Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 112122	2010-08-24 22:41:00	Ex Children's Commissioner sentence	John H (8)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1131444	2010-08-25 21:33:00	I still dont see the problem....he gets say 30k worth of discounted flights a year, for him or his family to use okay. The discount wasn't for him doing paid work. Apparently they turn a blind eye when the travel is for volunteer unpaid charitable work. Do you buy up as many IT specials as you can from your suppliers and recommend them to your clients at full price? Just wondering :p	PaulD (232)
1131445	2010-08-25 23:03:00	The discount wasn't for him doing paid work. Apparently they turn a blind eye when the travel is for volunteer unpaid charitable work. Do you buy up as many IT specials as you can from your suppliers and recommend them to your clients at full price? Just wondering :p To answer your question, no I do not, but if I did, you are saying that is wrong? Not following your 1st sentence...I didnt think he was getting paid, maybe he was?, I'm failing to see the point there especially as the following sentence says the turn a blind eye!	SolMiester (139)
1131446	2010-08-25 23:03:00	He was double-dipping, getting paid travel expenses by the government and also claiming travel expenses for the same journey from the charity, so it is said on National Radio. Definitely willful intent to defraud.	zqwerty (97)
1131447	2010-08-25 23:10:00	He was double-dipping, getting paid travel expenses by the government and also claiming travel expenses for the same journey from the charity, so it is said on National Radio. Definitely willful intent to defraud. I understand he was claiming travel allowance for MORE than he paid, as he only paid the discounted fare. However if you look at it from his perspective, the charity would paid full price if he didn't have the discount and why should he use his perk for the charity when he is giving his time in the 1st place. Yes, he made a false claim, NO, he wasn't diddling anyone in my opinion as the discount was his in the 1st instance... Am I missing something else?	SolMiester (139)
1131448	2010-08-25 23:12:00	Yes, you are missing one vital point...his actions are fraudulent under our law!	KarameaDave (15222)
1131449	2010-08-26 01:34:00	Yes, you are missing one vital point...his actions are fraudulent under our law! Yes a fraudulent claim!, but he hasn't stolen anything that wasn't his in the 1st place...I just cant see why some people are treating this like hes the worst criminal since ...blah blah blah!	SolMiester (139)
1131450	2010-08-26 02:10:00	I understand he was claiming travel allowance for MORE than he paid, as he only paid the discounted fare. However if you look at it from his perspective, the charity would paid full price if he didn't have the discount and why should he use his perk for the charity when he is giving his time in the 1st place. Yes, he made a false claim, NO, he wasn't diddling anyone in my opinion as the discount was his in the 1st instance... Am I missing something else? Indeed you are. You seem unable to perceive the lack of business ethics in McClay's actions, why is that ? If he had fronted up and said to the various charities that he was claiming travel discounts as an ex-mp and hence they need only pay him the difference, that would have been fine. If the charities then also insisted on paying him the full travel expense knowing he was in receipt of government money, then that also would have been fine in principle, though Parliamentary Services would also have had to approve of the arrangement (which I doubt they would have).	Terry Porritt (14)
1131451	2010-08-26 02:20:00	However if you look at it from his perspective, the charity would paid full price if he didn't have the discount and why should he use his perk for the charity when he is giving his time in the 1st place. Yes, he made a false claim, NO, he wasn't diddling anyone in my opinion as the discount was his in the 1st instance... Am I missing something else? "In late 2005, he began working for World Vision as a government lobbyist, for which he was paid an annual salary of $66,000. In September 2006, McClay was elected chairman of Keep New Zealand Beautiful and was paid an honorarium of $25,000 a year." At a combined total of $91,000 I don't think he was giving his time. Because he was being paid to do the job AFAIK he couldn't use discount travel.	PaulD (232)
1131452	2010-08-26 02:48:00	Fraud, steal....same thing in my book....gaining through devious means.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
1131453	2010-08-26 03:06:00	Hehehehe! I don't know what the debate is about. The plonker is a self confessed fraudster. It doesn't seem to have occurred to Solmeister that if there was the slightest chance of wriggle room on these charges - the merest sniff of a defence - he would have been in there like a hairy dog. As it is, even he recognised he was guilty and that was his plea (after wriggling out of a whole bunch of other charges during a plea bargaining process). Oh wait, maybe he would have pleaded not guilty if Solmeister had been his barrister! Hahahahaha! What riles me is the sense of entitlement these MPs seem to have once they get their snouts in the trough.	John H (8)
1 2 3 4