Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673818)

Blimey, you have access to much more detailed information about Cllr. Britcliffe's comings and goings than the journalists at the Observer.

Was the 30p a tip?

I hope it's not too much of a burden having friends in such high places, and being used as a mouthpiece.

We'll have to start calling you Emu, Nookie Bear, or would you prefer Lord Charles?

Did the £12.30 include a nice 'gottle of gear' for Cllr. Britcliffe?

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/ic...3E9F2B9B27.jpg

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 673828)

No he paid for his own wine:D Well as you have pointed out on more than one occasion that I am a friend of the Leader of the Council, it was only when I was talking to Peter this morning on another issue ( the Rovers) that I mentioned the expenses issue, it was then I got chapter and verse on the subject, its just a pity that the Observer couldn't be bother about printing the whole details instead of printing half a story, but then it wouldn't have stirred the pot for people like your good self would it Rindi

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673837)

Perhaps he'd have been wiser to have told the press present at the meeting how much he actually spent in London (much less than the voted for increase), than yourself?

Let's also not forget that it's less than two years ago that Cllr. Britcliffe caused more public outrage, when he voted to award himself what was basically a 20% increases in expenses for himself.

Expenses rise sparks fury in council chamber - News - Accrington Observer

As stated earlier, perhaps Cllr. Britcliffe might better use his money on some good P.R.

It might then appear to those stuggling because of the credit crunch,that he's less like Marie 'let them eat cake' Antoinette, and wouldn't have petulant quotes appearing in the press, about people should write guide books if they know of anywhere in London where you can eat for a tenner, when you quite clearly can.

As well as making clear that the ivory tower of Scaitcliffe House isn't immune from the economic worries that the rest of the country is facing, he'd also look a little more like he was in tune with the feelings of the residents of Hyndburn, and not so woefully out of touch with reality.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 673793)

Maybe, just maybe, if the Observer had published the whole facts about councillors expenses for staying away from home on council business, the big furore could have been avoided. I think, not for the first time the Observer have been guilty of using journalist licence or in other words why let the truth get in the way of a good story. The facts of the issue are as follows.
The allowances claimed by councillors are set by an Independent Revue Body, the allowances for overnight accommodation were set at £110 for accommodation and £10 for meal allowance around 5 or 6 years ago, on revue it was recommended the the maximum allowances be increased to £145 and £25 respectively. These amounts are not what councillors are paid but what is the upper limit that can be claimed. Councillors who stay away on council business have to furnish all receipts for meals and accomadation in order to claim back out of pocket expenses, a fact that was not mentioned in the Observer article last Friday. Over the last 12 months Councillor Britcliffe has stayed away on council business just one night, that was when he visited Downing Street representing Hyndburn. On this occasion his accommodation was pre-booked on line prior to going, the cost of which was £79 for overnight accommodation Bed and Breakfast in central London and he claimed £12-30p for an evening meal. I hardly think that by any stretch of the imagination can be classed as Living of the fat of the land

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 673878)

Rindi, your mouthwash ain't making it:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by claytonender (Post 673924)

Was Councillor Britcliffe's attendance at the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth in July 2008 not classed as a stay away on Hyndburn Council business?

Originally Posted by katex (Post 673932)

Noticed you opposed these increases Claytonender .. just wait until you have to stay away to a Conference on Council business. Being a woman is worse, as we have to look decent, and let's see how much you will have to spend on extras like decent clothes, which you will not get to recompense for.

S'okay for fellas .. they can wear the same evening/day suit every year without note.. but for us ladies ' tis a no, no to wear the same cocktail dress year after year.

Sure you would not wish to represent Hyndburn looking like a bag lady.

Must be a nightmare for a lady Mayor ... how much will she have to spend on her appearance.

There again, do they get a clothing allowance ?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 673939)

I don't think the women, of all social classes, cared what they wore when they threw themselves under the King's horse at the Derby, or were being force fed in Holloway, in order for women to be allowed to vote, or enter that nasty world that is politics.

Originally Posted by katex (Post 673940)

Garinda .. we are in 2009 now !! Get real. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 673949)

Bessie Braddock never looked 'stylish' but was admired and respected

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 673949)

Barbara Castle did have style, and some criticise her for it

Originally Posted by katex (Post 673932)

Noticed you opposed these increases Claytonender .. just wait until you have to stay away to a Conference on Council business. Being a woman is worse, as we have to look decent, and let's see how much you will have to spend on extras like decent clothes, which you will not get to recompense for.

Originally Posted by claytonender (Post 673981)

Also as I travel to London quite often (in a private capacity) I do know how cheaply you can eat out. As for spending extra on clothes, if you shop prudently you can find lots of bargains, my favourite place for buying clothes is Boundary Mill.