Wednesday, 17 February 2010

Andrew Mackay and Julie Kirkbride's Appeals

Paul Waugh of the Evening Standard has an excellant Blog called 'Mackay and Kirkbride may not want Legg/Kennedy as referees' which I would like to direct my readers too.

As well as linking into Mark Reckons's blogpost about MP Andrew Mackay he finds a damaging verdict which was buried in Sir Paul Kennedy's ruling on their appeals (retired High Court judge).

As Paul Waugh writes (taken from his blog post)

Kirkbride

We learned from Sir Paul that she argued that hubby Mackay's "family" lived in our near her Bromsgrove constituency, "hence making it his natural home". As a result, he claimed ACA for their London home. Ms Kirkbride said that her own designation of London as her natural home stemmed from the fact that she was "based in London as the princpal carer" of her child.

Sir Paul was distinctly unimpressed with this line of argument. "I find it a little difficult to accept your suggestion," he wrote. His final judgment is more brutal:

"To my mind the fundamental reason why the arrangements which you made cannot be regarded as acceptable is that they lost sight of the purpose of ACA, which was to assist Members to fund the cost of accommodation when they needed a second home in order to fulfil their duties.

"It was never intended to relieve them of the costs of their main home, and you operated it in such a way that you achieved that result"

Mackay

Sir Paul says Mackay should have realised that the Fees Office was mistaken in approving his arrangements.

"It seems to me that the advice was plainly mistaken, and indeed that you should have recognised it to be mistaken.

"As I have said in my letter to your wife, the fundamental reason why the arrangements which you made cannot be regarded as acceptable is that they lost sight of the purpose of ACA, which was to assist Members to fund the cost of accommodation when they needed a second home in order to fulfil their duties.

"It was never intended to relieve them of the costs of their main home, and you operated it in such a way that you achieved that result".


I agree with Paul Waugh that this is truly devastating stuff. I also feel that the above is yet more proof that they continue to be in denial of any wrong doing and continue to get away with what every they can.

2 comments:

  1. Instead of hanging her head in shame and going to ground in one of their two homes the wretched woman stands and argues.

    Meanwhile hubby still collects his wage as Bracknells MP he could at least do the decent thing and step down.

    Neither have any concept of the word shameless.

    ReplyDelete