What a farce

In an article from today's Telegraph, the watchdog for MP's expenses is planning to relax the rules under which MP's can claim.
Why? Because MP's are angry about it.

IPSA said it received complaints that some MPs whose primary home is in London but represent seats outside London are unable to see their children at weekends, because they cannot afford family-sized accommodation in their constituencies.

Boo hoo. If a person with a child who lives with the other parent wants to claim social housing they cannot claim it for that child. You can only claim larger than a 1 bed if the child lives with you. Why should MP's be any different?

And if their constituency is outside London why isn't that their primary residence? If the primary residence is in London and you want to see more of your kids, here's an idea - MOVE!.
It's what IDS expects everyone else to do. Other parents travel at weekends to see their kids, what makes MP's so different?

In the long run, Ipsa’s review document also raised the prospect of eventually shifting away from the current system of detailed rules for every sort of expense claim and adopting a “principles-based” regime that gives MPs much more discretion over claims.

And will therefore be open to more abuse.

And here's what's really made me angry:

Under pressure from Tory MPs angry at IPSA, Mr Cameron has warned that the body must address members’ concerns and become more "family friendly" by April, or face possible abolition.

In other words, do what I say or I'll get rid of you. Are we still pretending we live in a democracy?

There is national outrage all over the country about the cuts to benefits, the rise in tuition fees, the slashing of jobs. But David Cameron is carrying on. A few squeals from MP's about expenses and he's threatening to abolish the watchdog.

Just goes to show doesn't it?

Source

Big Brother is here

The Government is introducing a new plan - The Intercept Modernisation Programme - to store a record of everything we do down a cable or telephone line. A record will be made of every email sent, every phone call made and every site we click on the internet. And kept for a year.

From the Telegraph:

All telecoms companies and internet service providers will be required by law to keep a record of every customer's personal communications, showing who they are contacting, when, where and which websites they are visiting.
Despite widespread opposition over Britain's growing surveillance society, 653 public bodies will be given access to the confidential information, including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the Ambulance Service, fire authorities and even prison governors.

They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to access the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority.

Government announced yesterday it was pressing ahead with privately-held "Big Brother" databases which opposition leaders said amount to "state-spying" and a form of "covert surveillance" on the public.
It is doing so despite its own consultation showing there is little public support for the plans.

This is absolutely appalling. I have nothing to hide but I certainly don't want the authorities to know everything I do and ever person I speak to. It means the end of privacy.
And the fact that they are going ahead with it despite knowing they have little support speaks volumes about their arrogance.
It would appear that they are no longer public servants but powerhungry dictators who
will do as they please.

The Open Rights Group has organised a petition to stop this outrage. If you don't want Big Brother click here to sign it.

Click here for the full Telegraph article