MP’s Gravy Train Claims Now Secret

Once again, the latest and the greatest in scandal-mongering hot gossip from Anarchy Central’s 24/7 Truth & Rumour Mill – with dispatches hand forged and crafted into bespoke satire to tempt the palates of all budding nihilists and career revolutionaries who carry the immortal bloodline of the rebel sons of Belial.

In what has got to constitute the most outrageous abuse of public office since the last most outrageous abuse, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority – composed of dodgy Whitehall career scumbags – have in their infinite, corrupt insanity, omnipotently declared for the public record that MPs suspected of fiddling their expenses will not be named in the future – as exposing them would be ‘unfair’.

So, any of our MPs taking a ride on the House of Conmans gravy train, who file contentious expense claims for the purchase of a floating duck island complete with Quackers Mansion - or have the peasant-clogged moat around their country pile dredged - will be afforded the opportunity to do so in the secure comfort that the nosy bastard public are no longer bestowed with the essential Montesquieu privilege of snooping over their shoulders.

Hmmm, is this questionable ‘get out of jail free’ dispensation also to be applied to MPs suspected of indecent acts of public cottaging, or loading their laptops up with kiddie fiddling porno pics, or committing perjury, or having an intern own up to speeding offences they didn’t commit, or perverting the course of justice in a myriad other ways - or murdering the odd gobby back bencher, we might ask?

Earlier this year, the IPSA watchdog signalled it would expose anybody, in the House of Conmans or the Lords, who had submitted dubious claims and that their hearings would be held in public, following the outcry in 2009 over the original expenses scandal which is still reverberating around Parliament and the courts of justice alike a loud, gnarly fart percussing off the walls of an oil drum latrine.
However, after a few sub rosa discussions with his fellow Masonic types - this elitist fraternity possessed with an absurd sense of entitlement - Luke March, the body’s shifty compliance officer, who doesn’t qualify for a slot in the index of Linnaean taxonomy, has now backtracked, stating that identities will not be revealed until an inquiry is completed – and only if an MP has been found guilty.

This most questionable move means that forty politicians currently under scrutiny for their dodgy expense claims may never be named – nor the nefarious nature of their dodgy expenditures ever revealed.
Whereas Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon - who oversaw expenses probes until the moronic IPSA took charge after the 2010 general election - routinely published names of MPs who were under investigation.

Librarian-Dummerat Blob Russell, the MP for Scumchester, is the only politician known to have been investigated by the compliance officer so far, and after a few pints of Youngers bitter and an exchange of secret handshakes in Parliament's Skangers Bar, the case has since been dropped.

Russell, whose past expense claims have bordered on the pantomime ridiculous - £144,373 for 2008-2009 and £148,968 for 2009-2010 periods - isn’t a bloke exactly renown for his altruism and pro-bono public works – but rather his asinine wars of attrition on mobility scooters for OAPs – and branding taxpaying voters who support the Visual Arts Facility as "expecting the council to fund their bleeding social lives".
Hmmm, and why not, the taxpayers seem to be funding his.

Allergy warning: This article was written in a known propaganda-infested area and may contain traces of slight exaggeration, modest porkies, misaligned references and lashings of bush telegraph innuendo.

Rusty’s Skewed News Views (Purveyors of Bespoke Satire) enhanced with a modest touch of Yeast Logic and a piquant dash of Political Incorrectness: a newsheet and media source not owned by Rupert Murdoch and the Masonic Zionist kikester lobby – and immune from litigation under the statutes of the ‘Fair Comment in the Public Interest’ defence.