*Bob*

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- If the "average Joe" thinks it's too much > (and that presumably anyone could do the job) why > don't they give it a go themselves? So - the same as with MPs then?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- her salary certainly does not seem > disproportionate. It seems disproportionate to me. I'm pretty sure it would seem disproportionate to your average Joe too, but then they won't hear about it, tucked away as it is in a token fashion within the bowels of BBC online.

That's the truth of it, MM. Any talk of making gains in the 'war on drugs' is absolute cobblers. It's economics, pure (ahem) and simple.

If you believe that the current hoo-haa is (partly) a hypocritical media-driven feeding frenzy then it doesn't seem irrelevant to ask a member of the media - also funded by the taxpayer - how much she gets paid for reading from an autocue - as she harps on about misuse of the public purse. I'm more shocked by the revelations about her pay than I am about a claim for a tampon. But then I don't suppose the press will be pushing this one to the max, will they?

I think Saatchi should sign him up. If he can generate this amount of local and national publicity with a tin of white paint and a shaky hand, who knows what he could accomplish with a real budget.

I think it's ok when they're off-duty but they're not supposed to do it when in uniform.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I wander what > the overly represented number of plastic coppers > are doing about this locally? I think they've calculated that they can't fit 14 million people in the cells over the weekend.

Anatomy of a Daily Mail article

But if you want to actually be warm and burn stuff economically, then get a stove, yes.

I wouldn't worry too much about burning a bit of wood in a fireplace if you want to. Currently offenders 'making a mockery of the law' include one in ten of the houses on your street, shops on the high street, half the pubs in the area etc etc. Plod is yet to visit them and hand out injunctions.

Wood. Yep. In an approved stove. They can't touch you.

Or wood.

ooo missus

I recommend 'wood'.. great stuff.. it (quite literally) grows on trees.

Smokeless coal.. It's like the infamous 'Spaghetti Tree'.. don't fall for it.

There's no smoke without fire, Ted. But sometimes there's fire without smoke, and that's ok.

If money does happen to be your prime reason for buying a property, then look at it this way: The reality is that most people piss 99% of any spare money they have up the wall one way or another (boozing, skiing holidays, a new car, recreational drugs, organic vegetables, mobiles phones - take your pick). Look upon a property as a kind-of enforced saving scheme which at least puts money out of your all-consuming spendthrift reach. Comparisons with if I did X with my money instead of buying a property I'd be Y pounds better-off are futile, because no-one ever does X - they just piss it up the wall.

Carrie makes all her calls from her own phone though.. which must dent her ?92k salary by, what, 300 quid?

Great link, Ted. End of story.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You'd be shocked to discover that the reinvested > rent differential often comes very close to the > equity asset you have in the house over a 25 year > period. Unfortunately this also means spending 25 years in varying degrees of crummy rental accommodation, subject to the whims of a series of disinterested landlord, begging them to fix the washing machine / rotten windows / boiler / repaint in a colour other than beige. So, essentially, if you spend half adult living in a bucket of mud with a broken handle, you might come out of it up a few quid.. by which time you're too old to enjoy anything properly anyway. No thanks. If you're able, buy somewhere affordable as soon as you can and enjoy it - and forget about all the other stuff.

I'm delighted to have your full confidence, number one. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to answer the door. I'm having my tennis court licked clean this morning. Receipt to follow.

Sport? Are you having a laugh? Mind you, when did holding a cabinet post ever require any particular you to have interest or enthusiasm therein.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I see whatbuoure saying bob but if these people > had made these relocation claims in a private > company heydbhave been sacked for grows > misconduct. There are a handful of sacking offences, I agree, but in the majority of cases its just grubbing away for all they can get within the parameters of some particularly lax guidelines.

I don't know what everyone's complaining about. Our lovely parliamentarians and accompanying expenses 'scandal' are a perfectly accurate reflection of everyone else up and down the country, 90% of us taking 'everything we're entitled to' and the rest only missing out because someone hasn't told them what they can get away with yet. Whether you're transferring assets to avoid inheritance tax, paying in cash for 10% off.. or doing a bit of gardening for cash in hand - that's you up there in the green leather seats, squirming under the spotlight. And as as for your everyday working Joe - thes one who BBC local 'news' stop in the street - "ok.. gimme INDIGNATION.. go!" Well they're they're the worst of the lot. Trust me. The whole affair is laughable.

snorky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- house prices and your equity > are rising monthly, sore point.. best not to mention it