Double helpings for the Robinsons
Much attention in Northern Ireland has focused on the degree to which Sinn Féin representatives have had their snouts stuck in the Westminster trough, despite their ‘principled’ abstention from Parliament. Justifiably so. Though Shinner expense claims hardly reveal anything we could not otherwise reasonably have deduced. Republicans’ objection to British sovereignty in Ireland has rarely impeded a sense of entitlement to squeeze every Great British pound from the hated Exchequer. Not that DUP attitudes are strikingly dissimilar, albeit that their starting point is somewhat different. The overweening sense of entitlement is still a defining characteristic.
Hence the Daily Mail’s report that Robinsons Iris and Peter are costing the taxpayer almost £600,000 per year.
The double, triple, quadruple jobbery of Democratic Unionist politicians is well worn territory. Clearly the people of Northern Ireland are getting short-changed by their representatives, particularly at Westminster, with the locus of the ‘ourselves alone’ coalition lying well to the north and west.
But Mr and Mrs Robinson also claim a double helping from the controversial second homes allowance, despite living together as a married couple.
Comments
Snout in troughery of the highest order.
Mmmmm...course they are.
The Dupes have been scalded on this one, basically because it's gone Uk-wide and they can't lean/rely on their lapdogs in the local media to drop the story. Family Robinson plc haven't technically broken any rules, have they...so why don't they just sit back, relax and let the public decide on whether the morality of their claims?
Which conveniently take you off on luxury trips around the globe at the taxpayers expense, whilst you neglect your constituency duties at home by not having an office or staff to help the public?
Nice try, but you aren't fooling anyone.
Anonymous,
Do you not think it would do the DUP's credibility the world of good on this one if, instead of the old "we might be bad but they're as bad as us" defence, they led from the front and decided unilaterally to full open and frank disclosure of how they have used all expenses claimed?
After all, if they've nothing to hide such a disclosure should be conclusive proof and it would put the onus on the other parties to do the same?
Or is it (for some reason which you can perhaps elaborate on) better to deflect attention by attempting to throw mud at your opponents???
Actually they have. It is a matter of public record who they employ and how much they are spending on offices.
Key word there is "all" and if you can point me in direction of the full breakdown of those other costs you mentioned, I'd be grateful