Government refuses to pay for evacuee

TheNorm · 27-01-2007, 18:46

This sounds rather unfair to me...

Quote:

SERVICES may have to be cut across Uttlesford as the Government has refused to reimburse the Â£45,000 the district council spent on responding to the arrival of Lebanese evacuees.

Around 600 British nationals arrived at Stansted Airport on three Government chartered planes from the Akrotiri Airport in Cyprus on the weekend of July 22.

Saffron Walden's MP is angry council tax payers have been left footing the bill after Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said UDC should have had reserves to meet the cost....

http://www.saffronwalden-reporter.co...A16%3A01%3A510

The local council had previously been praised for dealing with the situation in a rapid, humane fashion. This decision by Ruth Kelly seems particularly harsh as not every council has an international airport in its backyard.

What do you think - is this a local or a national "problem"?

Taf · 27-01-2007, 18:52

I think they are evacuee refugees.....

If HMG brings them over here, HMG should pay all costs from central taxation surely?

bonzoe · 27-01-2007, 18:58

Typical of this government, ducks and dives to get out of paying for anything.

lostandconfused · 27-01-2007, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonzoe

Typical of this government, ducks and dives to get out of paying for anything.

not strictly true, i believe it was HMG that paid for the pay rise for our hardworking MP's albeit probably through an indirect tax rise

TheNorm · 27-01-2007, 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostandconfused

not strictly true, i believe it was HMG that paid for the pay rise for our hardworking MP's albeit probably through an indirect tax rise

Good point! As a Cabinet Minister, Ruth Kelly's salary is Â£136,677 per annum*. The money for a pay rise would have to come from somewhere!

* http://www.parliament.uk/faq/pay_faq_page.cfm

Xaccers · 27-01-2007, 22:24

Ruth Kelly sticks two fingers up at tax payers?
Where have I heard that before...

AndyCambs · 28-01-2007, 11:49

Quote:

Who decides how much MPs are paid?
Since 1971 the principle has been established that an independent review body should make recommendations on MPs pay, the final decision resting with the House itself.

Strange how ordinary people can't decide how much their salary is.
I wonder how many MPs vote against a pay rise??

---------- Post added at 11:49 ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Good point! As a Cabinet Minister, Ruth Kelly's salary is Â£136,677 per annum*. The money for a pay rise would have to come from somewhere!

* http://www.parliament.uk/faq/pay_faq_page.cfm

Poor dear!
How on earth can she make ends meet on that (along with the additional allowances....)

etccarmageddon · 28-01-2007, 12:50

is it cos they were "British nationals"?

anyway the irony is.... if they had the "reserves" to meet this but hadn't spent the reserves this year then next year their central government funding of council tax would have been reduced cos they had 'spare' dosh thus making the concept of 'reserves' pointless.

BBKing · 28-01-2007, 22:44

Can't we send the bill to Tel Aviv, since it was their aeroplanes that caused people to flee? Let's have some reparations, chaps. We could send Lord Levy to ask them for some cash, he's good at that and has a flat there anyway.

marky · 28-01-2007, 22:54

So the local council put them in the Hilton hotel, why should central gov pay for that??
It should have been a hostel

Xaccers · 29-01-2007, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Can't we send the bill to Tel Aviv, since it was their aeroplanes that caused people to flee? Let's have some reparations, chaps. We could send Lord Levy to ask them for some cash, he's good at that and has a flat there anyway.

Why not send it to Beruit? After all, their ineffective handling of Hezbollah lead to Hezbollah starting the conflict.

TheNorm · 29-01-2007, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by marky

So the local council put them in the Hilton hotel, why should central gov pay for that??
It should have been a hostel

To be fair:

Quote:

Those 64 evacuees who needed to stay in the district were put up in the Hilton Hotel before being taken to the University of Essex in Colchester.

The Hilton is the nearest hotel to the airport. The student accommodation they were transferred to bears no resemblance to the Hilton, I can assure you!

Perhaps next time something like this happens the aircraft can be directed to land at another airport - Manchester, perhaps, as Ms Kelly is MP for Bolton West.

BBKing · 29-01-2007, 12:59

Oh, rubbish, Xaccers, Israel bombed parts of Lebanon where civilians lived, some of them were British, they had to flee, whose fault is that? If Israel wanted to stop Hizbollah they should have attacked...Hizbollah. Seems a fairly uncontroversial military strategy to me. It's not collateral damage when the attacking enemy soldiers are 60 miles away and you've got the best intel and technology in the region*

Of course, as it turned out Israel lost anyway. I just think they should pay for the damage they caused, as it might make them think twice in the future. Or are you advocating a doctrine of action without consequence? Seems a little strange for a civilised democratic state (although par for the course for neocons who in the next breath announce that they're upholding our values and the rule of law), but if you are I think I'll go and rob a bank in Tel Aviv and claim a guy 60 miles away punched me in the face yesterday.

* Usually. Although not on this occasion.

Xaccers · 29-01-2007, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

Oh, rubbish, Xaccers, Israel bombed parts of Lebanon where civilians lived, some of them were British, they had to flee, whose fault is that? If Israel wanted to stop Hizbollah they should have attacked...Hizbollah. Seems a fairly uncontroversial military strategy to me. It's not collateral damage when the attacking enemy soldiers are 60 miles away and you've got the best intel and technology in the region*

Of course, as it turned out Israel lost anyway. I just think they should pay for the damage they caused, as it might make them think twice in the future. Or are you advocating a doctrine of action without consequence? Seems a little strange for a civilised democratic state (although par for the course for neocons who in the next breath announce that they're upholding our values and the rule of law), but if you are I think I'll go and rob a bank in Tel Aviv and claim a guy 60 miles away punched me in the face yesterday.

* Usually. Although not on this occasion.

Oh that's right, Hezbollah had no forces in civilian areas did they? I totally forgot

You appear to be the one advocating a doctrine of action without consequence, after all you appear to be saying that Lebenon can allow part of its goverment to invade another nation, kidnap a citizen or two and have no repercussions.

foreverwar · 30-01-2007, 12:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Oh that's right, Hezbollah had no forces in civilian areas did they? I totally forgot

You appear to be the one advocating a doctrine of action without consequence, after all you appear to be saying that Lebenon can allow part of its goverment to invade another nation, kidnap a citizen or two and have no repercussions.

Re kidnappings with no repercussions - it would appear Lebanon/Hezbollah are not the only ones doing this....
CIAkidnap
US Fights Redress for CIA Kidnapping 'Mistake'

CIA2
In late June 2005, it was reported that an Italian judge had issued arrest warrants for 13 U.S. CIA agents accused of kidnapping imam Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in Italy in 2003

Rendition