Spink: I have not ‘over-claimed £ 2,425.86’

YOU DID, Bob. Any reasonable person would agree…

In your IEP claim, for 31/12/2004, you claimed £118.44 in respect of the firm Banner.

In your next month’s IEP claim, for 31/01/2005, you claim another amount, of £20.41, for the same firm.

In your following month’s IEP claim, 28/02/2005, you provide the Banner statement, detailing the outstanding invoice amounts of £20.41 and £118.44, for which you had provided claims in the previous two months. You then go on to claim the statement’s total of £138.85.

Your over-claim: £138.85.

In your IEP claim for, 31/07/2005, you claim £93.99 in respect of the firm Neat Ideas, and supply the invoice.

In your IEP claim two months later, 30/09/2005, you provide the Neat Ideas‘ statement, detailing the outstanding £93.99 invoice amount, and go on to claim it again.

Your over-claim: £93.99.

The month following your previous over-claim, you detail further Neat Ideas expenditure, for £123.33, in your IEP claim for 31/10/2005 — and provide the invoice.

The next month, in your IEP claim for 30/11/2005, you furnish the Neat Ideas statement for the previous invoice’s outstanding amount of £123.33, and go on to claim it again.

Your over-claim: £123.33.

In your IEP claim for 31/01/2006, you claim for, and provide, a statement from the firm CellHire, in the amount of £332.87. The amount is made up of two outstanding invoices: £276.13 for services provided in December, and £56.74 arising in January. You claim the full amount of £332.87.

Two months later, in your IEP claim for 31/03/2006, you provide the CellHire invoice for January, in the amount of £56.74, and already claimed for two months earlier. You go on to claim the full £56.74.

Your over-claim: £56.74.

In the same month, in your IEP claim for 31/03/2006, you provide, and claim for, a CellHire statement for outstanding invoices due in February and March. The amounts are for £14.78 (Feb) and £111.47 (Mar). The total of the statement, and the amount for which you claimed, is: £126.25.

Two months later, in your IEP claim for 31/05/2006, you furnish a running statement on your CellHire account, which restates the outstanding balance for £111.47 due on the March invoice, and two further sums, for April and May, in the amount of £82.86 and £41.34 respectively. You cross-through the £111.47 correctly (because it had been claimed for in March of the previous fiscal year) and you go on to claim for the remaining amounts, for April and May, in the amount of £124.20.

In your IEP claim for 31/07/2006, you furnish the previous month’s statement from CellHire, indicating that they still await payment for the services they had provided, and their invoiced amounts, for the period February to June. Those amounts are (Feb to Jun): £14.78, £111.47, £82.86, £41.34 and £29.36. The statement’s total is for £279.81 — and you claimed all of it.

Your over-claim: £250.45.

In your CA claim for 31/12/2007, you claim for £1,762.50 in regards to ‘Newsletter printing’ and provide a statement from London and Essex Newspapers detailing an invoice, for that same amount, raised in that month. You claim the full amount.

Two months later, in your CA claim for 29/02/2008, you label an item ‘Consituency Report,’ and back it up with another statement from London and Essex Newspapers, detailing that their December invoice, in the amount of £1,762.50, is now two months overdue.

You claim the statement’s total: £1,762.50.

Your over-claim: £1,762.50.

That brings your total over-claim, which can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, to a total of: £2,425.86.

All supporting documents are contained in your published expenses. For the record, I provide my working papers, which also contain an analysis of your IEP and CA expenditure, quoted in my Saturday’s email to you, here: Bob Spink.PDF

I conclude by bringing your attention to the following facts:-

Each Communication Allowance members’ reimbursement form that you sign states:-

Use this form to ask us TO REIMBURSE you for costs you have incurred on your Parliamentary duties.

The BLOCK CAPITALS are my own; but they are only there because you (or someone else) have circled that very phrase on your first CA claim form for 31/05/07.

I also point-out that each Incidental Expenses Provision members’ reimbursement form, which you also sign, clearly states:-

You can only claim for costs you have actually paid.

It saddens me that the tone of your email response was such that I decided to publish the full text of our communication. This has never been about you Bob: it is about the Public’s Right To Know.

I personally regret that you did not take the sixty-hour window, which I purposely provided you with, to launch an internal investigation and put these matters right.

It need not have come to this…

… (24/06/2009) – The Page That Will Not Go Away

… (27/06/2009) – Spink Claimed £1,053.98 For ‘General Media Advice’

… (24/08/2009) – Spink’s letter to Sir Christopher Kelly, whinging about his expenses and revealing, ‘in total confidence,’ that he does not actually live at his Downer Road address; but ‘at another house’ in his constituency.

… (Ted Pugh, 24/09/2009) – The Fat Lady Still Hasn’t Sung

… (12/12/2009) – Bob And Other MPs Exploit Loophole To Claim Thousands Without Receipts

… (Ted Pugh, 24/12/2009) – Let’s Not Spoil Dinner This Year…

The Town Where Pupils Speak 150 Languages

(Daily Mail) – SCHOOLS IN JUST ONE TOWN are having to cope with pupils who speak 150 different languages, a survey has found.

They range from the Ghanaian dialect of Akan, through the African language of Chichewa and the ancient Aztec tongue of Nahuatl to the Indian language of Telugu.

This is as well as the more common foreign languages of Urdu, Punjabi and Polish.

The survey in Reading, Berkshire, shows how schools are being put under mounting pressure by the rising levels of pupils who do not speak English as their first language.

In a bid to ease the burden, Reading Borough Council, is offering discounted English lessons for both children and adults.

The aim is to get children, whose command of English is often much better, to help their families learn it.

Lesley Reilly, head of adult learning at the authority, said: ‘Our aim is to involve stakeholders in community groups across the town to encourage people to join the English classes.

‘Our target is to reach more men, unemployed people, learners recently arrived in Reading and parents of primary pupils.’

The classes are being run as part of English for Speakers of Other Languages, a government initiative to encourage people to integrate in the community.

The Government described the number of languages and dialects spoken by pupils in Reading as ‘extraordinary’ and conceded that it would place schools under extra pressure.

The figures suggest that language barriers are making it increasingly difficult for teachers to communicate with their pupils.

It was revealed in 2005 that pupils at Woodside High School in Tottenham, north London, spoke as many as 58 languages, with many arriving at the comprehensive unable to speak any English.

Pupils at a primary school in the West Midlands were found to speak 33 different languages in 2003.

Conservative MP Philip Davies said: ‘It’s very worrying and Labour’s lax immigration policies are a huge factor in this.

‘It is also a result of political correctness. We haven’t really made people integrate properly into British society.’

1.3M NHI Numbers Given To Foreign Workers Since PM’s ‘British jobs for British workers’ Pledge

(Telegraph) – MORE THAN 1.3 million national insurance numbers have been given to foreign workers in the two years since Gordon Brown’s controversial “British Jobs for British Workers” pledge.

Between July 2007 and June 2009, 1,370,820 NI numbers were allocated to foreign workers , the Department of Work and Pensions figures disclosed.

This was despite the country being mired in the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Critics said the figures, obtained by the Tories, were part of mounting evidence that Mr Brown had failed to protect the jobs of British workers over foreign nationals.

Shortly before taking office in the summer of 2007, Mr Brown made the commitment, which was then repeated during his first party conference speech in September that year.

“This is yet another example of the chaos within the immigration system,” Baroness Warsi, the Tory communities spokeswoman, said.

“These figures show that all the tough talk about protecting British jobs was just hot air.

“We can’t go on like this. We must bring immigration under control, and improve the education and training of British workers.”

National Insurance numbers can be issued for a number of reasons.

They are needed to work legally in the UK – but are also required to claim benefits.

Whitehall figures show the number of foreign-born workers has risen by 22,000 while at the same time, the number of British-born employees has slumped by 625,000.

Immigration Minister Phil Woolas told the Daily Express: “We recognise the benefit to our economy and culture from immigration.

“We’re also very clear that it needs to be controlled.”

Work and Pensions Minister Angela Eagle added: “These national insurance numbers include people coming to study and to do part-time work, and many have subsequently returned home.”

Motown Tribute Case To Test UK Libel Law

(Guardian) – IT BEGAN as an obscure, if heartfelt, legal squabble between a Motown covers band popular on the cruise ship circuit and their Cambridgeshire-based booking agents. But now a case originating from a disputed engagement at an Italian restaurant in Leeds could bring about significant easing of the UK’s famously tough libel laws.

The row between the Gillettes – a soul vocal trio – and 1311 Events is to be examined by the UK supreme court because it hinges on interpretations of a key defence in defamation trials: that of fair comment.

It will be the first study of the issue by the country’s highest legal authority since the law lords looked into it almost 20 years ago. Media organisations hope it will clear away a tangle of legal complexities around a defence which many claim has become increasingly difficult to mount in recent years: that an opinion is not libellous if it is based on fact, is in the public interest and is levelled without malice.

The wrangling dates back to New Year’s Eve 2006, when the Gillettes, whose regular clients include cruise lines, holiday parks and corporate firms, were booked to play at Bibis restaurant. The venue liked them but, according to legal documents, thought their agent was “a total tosser” and booked the trio directly for another date a few months later.

Jason Spiller, the owner of 1311, believed this broke a “re-engagement clause” in the band’s contract which said repeat bookings had to go through the agency. He placed a notice on his company’s website saying it was no longer dealing with the Gillettes as they had told him “contracts hold no water in legal terms”.

A band member, Craig Joseph, had sent 1311 an email to this effect, but it referred only to “your contract”. The Gillettes sued for libel, saying the inference that they routinely ignored contracts was defamatory and had cost them bookings.

Lawyers acting for 1311 planned a defence based on justification – that the website comments were essentially true and fair comment. But in May last year, shortly before the trial, the band successfully applied to the high court to get both of these defences struck out. An appeal in October saw this judgement reversed, but a new objection by the Gillettes’ legal team saw the fair comment defence removed.

David Price, acting for Spiller and 1311, said the supreme court case highlighted arguments over whether fair comment, intended to guarantee freedom of expression, had become undermined by complex rules, particularly the extent to which a piece of comment had to specifically spell out the background facts:

“The supreme court clearly isn’t taking on this case because of what it’s about. They’re taking it because they believe the principles are really important and it could be said that fair comment is becoming too difficult,” he said. “The argument is that English law has become incredibly restrictive in this area, thereby inhibiting people from proper comment.”

The issue as it relates to the press was illustrated late last year when a high court judge struck out a fair comment defence by the Daily Telegraph over a book review by the writer Lynn Barber. Sir Charles Grey said Barber’s disapproving comments about the journalistic practices of Dr Sarah Thornton, author of Seven Days in the Art World, could only stand as fair comment if supported by more evidence.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, has appointed a series of senior lawyers, newspaper executives and scientists to a panel which will consider changes to the libel laws. Straw said one of the issues to be examined would be whether current law was having a “chilling effect” on freedom of expression.

Thousands To Lose University Jobs

(Guardian) - UNIVERSITIES across the country are preparing to axe thousands of teaching jobs, close campuses and ditch courses to cope with government funding cuts, the Guardian has learned.

Other plans include using post-graduates rather than professors for teaching and the delay of major building projects. The proposals have already provoked ballots for industrial action at a number of universities in the past week raising fears of strike action which could severely disrupt lectures and examinations.

The Guardian spoke to vice-chancellors and other senior staff at 25 universities, some of whom condemned the funding squeeze as “painful” and “insidious”. They warned that UK universities were being pushed towards becoming US-style, quasi-privatised institutions.

The cuts are being put in place to cope with the announcement last week by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) that £449m – equivalent to more than a 5% reduction nationally – would be stripped out of university budgets.

The University and College Union (UCU) believes that more than 15,000 posts – the majority academic – could disappear in the next few years. Precise funding figures for each university will be released on 18 March.

The chairman of the Russell Group of elite institutions, Professor Michael Arthur, vice-chancellor of Leeds University, warned that budgets would be further slashed by 6% in each of the next three years. Last month he described the cuts as “devastating”.

The savings envisaged include:-

• More than 200 jobs losses at King’s College, London, around 150 at the University of Westminster and, unions claim, as many as 700 at Leeds, 340 at Sheffield Hallam and 300 at Hull.
• Entire campus closures at Cumbria and Wolverhampton universities, where buildings will be mothballed and students transferred to other sites.
• Teesside University scrapping £2m worth of scholarships and bursaries that would have helped poorer students. It will also share services with a further education college in Darlington.
• Postponing plans for a £25m creative arts building at Worcester and £12m science block at Hertfordshire.
• Under-subscribed arts and humanities courses are being dropped. The University of the West of England has already stopped offering French, German and Spanish; Surrey has dropped its BA in humanities.
• Student/lecturer ratios are expected to rise, with more institutions using postgraduates and short term staff filling in for professors made redundant.

Ballots for industrial action are due to be held or are pending at the University of the Arts, Sussex University, the University of Gloucestershire and King’s College London. Lecturers at Leeds – where 750 posts are at risk – voted by a large majority to strike this week.

Higher exam pass marks will be required to win a place at university, according to the survey of academic principals. The cap on student numbers – set at 2008 levels – is restricting entry just as youth unemployment is peaking and intensifying competitive pressure.

Peter Mandelson, the business secretary who is in charge of universities, accused the principals of “gross exaggerations” and “extreme language”, but would not be drawn over whether he would make further cuts to higher education. Universities had to do “no more than their fair share of belt-tightening,” he said.

“We know that universities have a vital contribution to our economic growth, so we are not going to undermine them. We are asking for savings of less than 5% and we expect universities to make these in a way that minimises the impact on teaching and students. I am confident they will.”

Mandelson also denied claims by vice-chancellors that he was letting arts and humanities courses close and cared only about maths and science degrees.

On Monday it was announced that an extra £10m would go to the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics to support universities “that are shifting the balance of their provision towards these subjects”.

Mandelson said: “I am an arts graduate myself. We don’t dictate to universities which courses they put on. They tailor courses to meet demand. We want universities to play to their strengths, but we also want to keep this country civilised.”

The pattern of cutbacks is not uniform, with some universities insisting they have been preparing for the downturn. Many have already dropped more vulnerable subjects such as music and history, increased fees for part-time students and expect to become even more reliant on income from higher, overseas student fees.

The vice-chancellor of Southampton, Professor Don Nutbeam, told the Guardian: “This [decision by Hefce] is one of a series of insidious cuts that have been made to higher education.”

Professor Geoffrey Petts, vice-chancellor of Westminster University, said: “After a decade of huge successes in higher education we suddenly have to rethink.”

Tomorrow the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (Ucas) is due to announce record numbers of applications for places this autumn. It is expected that as many as 300,000 applicants will be turned away.

The surge in demand comes as a government-commissioned independent review considers whether to raise tuition fees from £3,225 per year to up to £7,000. Over three years total cuts will amount to at least £950m.

The policy adopted by the government is in stark contrast to the response in the US where President Obama this week proposed a 31% increase in education spending for next year in order to combat unemployment and develop skills.

Spink Wages Deniability-Based Campaign

WITH JUST TWO or three months to go to a general election, Bob Spink, our local MP, seems uncharacteristically reserved in providing swathes of press releases to the local media.

Initially, I had thought the storm of releases, following Julian’s starting-gun, might indicate the main means by which he would attempt to promote whatever small message he has this year; but it appears that the reaction of the Echo’s commenters, and readers of this blog, to Spink’s ‘news,’ has given him second thoughts.

Local voters, Spink cannot have failed to notice, are no longer accepting what he says at face value. And, despite Spink’s litigious nature, commenters are voicing their opinions, which everyone has a legal right to do. (What is denied to everyone, in Law, is to state something as fact without having the means to prove it).

Unlike the rest of us, Spink, as an MP, does not have to prove anything he says in the house. He is privileged in that respect. But, outside the house, the same rules apply to him as everybody else – and that gives Dr Bob Spink, Independent MP, a problem…

This blog can reveal that, last Tuesday, The Guardian carried a quote from Spink concerning his time with the local Conservative Party, which, in fact, was an outright lie. Had it been a statement from a member of the public about Spink, he would most certainly have brought a charge of libel; but, had it been made by a member of the public, the Guardian’s reporter would also have verified the claim before going to press. The fact is, journalists expect politicians to speak the truth (granting some leeway for inevitable spin). But they do not expect to be directly lied to.

Normally, anything a national newspaper prints about Spink immediately becomes fodder for a press release to the Echo; but it is not known if that was the case this time. What is known, however, is that the Echo did not publish. (Which is just as well, because, had it done so, it would have been vigorously sued for its pains).

Those involved do not believe the Guardian should be sued for printing something their reporter, having no local knowledge, was entitled to believe (since it was provided by an MP). And they also believe it will not be worthwhile pursuing Spink at this time – because he will simply deny making the statement and any action would detract from the general election. However, that does not mean that suitable action will not be taken after the election is out-of-the-way.

The problem with providing a Press Release is that anything in it is directly attributable to the author. If it transpires that it contains a lie, the newspaper and the author can be sued. (Which is why it behoves all journalists to check their facts vigorously before publication).

But there is something to be said for using the Internet to distribute ‘un-attributable’ statements. Statements that are apparently made; but which can be denied should the need arise.

I might, for instance, post on the Echo’s comment section, using my own name, to libel the Labour candidate. But should Julian complain, I can always say ‘It was not me. It must have been someone else using my name.’

Could the Echo prove it was me? Well, the answer is yes; but not without enormous difficulty. And Julian would need to gamble that I had been stupid enough to use my own home or mobile broadband account. (The chances are an intrepid journalist like myself would have had sense enough to use an internet café or some other form of anonymous connection). So Julian would probably have no other recourse than to complain to my union and the UK Press Card Authority, setting-out his suspicions. But I am such an upstanding journalist, that it would be difficult for him to make a promising case for my credentials to be withdrawn. Just as it would be difficult to prove a similar case against an ‘upstanding’ MP.

On Friday, someone purporting to be ‘Bob spink, independent MP for Castle Point [sic]’ posted the following comment in response to the Evening Standard’s Expensesgate should humble MPs article.

THERE are picky arguments you can have with Sir Thomas Legg, such as over his attempt to change the law on expenses retrospectively. Some of the flaws in his report are inevitable as he was asked to deliver swift justice following the furore at the behaviour of some MPs; a little humility from all of us in Parliament would go a long way towards reassuring the public that we recognise how unacceptable the existing system is.

It’s amazing to see David Cameron now proposing the same reforms to clean up the allowance system he criticised Dai Davies MP and me for tabling as early day motions two years before the scandal first broke.

But the debate should now move on to tackle other abuses such as homeflipping and to challenge the idea that MPs should be able to draw millions in salaries from additional jobs incompatible with being a full-time representative. The public deserves to know not just what their MP is claiming but also the total value for money they are getting from them in terms of time spent on Parliamentary and constituency work.

It contains a number of blatant untruths:-

• Sir Thomas Legg made no ‘attempt to change the law on expenses retrospectively.’ He simply applied the rules that were in force at the time.
• Sir Thomas Legg was not asked to ‘deliver swift justice following the furore at the behaviour of some MPs.’ He was simply asked to report on MPs expenses.
• Legg’s report was not about the unacceptablility of the expenses ’system.’ It was about the financial conduct of individual MPs.
• David Cameron, in no way, ‘is now proposing the same reforms to clean up the allowance system he criticised Dai Davies MP and me [Bob Spink?] for tabling as early day motions two years before the scandal first broke.’

It seems that I am spending most of my time pointing-out Bob’s spin (some would say lies) that is attributed to him. I fully expect, at any moment, to be served with a charge of posting ‘these lies’ myself.

If those lawyers are reading this, then please note I will willingly give my permission to Tiscali and O2 to release details of my Internet usage for any period you request. And I will happily attend any ‘identity parade’ to discover my use of Internet Cafés as the occasion warrants.

I will end this piece with the understated comment made by an unknown contributor to the Evening Standard’s article, referencing Spink’s last sentence:-

The public deserves to know the total value for money they are getting from their MP Bob Spink.

And, no. That was not me either…

I’m willing if you are, Bob…