MP rent boys
Expenses. Non-disclosure. Transparency.
Fixing things. Regaining the public's trust. All that stuff.
Now the speaker (you'd think they would
all have the title 'speaker'. As opposed to 'doer') has said that for
security reasons, the addresses MPs use can't be disclosed. That,
John, and the fact that the latest money-making scam is renting flats
to each other.
I don't know the details, but you can
imagine how this might work:
The public purse (our taxes) pay the
rent on London flats for the Westminster great and good to stay at.
MP A: buys flat. Mortgage (say) £900 /
month.
MP B: buys similar flat. Mortgage (say)
£900 / month.
MP C: buys another similar flat.
Mortgage (say) £900 / month.
MP A rents his flat to MP B for £1,200
/ month. MP B rents his flat to MP C for £1,200 / month.
MP C rents his flat to MP A for £1,200
/ month.
MP's A, B, and C exit stage left,
slapping back pockets ASDA-advert style, looking back over their
shoulders, grinning.
However, the addresses are a matter of
national security. Either that or the speaker is an MP a, B, or C and
protecting his interests in the scam continuing.
Disturbingly backward
A Saudi Arabian film is out on general
release early next year. Unusual, because the director's female. In a
country where women are not allowed to work alongside men. She had to
shoot scenes in hardline areas hiding in a van, directing by mobile
phone and walkie talkie.
A B&B lady, christian (room at the
inn and all that, missus?) turned away a gay couple, because she
didn't approve of what they might get up to in the double bed they
were paying her for, by the night. Her defence in court was paid for
through the church. Presumably collection-plate money the people
donating might have thought would be better spent. Her legal
representatives argued that she would've been ok with the guys had
they been in a civil partnership. Blown out of the water a bit by the
fact that she never asked to see any proof that any hetero couple
were in fact legally wed before taking their money.
The fridge challenge
I survived the olives. Now, at the
bottom of the cheese box, there a pack of that Boursin type soft
cheese. Use-by date: the 15th. Not so bad, I was thinking,
then looked again: the 15th of September. Is this a BLISS
challenge? More to the point, should I even open the packet and risk
a neighbourhood-wide chemical incident and possible evacuation to a
church hall for a couple of nights (what larks – t'was like the
blitz) or leave it sealed and go for the immediate disposal (safe (or
Mantel as it's now known after the bottle-Booker prize) and boring
(Mantel again) but the most advisable course of action?
No comments:
Post a Comment