Major election gaffes 2024

[BFTD]

36 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

As an aside, imagine having three different jobs and being shit at all of them.

...yet still being promoted to the Regional Manager in one of them.

Wonder if he'll get a cushy job with the SFA when his knees finally give out.

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, BFTD said:

...yet still being promoted to the Regional Manager in one of them.

Wonder if he'll get a cushy job with the SFA when his knees finally give out.

What’s he been doing that effect his knees?

On, second thoughts I don’t want to know.

[The Master]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

He's been routinely charging the taxpayer for expenses related to his other job(s). Seems like it's something the party knew about and had been hoping would stay private.

The quotes from "party insiders" make it seem very likely that people have leaked it to the press out of anger that he's a duplicitous wee snake who screwed over someone they liked in order to get himself another job in Moray.

When you read the detail, I’m not sure it’s quite the scandal the Sunday Mail thinks. What it seems to boil down to is situations where expenses claims deviate from nice and simple trips from home to Westminster and back. 

There’s one example quoted where he claimed for a train from Heathrow to central London, having landed from Iceland where he was working as an assistant referee. What difference does it make that he arrived at Heathrow from Iceland rather than from Aberdeen or Inverness? UEFA will have paid for the flight to get him back to the UK, but once here any cost associated with getting to Westminster is surely a legitimate parliamentary expense?

Similarly, I’m not sure why flying to a different Scottish airport from London should be a problem, if the cost is no more than to the “home” airport.

Don’t get me wrong, Douglas Ross shouldn’t be doing three jobs. But on this occasion, I’m not sure this story is worth the outrage. 

[Sugar_Army]

I had the reporter on BBC Scotland today.  She says it is possibly 28 alleged incidents that party members say "look dodgy" and was known in December 2021 but they hoped it would be swept under the carpet. 

That and on the back of him banging on about Michael Mathison expenses scandle puts him on dubious ground. 

I think him sticking the knife in the back of a party member to get his cosy seat has pissed some off.  He is trying to say he played no part in that.  Excuse me, did they not have to ask you if you would be interested first and you had to say "yes" for it to happen?

I hope the guy is well enough to sit as an independent, still want him to lose mind, but take enough votes off DRoss to let somebody else in.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 hour ago, The Master said:

 

Similarly, I’m not sure why flying to a different Scottish airport from London should be a problem, if the cost is no more than to the “home” airport.

That is not the point.

Travel is only covered between parliament and the home constituency. Not for convenient travel between his may jobs

For example flying from London to Edinburgh so he can take off his Westminster hat and put on his MSP hat should not be covered by tax payers. If the Tory party want to refund him then that is up to them but it shouldn't be from the public purse.

Imagine the logic you are expressing here. Lets say the MP for Orkney and Shetland takes a holiday to the South of France. Can they claim the return flight if they land in London and go to parliament if it is cheaper than the cost of travel back from Shetland? That took 1 minute for me to come up with. imagine the expenses claims MPs would wangle.

[The Master]

1 hour ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

That is not the point.

Travel is only covered between parliament and the home constituency. Not for convenient travel between his may jobs

For example flying from London to Edinburgh so he can take off his Westminster hat and put on his MSP hat should not be covered by tax payers. If the Tory party want to refund him then that is up to them but it shouldn't be from the public purse.

If the total cost is less than that of a flight to Aberdeen/Inverness, then travel down to Edinburgh, and he eventually travels to his constituency, why not?

1 hour ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Imagine the logic you are expressing here. Let’s say the MP for Orkney and Shetland takes a holiday to the South of France. Can they claim the return flight if they land in London and go to parliament if it is cheaper than the cost of travel back from Shetland? That took 1 minute for me to come up with. imagine the expenses claims MPs would wangle.

No, of course not. 

But that doesn’t mean a common sense approach can’t be applied. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a Scottish MP to be allowed to claim for a flight from London to any Scottish airport, provided the cost is no more than it would have been to their “home” airport. 

Edited June 9 by The Master

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

4 minutes ago, The Master said:

If the total cost is less than that of a flight to Aberdeen/Inverness, then travel down to Edinburgh, and he eventually travels to his constituency, why not?

Because that travel is not part of his work as an MP.

If he wants to travel back from a UEFA match and into central London that should be covered by UEFA, not from the public purse. Who knows if Dougie is double or even triple dipping expenses claims.

If expenses are racked up due to doing a different job then it should be that job picking up the tab. Or gosh even dipping into his own pocket to pay his own costs.

11 minutes ago, The Master said:

No, of course not. 

But that doesn’t mean a common sense approach can’t be applied. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a Scottish MP to be allowed to claim for a flight from London to any Scottish airport, provided the cost is no more than it would have been to their “home” airport. 

They can with good reason and have to file what the Diversion was for. But if the reason is to engage on work that is not being an MP then it is crossing the line into fraud imo.

[doulikefish]

If you run about dressed up as ref waving red cards and you are running around Holyrood with big p45s over somebody else's expenses then you better make sure your own ones are 100% correct is the easiest answer 

[tamthebam]

MP in expense fiddling scandal?

Oh, and Pope Francis is of the Roman Catholic persuasion and bears do their business arboreally. 

[The Master]

11 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

If he wants to travel back from a UEFA match and into central London that should be covered by UEFA, not from the public purse.

The travel back to the UK should be covered by UEFA.

The travel from the airport to central London should be covered by Parliament. 

11 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Who knows if Dougie is double or even triple dipping expenses claims.

That's a separate issue from what expenses should be covered by which organisation.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

5 minutes ago, The Master said:

The travel back to the UK should be covered by UEFA.

The travel from the airport to central London should be covered by Parliament. 

Why?

if UEFA are covering his travel to and from a match then you would think it would be door to door no? And if they don't then the taxpayer shouldn't be picking up the rest of the tab.

Again the point is he wasn't on parliamentary business so shouldn't be abel to claim travel costs just because it was less than another hypothetical trip.

[JS_FFC]

Are folk seriously suggesting that Ross should fly Reykjavik to Aberdeen, Aberdeen to Heathrow just so that the correct organisation is covering the correct expenses? 
 

I suppose the totally above board way to do it is to calculate the saving on flying directly with UEFA and the tax payer splitting the discount. But really this is a non issue.

[The Master]

1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Why?

if UEFA are covering his travel to and from a match then you would think it would be door to door no?

Central London isn't his "UK door".

1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

And if they don't then the taxpayer shouldn't be picking up the rest of the tab.

Again the point is he wasn't on parliamentary business so shouldn't be abel to claim travel costs just because it was less than another hypothetical trip.

The travel from the airport to central London is related to Parliamentary business. It's a journey he would not need to make were he not an MP. 

Why does the fact he's landing from Iceland rather than Aberdeen make a difference as to whether it's an allowed expense?

[The Master]

Just now, JS_FFC said:

Are folk seriously suggesting that Ross should fly Reykjavik to Aberdeen, Aberdeen to Heathrow just so that the correct organisation is covering the correct expenses? 

Which would also mean the taxpayer covering the cost of the additional, unnecessary flight.

But that's OK, because that extra flight came from Aberdeen so it's now fine for him to claim the cost of the train to central London. 

 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

5 minutes ago, The Master said:

Central London isn't his "UK door".

The travel from the airport to central London is related to Parliamentary business. It's a journey he would not need to make were he not an MP. 

Why does the fact he's landing from Iceland rather than Aberdeen make a difference as to whether it's an allowed expense?

It makes a difference because the travel isn't covered by parliament and therefore Dougie has broken the rules.

He wasn't travelling from his constiuency to parliament or vice versa. It is really that simple. Because if you did it any other way it would be open to abuse.

[The Master]

2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

It makes a difference because the travel isn't covered by parliament and therefore Dougie has broken the rules.

IPSA investigated and found that he didn't.

Because maybe, just maybe, they're willing to apply common sense. 

2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

He wasn't travelling from his constiuency to parliament or vice versa. It is really that simple. Because if you did it any other way it would be open to abuse.

You seem to be missing the whole common sense thing again.

There doesn't need to be a blanket approach. Each claim can be judged on its own merits, in terms of value for money for the taxpayer while taking into account whether the explanation for it being unusual is reasonable.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, The Master said:

IPSA investigated and found that he didn't.

There is no evidence IPSA investigated any of the claims.

Mr Ross uses his usual weasel word of "agreed by IPSA" which in other words means they piad him out. Whether he supplied them the whole truth of his claims is the issue.

[lichtgilphead]

According to STV news just now, DRoss is happy for his expense claims to be looked at again. 

I assume that he's being totally open about this, and will open up his Westminster expenses, his Holyrood expenses & his football expenses for scrutiny.

We wouldn't want any dubiety as to whether he is double (or triple) claiming for the same journeys.

[BFTD]

The most interesting part of this story is that he seems to have been grassed up by his mates because he's a grasping, backstabbing wee turd, in a party where that's a given.

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, The Master said:

IPSA investigated and found that he didn't.

Because maybe, just maybe, they're willing to apply common sense. 

You seem to be missing the whole common sense thing again.

There doesn't need to be a blanket approach. Each claim can be judged on its own merits, in terms of value for money for the taxpayer while taking into account whether the explanation for it being unusual is reasonable.

^^^ wee Dougie’s mum.