|
HOUSE OF LORDS COST
US £121 MILLION A YEAR -£18 MILLION ON EXPENSES.
THEY GAVE AWAY OUR CONSTITUTION AND COUNTRY IN
LEAGUE WITH THEIR SOVEREIGN AND COMMONS
-TRAITORS
ALL!
*
THE LORDS of
EXCESS
by
Michael Lea
MEMBERS of the
House of Lords received more than £18,million in
tax-free expenses last year, the latest official
figures reveal
Peers pocketed more
than £4 million just for turning up and another
£6million to cover overnight stays in London.
Many automatically
claimed the maximum possible almost every time they
visited Parliament -nearly £320 a day -which works
out at £47,360 a year
based on the
148 sitting days.
MOST CLAIMS
DO NOT HAVE TO BE BACKED UP BY RECEIPTS.
The total paid out
to the 743 members in the 12 months to March 2008
£18.4 million, accounted for 15% of the £121million
overall running costs for the House of Lords.
IN THE
PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO MARCH 2007, PEER'S
EXPENSES COST TAXPAYERS £17.7 MILLION.
|
THE
PRICIEST PEERS
TOP
TEN
|
1] LORD BRETT (LABOUR)
-
£66,197
2] LORD LAIRD
(CROSSBENCH) -£66,003
3] LORD MAXTON
(LABOUR) - £65,536
4] LORD TAYLOR OF BLACBURN -
(LABOUR)-£65, 253
5] EARL OF CAITHNESS
(CON) -£ 64, 924
AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW into the
perks earlier this year found that some peers apparently failed to
understand that their role was supposed TO BE UNPAID.
They were at the time entitled to a
daily allowance of up to £82.50 to meet the cost of 'meals and
refreshments. and travel around WESTMINSTER up to £165.60 for
accomodation in LONDON and office costs of £71.50 a day.
In addition that claim travel
expenses for journeys over 5 miles between their main home and the
chamber for journeys on PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS in the UK and for two
return trips to EUROPE each year.
PEERS are also entitled to a LAPTOP a
DESK TOP COMPUTER and a HAND-HELD MOBILE DEVICE for receiving calls
and e.mails.
BUT according to an OFFICIAL REPORT
from the SENIOR SALARIES REVIEW BODY many PEERS treat EXPENSES
as a 'FORM OF PAY'.
The RULE BOOK on the HOUSE OF LORDS
website states: All amounts paid in settlement of claims represent
reinbursement of actual expenses arising out of UNPAID
PARLIAMENTARY DUTY , rather than INCOME from EMPLOYMENTi
|
6]
BARONESS GALE (LABOUR) -
£64,670
7] LORD
FOSTER OF BISHOP AUCKLAND (LABOUR-£64,532
8]
BARONESS MORRIS OF BOLTON (CON) -£62,852
9] LORD KING OF
WEST BROMWICH (LABOUR) -£62,547
10] LORD
HOWARTH OF NEWPORT (LABOUR)
-£62,420
'Consequently they are
NOT subject to INCOME TAX and need NOT be included on
the TAX RETURN.' It adds: 'A member's signature
effectively certifies that the AMOUNT CLAIMED has been
SPENT.'
CLAIMS are checked by the
HOUSE OF LORDS FINACE DEPARTMENT and the NATIONAL AUDIT
OFFICE.
BUT critics have raised
concerns over the VALIDITY of the EXPENSES CLAIMED and
the AMOUNTS handed out to PEERS, who are OFTEN
INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY.
FROM APRIL LAST YEAR TO
MARCH THIS YEAR PEERS CLAIMED,
£6,315,011
against
OVERNIGHT STAYS,
£4,368,626
for DAY
SUBSISTANCE,
£4.647,439
to cover OFFICE COSTS and
£1,813,691
for TRAVEL EXPENSES.
There are 19 LORDS and
LADIES who received more that
£60,000
and dozens more
who trousered more than
£50,000
AMONG those raking in the
MOST was LORD CUNNINGHAM, a cabinet enforcer under
TONY BLAIR who claimed £59,350 for 131 DAYS in
ATTENDANCE.
THIS IS ON TOP of the
£36,000 a year he earns for 3 HOURS A WEEK giving
confidential advice to the CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION.
MEANWHILE LORD PAUL,
whose family is reportedly worth [1.5BLN
£1,500,000,000
CLAIMED allowances for
133 DAYS totaling £52, 315.
EX LABOUR LEADER [OH
BOYO!]LORD KINNOCK[YES! the man that sacked the EU
WHISTLEBLOWER]
CLAIMED £21,968
BARONESS JAY CLAIMED
£30,393.
|
|
[The financial year
to March 2009 will no doubt show a significant
increase in their '30 pieces of silver' for
their treachery in passing the
THE
TREATY
OF
TREASON-
THE
LISBON
TREATY
[Each
underlined word has a separate bulletin]
Meanwhile, Lord
Paul, whose family is reportedly worth £1.5 billion,
claimed allowances for 133 days totalling £52, 312.
Ex-labour party leader
Lord Kinnock
claimed £21,968 and Baroness Jay £30,000
Matthew Elliot of
the Taxpayer Alliance said: 'It is a worry that
despite all the controversy over MP's expenses,
Lords still do not have to submit any receipts
[Heavens NO! -they are
Lords after all!] for
the millions of pounds of TAXPAYERS MONEY they
RECEIVE...
'People are
concerned that ever increasing amounts are being
claimed without any proper scrutiny or
accountability. It is essential that these payments
are totally transparent.'
*
*
*
{Font
Altered-Bolding & Underling Used-Comments in
Brackets
*
STATEMENT OF THE EDP
Thursday, January 22, 2009
IN SUPPORT OF A
REPUBLIC OF ENGLAND
*
As we state in our
AIMS of the PARTY we honestly believed that OUR
House of Lords-OUR House of Commons and OUR
SOVEREIGN would NOT allow our Rights and Liberties
and Country to be SOLD to a FOREIGN POWER.
Regrettably in June 2008 we were proved wrong .
We now declare that a PROTECTOR as in the 18th
century such as Oliver Cromwell would be the answer
to our present dilemma - having been BETRAYED by ALL
who had sworn an OATH to protect our CONSTITUTION
and LIBERTIES.
AS we have stated
on many occasions we now need to look to the roots
of our English brethren who crossed the seas those
centuries ago and were the foundation of the UNITED
STATE OF AMERICA. The compilers of the
Declaration of Independence were adamant that they
would have NO KING and that they would ensure the
protection of their constitution by a SUPREME COURT.
We should now consider following their example
which as we have seen in the last few days the
culmination of the birth of their nation of LIBERTY
for ALL!
Our present
constitutional system is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.
It must be REMOVED and replaced by an ACCOUNTABLE
and RESPONSIBLE and now a more DEMOCRATIC
institution which will not allow the spongers of the
hard earned earnings of the PEOPLE to stay in their
comfortable jobs for more than ONE TERM in the
future. The House of Representatives and the
Congress of the USA show us the way to obtain the
necessary protection to OUR RIGHTS and LIBERTIES and
COUNTRY.
*
The above
statement was supported by one of the greatest
parliamentarians of the 18th century
Edmund Burke when he said:
‘ In the first
place society is far too complicated a system to be
tinkered with. A person’s [Nation] Constitution is
the result of many minds in many ages. It is no
simple, no superficial thing, nor to be estimated by
superficial understanding.
An ignorant man,
who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is
however sufficiently confident to think he can
safely take to pieces, and put together at his
pleasure, a moral machine of another guise,
importance and complexity…
Men little think
how immorally they act in rashly meddling with what
they do not understand. A society is a delicate
organism, developing and adapting itself to
circumstances.
*
Over the past 37
years the main parties have all cooperated to
destroy our CONSTITUTION as shown by their vote for
the LISBON TREATY in 2008. Their tinkering has
achieved the very aims of past dictators of Europe
over the past two centuries. We have been destroyed
by TRAITORS WITHIN.
New Labour with the
help of the other parties in the House of Commons
has tinkered our CONSTITUTION to DEATH.
*
THE
NEW WORLD
Over two centuries ago in the New World our ancestors were debating a
New Constitution of a United States of America. They were fortunate people to
have the likes of such men of integrity and love of their inheritance as
Alexander Hamilton; James Madison – a future President ; John Jay; who together
were responsible for over eighty essays which were sent to various newspapers
in the State of New York addressed to the People of this dynamic and populous
State.
At the time at Philadelphia
in 1787, ostensibly to amend their existing Articles of Confederation, but in
fact to draw up an entirely new form of Government which has survived with
little subsequent change, as the Constitution of the United States of America.
The revolution had brought the Sovereignty of the People out of the misty realm
of political speculation and had made it the controlling principle in
government, and this sovereignty was not veiled by theories of tacit consent or
virtual representation, but existed as the central fact of political life in
the active, excitable and sometimes turbulent assemblies ( Oh for
this to happen in our time) of the thirteen States…It was impossible
to deny one of the first principles –
`that Government derived their
Just Powers from the Consent of the Governed`…..
BUT
NOT
IN
ENGLAND!
*
[Each
underlined word has a separate bulletin]
JANUARY-2009
HOME
|
