Dear All
Baroness Uddin is in a spot of soapy bubble, big soapy bubble.
As a Peer of the realm she is entitled to claim expenses for sitting in the House of Lords. She claimed for a two-bedroom flat in Maidstone as her main residence to receive expenses money under a scheme designed to compensate politicians who live outside London.
Trouble is even although she owns the place she doesn’t live there.
Her neighbours are more than happy to confirm this is the case.
To add insult to injury, she has what looks to be damning evidence on her Facebook website page;
"great sense of belonging to the East End [of London] which has been my home for 30 years".
Please note; “My home”, a very unfortunate use of words.
Baroness Uddinbecame Britain's first Muslim peer in 1998 aged 38, has told the press she had not done anything wrong and insisted she had stayed in the Maidstone flat regularly.
One wonders if a jury will take that version as the Gospel truth.
"I strongly deny that I have never lived there. Indeed I have stayed there regularly since buying it," she said.
So her defence will be based on the definition of what “regularly” means.
A useful person to take the stand is Yvonne Adams, who has lived in the flat next-door, she states;
"I can't emphasise enough how no one has lived there.
"They just haven't. I know that for a fact."
I would say this eye witness account seems plausible and if the Police check Baroness Uddin’s moblie phone records then it could be even more credible as to where she has been living.
Another eye witness for the case should be Plumber Mark Ryan as having first knowledge of the inside of the flat.
He states;
"This place looked like someone had left it ages ago. It was very dusty. It didn't look lived-in. It certainly didn't look like a family home. They told me they were just moving in."
Please note; the use of “They told me they were just moving in”.
Uddin’s husband on the other hand doesn’t appear to be a credible witness as when asked by a reporter he was uncertain about the house in Kent. I suspect his testimony will not stand the test of a Court of Law.
As an aside the Uddin’s have lived in Wapping since 1993 which is inside London but you don’t get to claim the allowance.
So, at the end of the day; Uddin will probably have to restore to technicalities of the wording of the rules to escape justice, there is no such definition under the Lords system as to what a main residence is.
I would expect her lawyers to use this technicality to save her as she looks completely stuffed based on the evidence.
Finally; her main home in Wapping where she is registered to vote is social housing, given she is well above the income bracket to qualify for it, questions should be asked how she obtained it when poor people in the area could not.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Baroness Uddin is in a spot of soapy bubble, big soapy bubble.
As a Peer of the realm she is entitled to claim expenses for sitting in the House of Lords. She claimed for a two-bedroom flat in Maidstone as her main residence to receive expenses money under a scheme designed to compensate politicians who live outside London.
Trouble is even although she owns the place she doesn’t live there.
Her neighbours are more than happy to confirm this is the case.
To add insult to injury, she has what looks to be damning evidence on her Facebook website page;
"great sense of belonging to the East End [of London] which has been my home for 30 years".
Please note; “My home”, a very unfortunate use of words.
Baroness Uddinbecame Britain's first Muslim peer in 1998 aged 38, has told the press she had not done anything wrong and insisted she had stayed in the Maidstone flat regularly.
One wonders if a jury will take that version as the Gospel truth.
"I strongly deny that I have never lived there. Indeed I have stayed there regularly since buying it," she said.
So her defence will be based on the definition of what “regularly” means.
A useful person to take the stand is Yvonne Adams, who has lived in the flat next-door, she states;
"I can't emphasise enough how no one has lived there.
"They just haven't. I know that for a fact."
I would say this eye witness account seems plausible and if the Police check Baroness Uddin’s moblie phone records then it could be even more credible as to where she has been living.
Another eye witness for the case should be Plumber Mark Ryan as having first knowledge of the inside of the flat.
He states;
"This place looked like someone had left it ages ago. It was very dusty. It didn't look lived-in. It certainly didn't look like a family home. They told me they were just moving in."
Please note; the use of “They told me they were just moving in”.
Uddin’s husband on the other hand doesn’t appear to be a credible witness as when asked by a reporter he was uncertain about the house in Kent. I suspect his testimony will not stand the test of a Court of Law.
As an aside the Uddin’s have lived in Wapping since 1993 which is inside London but you don’t get to claim the allowance.
So, at the end of the day; Uddin will probably have to restore to technicalities of the wording of the rules to escape justice, there is no such definition under the Lords system as to what a main residence is.
I would expect her lawyers to use this technicality to save her as she looks completely stuffed based on the evidence.
Finally; her main home in Wapping where she is registered to vote is social housing, given she is well above the income bracket to qualify for it, questions should be asked how she obtained it when poor people in the area could not.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
No comments:
Post a Comment