• The post you are reporting:
   
  If GP's explanations are truthful then I don't see a problem particularly.
  
  The only question that arises out of the flooring work, in my mind, is did the work need doing? It would appear so if treatment for damp was required which may well have degraded the carpets considerably. One could argue, I suppose, that the work should have been carried out by a local contractor but the cost would have been considerably higher and GP appears to have acted quite responsibly.
  
  The flat where the asbestos removal work was carried out was his designated second home at the time of the work. That the local council were somewhat tardy in issuing the bill could not have been foreseen. During the interim GP decided to move so that when the claim was submitted the property was no longer his second home. The delay in making the claim was not his fault.
  
  There is no mention of any capital gains obtained from subsequently renting out the first flat.
  
  What baffles me is why GP wouldn't respond to the BBC when all Kent MPs were asked about their expense claims as it appears, to me at least, that he had nothing to hide and did his credibility no favours at all. He shot himself in the foot over that I think.
  
  There has been a lot of discussion about providing MPs with accomodation in London, such as a barrack block, funded directly by Government. On the face of it this appeared to be a good idea. From a security viewpoint putting all your eggs in one basket would pose a considerable risk and additional expense to police such a site.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason