Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, hearthammer said: therefore the reimbursed expenses constitute a benefit in kind. I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't considered a benefit in kind, I was suggesting that approved expenses for those at higher levels are different from those at lower levels. I was thinking of business lunches, company cars, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said: 12 minutes ago, MixuFixit said: Yup. If the SNP don't come down like a tonne of bricks on this I can see it being very damaging for them. Their whole hing that brought them to power was that they weren't the entitled labour seat warmers that had been there before, they were serious and competent governors. The minute the story starts being expense troughing wasters like Denham or that provost or that councillor that 'forgot' to turn his roaming charges off in the west indies, they are no different and become vulnerable to their own voters not showing up. Same thing duffed them up in 2017. This. I don't care if it's within the rules or not, charging 20odd pairs of shoes to expenses is both ridiculous and moronic. At the minimum she needs to repay her expenses, make a fucking large donation to charity and offer a grovelling apology. Are you saying that if appointed to be Lord Provost you would appear at all civic receptions in your weddings, funerals and interviews suit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said: I wasn't suggesting that it wasn't considered a benefit in kind, I was suggesting that approved expenses for those at higher levels are different from those at lower levels. I was thinking of business lunches, company cars, etc. Same rules would apply across the workforce. The tendency is, though, that those at higher levels have more scope with the likes of business entertaining where they represent the company with potential clients, etc. At the same time, they are obliged to justify the outlay. All other expenses are subject to the same, standard levels of scrutiny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Are you saying that if appointed to be Lord Provost you would appear at all civic receptions in your weddings, funerals and interviews suit?Those positions come with a healthy salary - and I wouldn't have just one suit. I think most folk could get on board with a clothing expenses budget - but she's ripped the absolute arse out of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, hearthammer said: Same rules would apply across the workforce. The tendency is, though, that those at higher levels have more scope with the likes of business entertaining where they represent the company with potential clients, etc. At the same time, they are obliged to justify the outlay. All other expenses are subject to the same, standard levels of scrutiny. Well, quite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said: Are you saying that if appointed to be Lord Provost you would appear at all civic receptions in your weddings, funerals and interviews suit? What is defined as aLord Provost's official "uniform" ?? A suit can be worn at an official function, but also to a wedding/funeral/etc. Duality of purpose - benefit in kind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, pandarilla said: Those positions come with a healthy salary - and I wouldn't have just one suit. I think most folk could get on board with a clothing expenses budget - but she's ripped the absolute arse out of it. But you agree that appropriate clothing would be a legitimate expense for someone attending swanky do's, though. It's possible she's done and never plans to buy another sock, much like her predecessor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, hearthammer said: What is defined as aLord Provost's official "uniform" ?? A suit can be worn at an official function, but also to a wedding/funeral/etc. Duality of purpose - benefit in kind. I don't know what your point is. I haven't even mentioned benefits in kind, it's just you. Is anyone suggesting she's not paying the appropriate taxes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Just now, Baxter Parp said: I don't know what your point is. I haven't even mentioned benefits in kind, it's just you. Is anyone suggesting she's not paying the appropriate taxes? A Provost doesn't have a specific "uniform" and can carry out his duties wearing any clothes in theory. A position that needs a specific outfit to carry out the duties, ie, a fireman or nurse, have the clothing or safety gear provided by the employer. She's claimed the clothes and shoes as "expenses", ie specifically required to enable her to carry out her duties. Clearly benefits in kind. This is separate from her paying tax from her salary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Just now, hearthammer said: Clearly benefits in kind. This is separate from her paying tax from her salary. Yeah, I know, it's a p11. I used to get one for the health and life insurance my work provided. I don't see this as relevant to the discussion though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said: Yeah, I know, it's a p11. I used to get one for the health and life insurance my work provided. I don't see this as relevant to the discussion though. Sorry, tried to clarify the differences. Bottom line - either she or the council are due Hector for her wardrobe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Are you saying that if appointed to be Lord Provost you would appear at all civic receptions in your weddings, funerals and interviews suit?Fucking hell [emoji23] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Just now, hearthammer said: Sorry, tried to clarify the differences. Bottom line - either she or the council are due Hector for her wardrobe. Probably the Council, I suppose. The tax bill would be quite hefty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, MixuFixit said: I wouldn't wear 20 different pairs of shoes or spend a tonne and a half on scants nobody at the functions is going to see Are men scrutinised by their critics in the same way as women? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedToGoToCentralPark Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 I wouldn't wear 20 different pairs of shoes or spend a tonne and a half on scants nobody at the functions is going to seeSome journalist is now trawling through photos of these engagements to see how many times these dresses and shoes have been worn.Apparently the LP gets 5k a year for clothing so some people on Twitter are coming out with it being a 2k underspend as the 8k is over 2 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 On the day that the Johnson Government's malfeasance on Brexit is finally laid bare, here we have a stairheed rammy about whether the female Lord Provost of Glasgow should wear a boiler suit and crocs or have Louboutins for every day of the week.A rap on the knuckles from the party hierarchies is required, and we should all move swiftly on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 1 minute ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: On the day that the Johnson Government's malfeasance on Brexit is finally laid bare, here we have a stairheed rammy about whether the female Lord Provost of Glasgow should wear a boiler suit and crocs or have Louboutins for every day of the week. A rap on the knuckles from the party hierarchies is required, and we should all move swiftly on. Stop being sensible you b*****d. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, MixuFixit said: The last provost wasn't. Do go on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 Why should anyone other than the person in the role have to fund how they dress? There's zero need for clothing expenses. Like everyone else whoever is provost should pay for their own work clothes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, MixuFixit said: We're capable of being angry at both things M9. I'm an SNP voter and I'm getting heavy whiffs of "shhh you're harming the cause!" in this thread. No better than Labour or Tories?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.