typical PBer
If you do, you're a member of the general public
Genuine question - is it proven that it was used for party funds? I thought the article said it went to Farage's account?
I don't think I have seen it alleged otherwise.
As I read it, the funds were paid to Fsrage, same as any other MEP, and he used them as he saw fit.
That could be to pay for petrol, train fares, broadband I don't know. But it hasn't even been alleged that he personally profited as far as I can see
The Times seem to want to conflate EU allowances with Westminster expenses, and hope no kind spots the difference
It's appears to be no different to those MP's renting space off Unions or Party's and funnelling expenses money back to their own political machines. All within the rules of course.
True, but this is going on as we speak.
If the Times don't shut up, they'll pull the roof down upon MPs heads. Again.
I hardly ever (or very rarely) watch anything on Russia Today (Freeview 85) (perhaps a few minutes per week) but yesterday I switched over just to see if they had any of their usual bizarre propaganda about Ukraine.
And what did I see? Me! OMG! It was an advert/trailer for George Galloway's chat show, proclaiming his status as a great statesman (he's been an MP for 25 years, etc) and in the background was a collage of various anti-war demonstrators. It was only on screen for perhaps 1 or 2 seconds but I knew it included me because I recognised the slogan on my placard ("IMPERIALIST WARS ARE NAUGHTY AND HORRID").
I have been on TV loads of times, enough not to get excited every time, but I was nearly traumatised by this one. Me? On RT? Oh woe, oh infamy! They've all got it in for me! I blame the Labour government.
This is fun, watching Labour supporters scuttle out to defend Farage.
How long do you think it will last? Funny how UKIP supporters react like mortified maiden aunts when the probity of their anointed one is questioned.......remind you of any other cult party?
An independent Scotland, the SNP argues, can still join NATO as a nonnuclear member no longer obliged to host strategic weapons. Yet NATO is a nuclear alliance, and the SNP position is a classic case of freeloading: The party wants Scotland to enjoy the benefits of the British and Western nuclear deterrent without having to bear its historical responsibility for maintaining it.
On Tuesday, Russia test-fired the RS-24, a new ICBM that, according to the Russian media, "can carry multiple, independently targetable nuclear warheads designed to evade missile defense systems to a range of 12,000 kilometers." The SNP may imagine that the need for nuclear deterrence is a thing of the past, but sober people shouldn't. The SNP's nuclear dodge is another reason, if more were needed, for voters to reject its feckless politics.
This is fun, watching Labour supporters scuttle out to defend Farage.
How long do you think it will last? Funny how UKIP supporters react like mortified maiden aunts when the probity of their anointed one is questioned.......remind you of any other cult party?
The Ceredigion section of the EU 2009 result : 1/ Plaid Cymru 6,725 2/ Liberal Democrats 3,642 3/ Conservative 2,869 4/ UKIP 1,755 5/ Green 1,481 6/ Labour 1,329
General Election 2010: Ceredigion Liberal Democrat Mark Williams 19,139 Plaid Cymru Penri James 10,815 Conservative Luke Evetts 4,421 Labour Richard Boudier 2,210 UKIP Elwyn Williams 977 Green Leila Kiersch 696
Council Election 2012 Plaid:19 Independents:15 LibDems:7 Labour:1
Is that a recent photograph of Dave - he certainly looks a great deal thinner in the face or is it just an optical illusion as he stands adjacent to Alex Salmond?
Comments
Those are the last three people he should ask.
Your boy Cameron really played a great game over Maria Miller, didn't he?
Mr Hannan mentioned in his article today that it is impossible to return an unspent portion of an MEP's allowance to the EU.
"When one of my British colleagues found himself with a slight surplus, and asked how to return it, he was told it couldn't be done. "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100267778/if-nigel-farages-expenses-bother-you-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
aD
I did a follow up post on this but it got lost in the ether.
So a shorter version to serve the reading and concentration capabilities of Bobafett.
Farage needs to give a true and fair account of expenditure by his office in Lymington. Competent governance of a political party which is funded by the taxpayer should involve keeping full financial records and being able to account for both income and receipts. This applies regardless of whether the EP requires such accounts to be audited or even presented for approval.
There appears to be little doubt that such records were kept. The statements of Samuel-Camps indicate as much.
So once true and fair statements are made public the question will move to whether there was a deficit or surplus on the allowance and, if so, how was it funded or reallocated. This may be where UKIP and Farage have difficulty but speculation should be deferred until the financial statements are provided.
Whatever the outcome to such inquiry, The Times has accepted that, due to the nature of the EP allowance system, it is highly unlikely that either Farage or UKIP has broken the law. What is at issue is whether the party and its leader have followed best practice and due care in the handling of public monies.
This is a legitimate question to put to any party seeking office and power and The Times are perfectly in order to ask it of Farage.
Next.
The whole stinking bureaucratic monolith is corrupt from the top down and should be disbanded immediately
If he cannot account for his own spending, how can he judge the EU?
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/up-to-3-600-rapes-in-sa-every-day-1.1466429#.U02zh4W9KSM
Please expand your reasoning.
"The annual report on the EU budget for 2012 financial year was published today (5/11/2013) by the European Court of Auditors (ECA). As independent auditor, the ECA has signed off the 2012 accounts of the European Union, as it has done each year since the 2007 financial year. "
http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/AR_2012.aspx
GoogleDrive, BBC iPlayer, 4oD, Brushes, Chrome, iPlayer Radio, iA Writer, Skype, Harbor Master.
What it will highlight is the crap and lax rules over use of public money and Farages decision to trouser the excess. Saw it, was entitled to it, trousered it. The defence of welfare 'entitlees', and politicians across the globe.
Scummy, greedy chancers, all of them.
I'll get my coat....
Nigel's Farage's swan song in UK politics will be 'but it was within the rules!'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487670/Auditors-refuse-EU-accounts-clean-health-19th-year-row.html
Are there different meanings to the term 'signed off'?
Scumbag chancers, and the new politics stinks like the old.
Spot the difference
One claimed for stuff they weren't entitled to and spent it on luxuries for their private life
The other took an allowance he was given and spent it on the party's cause
If you don't see the difference, you're a typical PBer
If you do, you're a member of the general public
It all sounds la bit 'Billion Dollar Brain'. What's he doing in that office - High Frequency Trading?
Farage really is no better than the rest of them. Don't pretend otherwise.
As I read it, the funds were paid to Fsrage, same as any other MEP, and he used them as he saw fit.
That could be to pay for petrol, train fares, broadband I don't know. But it hasn't even been alleged that he personally profited as far as I can see
The Times seem to want to conflate EU allowances with Westminster expenses, and hope no kind spots the difference
http://news.sky.com/story/1242928/nigel-farage-expenses-claims-are-erroneous
Hope it works!
http://marygriffithsclarke.wordpress.com/
https://twitter.com/marygwengriff
If the Times don't shut up, they'll pull the roof down upon MPs heads. Again.
It's about Hillsborough. I didn't realize it was the 25th anniversary today.
http://news.sky.com/story/1243357/ferry-with-450-on-board-sinking-off-south-korea
And what did I see? Me! OMG! It was an advert/trailer for George Galloway's chat show, proclaiming his status as a great statesman (he's been an MP for 25 years, etc) and in the background was a collage of various anti-war demonstrators. It was only on screen for perhaps 1 or 2 seconds but I knew it included me because I recognised the slogan on my placard ("IMPERIALIST WARS ARE NAUGHTY AND HORRID").
I have been on TV loads of times, enough not to get excited every time, but I was nearly traumatised by this one. Me? On RT? Oh woe, oh infamy! They've all got it in for me! I blame the Labour government.
An independent Scotland, the SNP argues, can still join NATO as a nonnuclear member no longer obliged to host strategic weapons. Yet NATO is a nuclear alliance, and the SNP position is a classic case of freeloading: The party wants Scotland to enjoy the benefits of the British and Western nuclear deterrent without having to bear its historical responsibility for maintaining it.
On Tuesday, Russia test-fired the RS-24, a new ICBM that, according to the Russian media, "can carry multiple, independently targetable nuclear warheads designed to evade missile defense systems to a range of 12,000 kilometers." The SNP may imagine that the need for nuclear deterrence is a thing of the past, but sober people shouldn't. The SNP's nuclear dodge is another reason, if more were needed, for voters to reject its feckless politics.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579503373238002020?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303663604579503373238002020.html
The Ceredigion section of the EU 2009 result :
1/ Plaid Cymru 6,725
2/ Liberal Democrats 3,642
3/ Conservative 2,869
4/ UKIP 1,755
5/ Green 1,481
6/ Labour 1,329
General Election 2010: Ceredigion
Liberal Democrat Mark Williams 19,139
Plaid Cymru Penri James 10,815
Conservative Luke Evetts 4,421
Labour Richard Boudier 2,210
UKIP Elwyn Williams 977
Green Leila Kiersch 696
Council Election 2012
Plaid:19
Independents:15
LibDems:7
Labour:1