David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
55 Americans in one month. For what ?
A very powerful piece of writing by Bryan Forbes
- Thread starter David Morton
- Start date
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
I was involved in the Nimrod Fleet in the Royal Air Force from 1970 until 1976 full time and then until 1994 in the reserve. The aeroplanes were getting rather old by that time having been in service nearly twenty five years and had loads of hasty mods done as a result of the Falklands war and Gulf War 1 such as refuelling probes and specialist comms equipment and various missiles. The last dramatic incident was aeroplane number XV230 in Kandahar when the crew were lost as the aeroplane exploded in mid air. The Crew was from Nimrod Squadron 120 based at R.A.F. Kinloss in Scotland and it was crew 3.
I flew as part of 120sqn crew 3 until 1994 and though the crew had been changed several times since my involvement in that crew, on Maritime Squadrons crew affinity and kinship always remains.
Today, a report that has taken nearly three years - since the accident - has been published and names quite a few senior people that are in some way to blame and the R.A.F along with the Ministry of Defence are guilty of putting cost savings before airworthiness. Waiting for this report has been a difficult period for the families but now they have some specific names to target and I really do now expect some massive law suits to follow in the footsteps of this tragedy.
I for one get some comfort from the fact that some lessons may have been learned but in this cost conscious world we live in, these wars are maybe just one cost too far.
Here is the Telegraph write up on this report:
Nimrod crash review: report criticises MoD and private companies
Four senior military officers, five defence contractors and a former civil servant have been strongly criticised over the events that led to the crash of Nimrod XV 230 in 2006.
<!-- Make sure there is no whitespoace at the end of the bline -->By James Kirkup
Published: 8:00PM GMT 28 Oct 2009
In particular, BAE bears substantial responsibility, the report says Photo: PA
The ten men are all identified as key figures in a history of the flaws that brought down Nimrod XV230 on 2 September 2006 began decades before the aircraft took off on its final flight.
The independent review by Charles Haddon-Cave QC details a long list of failures and oversights by technicians, defence companies, commanders and ministers that led to the crash, which killed 14 British service personnel.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
The review is clear that the XV230 caught fire and crashed because fuel overflowed during a mid-air refuelling operation, and then ignited when it came into contact with the hot metal of a duct from the aircraft’s supplementary cooling pack.
The pack, which included pipes heated to more than 400 C, was a long-standing modification made to Nimrods, installed in 1979 to ensure the aircraft’s huge array of electronic equipment could be kept cool enough to function. The pack combined with an earlier modification, made in 1969, to channel hot air away from the plane’s engines.
Another botched modification came in 1989 when the Nimrods were adapted for air-to-air-refuelling. The new systems raised the risk of fuel leaking, the inquiry found.
The three changes introduced critical design flaws to the aircraft which played a “crucial part” in the loss of the XV230. Yet for years, those flaws were missed by engineers and not addressed by an “unsatisfactory” RAF maintenance regime.
In 1998, an official MoD report warned of the dangers posed by continuing to fly the Nimrods, aircraft which even then were considered to be “ageing”.
In 2002, the MoD introduced new regulations requiring a “safety case” for all military aircraft. These all-round assessments were intended to “identify, assess, and mitigate potentially catastrophic hazards before they could cause an accident.”
In the case of the Nimrod, the safety case was drawn up by BAE Systems and an “Integrated Project Team” at the MoD. QinetiQ, a defence firm, advised on the project.
The safety review represented “the best opportunity to capture the serious design flaws in the Nimrod which had lain dormant for years,” the review concluded.
However, that opportunity was spectacularly and disastrously missed.
The safety case was “a lamentable job from start to finish” and “riddled with errors,” Mr Haddon-Cave said. “It missed the key dangers. Its production is a story of incompetence, complacency, and cynicism.”
In particular, BAE bears substantial responsibility, the report says.
Its work was “riddled with errors of fact, analysis and risk categorisation”. In particular, the “catastrophic fire hazard” presented by the supplementary cooling pack duct was wrongly assessed as “tolerable”.
That assessment is especially striking because while the BAE review was underway, another Nimrod, XV227, suffered a rupture in the duct of its SCP. That incident should have been a “wake-up call” to the danger, the inquiry found. But the warning was ignored.
And when BAE handed over the safety case work to the BAE, it gave the “misleading impression” that it had fully and properly completed the work. That left the MoD with a “false sense of security” about Nimrod safety.
Three senior BAE employees are named and criticised in the review:
Chris Lowe, the chief airworthiness engineer, Richard Oldfield, the the leader of the Nimrod review for BAE Systems; and Eric Prince he company's flight systems and avionics manager
If they had done their job properly, Mr Haddon-Cave said, the risk of a fire would have been reduced and the accident “would have been avoided.”
The MoD team involved in the safety case also failed, he said. If it had done its job properly and adequately supervised the BAE work, there was a “good prospect” that the accident would have been averted.
The MoD team was led by Group Captain (now Air Commodore) George Baber. Wing Commander Michael Eagles oversaw the safety case. Both are still serving. Also criticised is Frank Walsh, an MoD official who was the safety manager for the Nimrod review. He has now left the MoD.
Martyn Mahy and Colin Blagrove of Qinetiq, are also criticised.
As well as attributing blame over the safety case, the review also strongly criticises a wider culture around safety and risk in defence that was created by politicians and senior commanders.
The catalogue of failures to address the safety risks came amid a budget cuts and a gradual shift in the culture of the British defence establishment that prized financial management over operational safety, the review found.
General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, who both held the post of Chief of Defence Logistics, were both culpable for that, the review said. Both have since retired.
Perhaps most damagingly for the MoD, it also makes clear that the XV230 should not even have been in the air on the day of the accident.
Like other Nimrod MR2 aircraft, XV230 was due to be replaced by a generation of new MR4 Nimrods in 2003. Yet mismanagement and bureaucratic errors in the procurement of the new aircraft meant that deadline was missed.
The new planes have still not entered service, meaning that Nimrods like the XV230 go on flying.
The review concludes: “But for the delays in the Nimrod MRA4 replacement programme, XV230 would probably have no longer have been flying in September 2006.”
I flew as part of 120sqn crew 3 until 1994 and though the crew had been changed several times since my involvement in that crew, on Maritime Squadrons crew affinity and kinship always remains.
Today, a report that has taken nearly three years - since the accident - has been published and names quite a few senior people that are in some way to blame and the R.A.F along with the Ministry of Defence are guilty of putting cost savings before airworthiness. Waiting for this report has been a difficult period for the families but now they have some specific names to target and I really do now expect some massive law suits to follow in the footsteps of this tragedy.
I for one get some comfort from the fact that some lessons may have been learned but in this cost conscious world we live in, these wars are maybe just one cost too far.
Here is the Telegraph write up on this report:
Nimrod crash review: report criticises MoD and private companies
Four senior military officers, five defence contractors and a former civil servant have been strongly criticised over the events that led to the crash of Nimrod XV 230 in 2006.
<!-- Make sure there is no whitespoace at the end of the bline -->By James Kirkup
Published: 8:00PM GMT 28 Oct 2009
The ten men are all identified as key figures in a history of the flaws that brought down Nimrod XV230 on 2 September 2006 began decades before the aircraft took off on its final flight.
The independent review by Charles Haddon-Cave QC details a long list of failures and oversights by technicians, defence companies, commanders and ministers that led to the crash, which killed 14 British service personnel.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
- <LI class=bullet sizset="48" sizcache="23">Cost-cutting led to Nimrod spy plane crash
<LI class=bullet sizset="49" sizcache="23">Nimrod crash: the fatal flight
<!--ACI-->
<LI sizset="50" sizcache="23">RAF to send fifth of rescue crews to Afghanistan
<!--ACI-->
<LI sizset="51" sizcache="23">Gurkha soldier killed by enemy fire in Afghanistan
<!--ACI-->
<LI sizset="52" sizcache="23">General Sir Richard Dannatt: A heroic advocate of the Army
<!--ACI--> - Our soldiers deserve better than this
The review is clear that the XV230 caught fire and crashed because fuel overflowed during a mid-air refuelling operation, and then ignited when it came into contact with the hot metal of a duct from the aircraft’s supplementary cooling pack.
The pack, which included pipes heated to more than 400 C, was a long-standing modification made to Nimrods, installed in 1979 to ensure the aircraft’s huge array of electronic equipment could be kept cool enough to function. The pack combined with an earlier modification, made in 1969, to channel hot air away from the plane’s engines.
Another botched modification came in 1989 when the Nimrods were adapted for air-to-air-refuelling. The new systems raised the risk of fuel leaking, the inquiry found.
The three changes introduced critical design flaws to the aircraft which played a “crucial part” in the loss of the XV230. Yet for years, those flaws were missed by engineers and not addressed by an “unsatisfactory” RAF maintenance regime.
In 1998, an official MoD report warned of the dangers posed by continuing to fly the Nimrods, aircraft which even then were considered to be “ageing”.
In 2002, the MoD introduced new regulations requiring a “safety case” for all military aircraft. These all-round assessments were intended to “identify, assess, and mitigate potentially catastrophic hazards before they could cause an accident.”
In the case of the Nimrod, the safety case was drawn up by BAE Systems and an “Integrated Project Team” at the MoD. QinetiQ, a defence firm, advised on the project.
The safety review represented “the best opportunity to capture the serious design flaws in the Nimrod which had lain dormant for years,” the review concluded.
However, that opportunity was spectacularly and disastrously missed.
The safety case was “a lamentable job from start to finish” and “riddled with errors,” Mr Haddon-Cave said. “It missed the key dangers. Its production is a story of incompetence, complacency, and cynicism.”
In particular, BAE bears substantial responsibility, the report says.
Its work was “riddled with errors of fact, analysis and risk categorisation”. In particular, the “catastrophic fire hazard” presented by the supplementary cooling pack duct was wrongly assessed as “tolerable”.
That assessment is especially striking because while the BAE review was underway, another Nimrod, XV227, suffered a rupture in the duct of its SCP. That incident should have been a “wake-up call” to the danger, the inquiry found. But the warning was ignored.
And when BAE handed over the safety case work to the BAE, it gave the “misleading impression” that it had fully and properly completed the work. That left the MoD with a “false sense of security” about Nimrod safety.
Three senior BAE employees are named and criticised in the review:
Chris Lowe, the chief airworthiness engineer, Richard Oldfield, the the leader of the Nimrod review for BAE Systems; and Eric Prince he company's flight systems and avionics manager
If they had done their job properly, Mr Haddon-Cave said, the risk of a fire would have been reduced and the accident “would have been avoided.”
The MoD team involved in the safety case also failed, he said. If it had done its job properly and adequately supervised the BAE work, there was a “good prospect” that the accident would have been averted.
The MoD team was led by Group Captain (now Air Commodore) George Baber. Wing Commander Michael Eagles oversaw the safety case. Both are still serving. Also criticised is Frank Walsh, an MoD official who was the safety manager for the Nimrod review. He has now left the MoD.
Martyn Mahy and Colin Blagrove of Qinetiq, are also criticised.
As well as attributing blame over the safety case, the review also strongly criticises a wider culture around safety and risk in defence that was created by politicians and senior commanders.
The catalogue of failures to address the safety risks came amid a budget cuts and a gradual shift in the culture of the British defence establishment that prized financial management over operational safety, the review found.
General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, who both held the post of Chief of Defence Logistics, were both culpable for that, the review said. Both have since retired.
Perhaps most damagingly for the MoD, it also makes clear that the XV230 should not even have been in the air on the day of the accident.
Like other Nimrod MR2 aircraft, XV230 was due to be replaced by a generation of new MR4 Nimrods in 2003. Yet mismanagement and bureaucratic errors in the procurement of the new aircraft meant that deadline was missed.
The new planes have still not entered service, meaning that Nimrods like the XV230 go on flying.
The review concludes: “But for the delays in the Nimrod MRA4 replacement programme, XV230 would probably have no longer have been flying in September 2006.”
Last edited:
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Duplication
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Five deaths overnight - an afghan policeman responsible. CAN WE, THE U.K. STAY THERE ANY LONGER?
229 deaths now making it worse than the Falklands.
Do not just sit on your hands. Write to your MP immediately.
229 deaths now making it worse than the Falklands.
Do not just sit on your hands. Write to your MP immediately.
Last edited:
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Here in the UK your children go to a school depending on where you live, Parents will tell fibs (a sort of lie that won't get you barred when it comes time to go to the pearly gates) and give false addresses just to get their children into better schools but now these parent will be prosecuted and even imprisoned. Meanwhile MPs such as Moran, Morley, and Smith have been shagging the heart out of the UK taxpayers moral and stealing money left right and centre and furthermore they will not be prosecuted. Wake up Parliament. Smell the coffee. Kellys report will be public this morning and the already revolting bunch of MPs we have brought upon ourselves will revolt even more I think. What a bunch of total shits.
Last edited:
On Westminster Bridge which is East of the Houses of Parliament there are cast iron railings on the downriver side, which cast curious shadows when the morning sun strikes them.
The direction of said shadows point directly to the House of Commons.
This is a genuine photograph.
The Lord moves in mysterious ways...
The direction of said shadows point directly to the House of Commons.
This is a genuine photograph.
The Lord moves in mysterious ways...
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Keith , You could not make that up. Thats brilliant.
Political debate, argument , and ridicule is alive and well here in the Paddock. Who ever it was made the comment to Ron Earp that he would donate if the Paddock was censored - keep your frigging money but let me know how much you were going to send and I'll see if I can do something instead. If you are really honest - come out and say who you are. You will probably be ridiculed by others here but it's worth a go. If not, put a sock in it.
Political debate, argument , and ridicule is alive and well here in the Paddock. Who ever it was made the comment to Ron Earp that he would donate if the Paddock was censored - keep your frigging money but let me know how much you were going to send and I'll see if I can do something instead. If you are really honest - come out and say who you are. You will probably be ridiculed by others here but it's worth a go. If not, put a sock in it.
Paul Thompson 'Hooligan'
Admin
On Westminster Bridge which is East of the Houses of Parliament there are cast iron railings on the downriver side, which cast curious shadows when the morning sun strikes them.
The direction of said shadows point directly to the House of Commons.
This is a genuine photograph.
The Lord moves in mysterious ways...
Ha ha - I just managed to spit coffee over my laptop screen - :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Excellent find Keith.....
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Amazing.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
YouTube - A tribute to Australian Soldiers in Iraq And Afghanistan and their brothers in arms.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
I really feel that I am able to guage the patriotic sentiment amongs our members and I really feel you are each loyal to the flag in your countries. What has this got to do with remembrance day here in the UK ? My wife is just sitting reading the Times and suddenly shrieked at me "Did you know that Shell have banned the poppy appeal this year?". I really think you guys should know about this. For those outside the UK we have a system where you toss some coin in a collection box in just about every retail outlet in the UK. In return, if you want to, you get a flower shaped paper poppy which you can wear in your lapel/collar. It really is no big deal and costs nothing to the companies doing it - it's a simple charity and the 'poppys' are made by disabled ex servicemen. Last year, the British Legion who organise the whole thing raised £31,000,000 to distribute amongs service (military) charities. I think most of us Brits do it evey year and most are proud of the British Legion.
Fuck Shell. I will run out of fuel and walk before I ever fill up with Shell fuel again.
Veterans to boycott Shell after ban on forecourt poppy sales - Times Online
Another soldier died today -
Fuck Shell. I will run out of fuel and walk before I ever fill up with Shell fuel again.
Veterans to boycott Shell after ban on forecourt poppy sales - Times Online
Another soldier died today -
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
One cannot conceive of such incompetency.
Article from: The courier Mail.
November 08, 2009 11:00pm
<!-- Split page --><!-- Lead Content Panel -->HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars worth of new Army packs and webbing were junked after the equipment failed during pre-deployment training.
One field pack was so heavy and cumbersome that it could not even be dropped during contact with enemy, potentially placing Diggers' lives in danger.
The heavy pack and the extreme weight of an old model of body armour made it almost impossible for soldiers to move quickly during a fire fight.
Despite arduous field testing before the gear was bought, once it was issued to troops for so-called mission rehearsal training it failed miserably.
According to documents obtained by The Courier-Mail, one unit called Combat Team Spear from the 2nd Battalion's Charlie Company registered 187 complaints about the equipment, known as the Individual Combat Load Carrying Equipment, during their training session.
Such was the extent of the problem that commanders allowed soldiers to buy their own load-carrying equipment and 90 per cent took up the offer.
Soldiers have since spent hundreds of dollars on their own webbing and were angered recently when the brass issued a directive banning certain non-issued ammunition pouches that hundreds of soldiers had bought.
The heavy field pack was dropped altogether and the unit was issued with a lighter pack that could not carry as much gear.
In its official publications the army boasted that the gear "employs signature management technology, making it significantly more difficult to see through night vision equipment".
Given that the Taliban does not use night vision gear the Diggers would have preferred a webbing system that actually worked.
After numerous complaints from soldiers the military is also replacing heavy combat body armour with a lighter version at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The problems with the gear prompted a senior official in the purchasing area to ask exactly what the soldiers did during the two-year field evaluation phase.
Article from: The courier Mail.
November 08, 2009 11:00pm
<!-- Split page --><!-- Lead Content Panel -->HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars worth of new Army packs and webbing were junked after the equipment failed during pre-deployment training.
One field pack was so heavy and cumbersome that it could not even be dropped during contact with enemy, potentially placing Diggers' lives in danger.
The heavy pack and the extreme weight of an old model of body armour made it almost impossible for soldiers to move quickly during a fire fight.
Despite arduous field testing before the gear was bought, once it was issued to troops for so-called mission rehearsal training it failed miserably.
According to documents obtained by The Courier-Mail, one unit called Combat Team Spear from the 2nd Battalion's Charlie Company registered 187 complaints about the equipment, known as the Individual Combat Load Carrying Equipment, during their training session.
The complaints, known in the military as Reports on Unsatisfactory or Defence Material or RODUMs, focused on the weight of the field pack, faulty clips and pouches that did not fit the required number of ammunition magazines.Such was the extent of the problem that commanders allowed soldiers to buy their own load-carrying equipment and 90 per cent took up the offer.
Soldiers have since spent hundreds of dollars on their own webbing and were angered recently when the brass issued a directive banning certain non-issued ammunition pouches that hundreds of soldiers had bought.
The heavy field pack was dropped altogether and the unit was issued with a lighter pack that could not carry as much gear.
In its official publications the army boasted that the gear "employs signature management technology, making it significantly more difficult to see through night vision equipment".
Given that the Taliban does not use night vision gear the Diggers would have preferred a webbing system that actually worked.
After numerous complaints from soldiers the military is also replacing heavy combat body armour with a lighter version at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The problems with the gear prompted a senior official in the purchasing area to ask exactly what the soldiers did during the two-year field evaluation phase.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Unfortunately such incompetency is rife.
Here is an example I had to suffer. When the Nimrod first came into the R.A.F. the
man that designed the galley - a four seat dinette, a hot cup unit, a water boiler and a couple of cupboards - thought that with twelve men on the crew he should order a toaster that could toast twelve slices in one go. The connector for this thing was quite large and the socket for it was above the table in the dinette and it occupied /monopolised nearly all of the table in the dinette. Well, firstly we did not want a toaster period, and when you switched this thing on, the lights in the centre section of the aeroplane went dim. If heated up so much it was like a furnace and could not be left unattended. We sent it back with a comment that if we had to have a toaster, then a two slice model would suffice and for about two months
we were quite content at having no toaster. Then a box arrived with paperwork stating this was the replacement toaster. The groundcrew took the box, unpacked it and put it on the aeroplane. We were tasked with an early slot (on the Nimrod that meant an 0200hrs briefing) and off we went - with the replacement toaster. Well, it wasn't really a replacement - it was the same one with a sheet of Zintac riveted over ten of the bread slots leaving two and the wiring frigged about so only two would heat up. It was still just as big. We landed in Cyprus and asked the caterers to take it away - ostensibly for cleaning - and lose it. It was still on the inventory for that aeroplane when I left the squadron a year or two later. That probably cost the taxpayer north of £10k in 1971. Nothing has changed - nobody asks the guys at the coal face what works and what doesn't.
Here is an example I had to suffer. When the Nimrod first came into the R.A.F. the
man that designed the galley - a four seat dinette, a hot cup unit, a water boiler and a couple of cupboards - thought that with twelve men on the crew he should order a toaster that could toast twelve slices in one go. The connector for this thing was quite large and the socket for it was above the table in the dinette and it occupied /monopolised nearly all of the table in the dinette. Well, firstly we did not want a toaster period, and when you switched this thing on, the lights in the centre section of the aeroplane went dim. If heated up so much it was like a furnace and could not be left unattended. We sent it back with a comment that if we had to have a toaster, then a two slice model would suffice and for about two months
we were quite content at having no toaster. Then a box arrived with paperwork stating this was the replacement toaster. The groundcrew took the box, unpacked it and put it on the aeroplane. We were tasked with an early slot (on the Nimrod that meant an 0200hrs briefing) and off we went - with the replacement toaster. Well, it wasn't really a replacement - it was the same one with a sheet of Zintac riveted over ten of the bread slots leaving two and the wiring frigged about so only two would heat up. It was still just as big. We landed in Cyprus and asked the caterers to take it away - ostensibly for cleaning - and lose it. It was still on the inventory for that aeroplane when I left the squadron a year or two later. That probably cost the taxpayer north of £10k in 1971. Nothing has changed - nobody asks the guys at the coal face what works and what doesn't.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
A short time ago I was part of a petition to the Prime Minister about the repatriation of soldiers remains killed in Northern Ireland. The current practise is for the remains to be placed in an Air Transportable Casket and returned to the UK as commercial freight on the airline operating hold freight on that route. This is a preposterous
state of affairs and totally undignified. Here is some of the correspondence:
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response
The Government is immensely proud of all of our Armed Forces. Their dedication, professionalism and sacrifice is a justifiable source of inspiration to so many. Sapper Mark Quinsey and Sapper Patrick Azimkar, the two young men who tragically lost their lives in the attack at Massereene Barracks on 7 March 2009, were men of exactly this ilk. These young men had trained hard and were promising soldiers who had already achieved a good deal in their short careers. The loss of them was keenly felt by their colleagues and the grief felt by their families must be beyond measure. Our thoughts remain with them.
To mark this note repugnant, cowardly act a memorial service for Mark and Patrick was conducted at Massereene Barracks and attended by fellow members of the soldiers’ Regiment before their bodies were returned to the mainland. Each soldier was subsequently afforded a military funeral in accordance with the wishes of their families.
The policies and procedures that govern the repatriation of deceased Service personnel to the UK mainland are kept under constant review to ensure they reflect the needs of the bereaved families, the Services and the Nation. The policy was reviewed in May 2009 and amendments were made to ensure that all those who die on operations are afforded a ceremonial repatriation. However, no change was made to the policy for the movement of the bodies of deceased personnel within the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Mark and Patrick were returned to the mainland in line with this policy and in the same manner as all Service men and women killed in Northern Ireland in the last 35 years.
Maybe now you can see why I get really hacked off with these total miscreants we mistakenly call a government.
state of affairs and totally undignified. Here is some of the correspondence:
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to change the rules regarding Ramp Ceremonies for HM Forces Personnel killed by an act of terror, while in the Service of Her Majesty the Queen.”
Details of Petition:
“The bodies of the soldiers Murdered in Northern Ireland were flown home without ceremony. This has angered members of HM Forces: “British troops have spoken of their anger following the disclosure that the bodies of the two soldiers murdered by dissident republicans were shipped back to the UK as freight.” “We have been told that the soldiers were not allowed to have a ramp service because of political reasons. We were told the Government didn’t want anything that would look like the Troubles had restarted. “As far as we are concerned these soldiers were shot dead in uniform by terrorists and they should be treated in exactly the same way as if they were killed in Afghanistan. To send their bodies back to the UK as freight is outrageous.” When a person joins any branch of HM Forces they are effectively on duty 24/7/365. The Government are asked to review the crass rules that allowed this to happen. The Government are further requested to amend the rules on Ramp Ceremonies.”
· Read the petitionDetails of Petition:
“The bodies of the soldiers Murdered in Northern Ireland were flown home without ceremony. This has angered members of HM Forces: “British troops have spoken of their anger following the disclosure that the bodies of the two soldiers murdered by dissident republicans were shipped back to the UK as freight.” “We have been told that the soldiers were not allowed to have a ramp service because of political reasons. We were told the Government didn’t want anything that would look like the Troubles had restarted. “As far as we are concerned these soldiers were shot dead in uniform by terrorists and they should be treated in exactly the same way as if they were killed in Afghanistan. To send their bodies back to the UK as freight is outrageous.” When a person joins any branch of HM Forces they are effectively on duty 24/7/365. The Government are asked to review the crass rules that allowed this to happen. The Government are further requested to amend the rules on Ramp Ceremonies.”
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response
The Government is immensely proud of all of our Armed Forces. Their dedication, professionalism and sacrifice is a justifiable source of inspiration to so many. Sapper Mark Quinsey and Sapper Patrick Azimkar, the two young men who tragically lost their lives in the attack at Massereene Barracks on 7 March 2009, were men of exactly this ilk. These young men had trained hard and were promising soldiers who had already achieved a good deal in their short careers. The loss of them was keenly felt by their colleagues and the grief felt by their families must be beyond measure. Our thoughts remain with them.
To mark this note repugnant, cowardly act a memorial service for Mark and Patrick was conducted at Massereene Barracks and attended by fellow members of the soldiers’ Regiment before their bodies were returned to the mainland. Each soldier was subsequently afforded a military funeral in accordance with the wishes of their families.
The policies and procedures that govern the repatriation of deceased Service personnel to the UK mainland are kept under constant review to ensure they reflect the needs of the bereaved families, the Services and the Nation. The policy was reviewed in May 2009 and amendments were made to ensure that all those who die on operations are afforded a ceremonial repatriation. However, no change was made to the policy for the movement of the bodies of deceased personnel within the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Mark and Patrick were returned to the mainland in line with this policy and in the same manner as all Service men and women killed in Northern Ireland in the last 35 years.
Maybe now you can see why I get really hacked off with these total miscreants we mistakenly call a government.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Someone once said, I can't remember who. "The problem is it doesn't matter who you vote for you still end up with a Government".
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Daily Telegraph Disclosure:
Ministry of Defence officials paid £47 million in bonuses
Civil servants at the Ministry of Defence have been paid £47 million in performance bonuses this year, it can be disclosed.
By Rebecca Lefort and James Kirkup
Published: 10:00PM GMT 11 Nov 2009
A total of 232 British service personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001 Photo: EPA
The figure, which covers just the first seven months of the current financial year, has been revealed as the Government faces charges of failing to provide British troops with adequate support and equipment on the front line in Afghanistan.
Additional bonus payments for the rest of year could take the total above the £53 million paid out to MoD officials in 2008/09.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
The MoD has claimed that the bonuses would average less than £1,000, but some officials will get much bigger payments.
Last year, the department had senior 95 employees who were paid salaries of more than £100,000; and the average bonus for a senior civil servant in the department was £8,000.
An Army private can be paid as little as £16,681, with a £2,380 bonus for serving in Afghanistan.
The disclosures come as British troops are dying in Afghanistan at a rate not seen since the Falklands war, and polls show voters are turning against the mission.
A total of 232 British service personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. Commanders have said that some of those deaths could have been averted if there had been more helicopters available to British forces.
The MoD says that bonuses are paid to officials for exceptional performance, yet the department has faced repeated criticism over its mismanagement of major defence projects and its failure to deliver enough helicopters to Afghanistan.
The bonus payments have risen sharply even as MoD’s record has come in for growing criticism. In 2003/04, total bonus payments were £24.9 million.
The £47 million paid out so far this year would be pay for 47,000 sets of body armour, 26,111 SA80 A2 assault rifles or 156 Ridgeback armoured vehicles which help protect troops against roadside bombs.
Last night, as Gordon Brown continues to face intense pressure over his treatment of the Armed Forces. the bonus figures drew criticism of the Government.
The figures were revealed in the Commons following questions from Liam Fox, the Conservative shadow defence secretary, who said the bonus payments would anger service personnel.
"Many in the Armed Forces will be aghast that bonuses are being paid on the basis of outstanding performance," Dr Fox said. "This will only increase the view that the Armed Forces and the MoD administration are hugely out of balance."
Ministers awarded the Armed Forces a 2.8 per cent pay rise this year, meaning a private soldier is now paid between £16,681 and £25,887.
Soldiers deployed to Afghanistan receive a tax-free “operational allowance” worth £2,380 and a Longer Separation Allowance worth at least £1,194. The MoD says that means a private soldier deploying on his first operation is paid at least £20,255.
Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph revealed that Britain has more military bureaucrats for every active serviceman than any of its allies.
Ministers have promised to cut the number of officials at the MoD head office by a quarter. The Conservatives say they will reduce MoD bureaucracy by a third.
Last month, an MoD review of defence procurement found that the department has overspent its equipment budget by £35 billion yet is still putting British troops on the frontline at risk by failing to provide the right kit
And earlier this month an independent inquiry found that years of incompentence and cost-cutting by MoD officials had contributed to the crash of an RAF Nimrod in Afghanistan in 2006, killing 14 British service personnel.
Earlier this week, Mr Brown was confronted by Jacqui Janes, whose son Jamie Janes died in Afghanistan last month. Mrs Janes told the Prime Minister that her son died because there was no helicopter available to take him to a field hospital. Mr Brown has promised a full investigation into the incident.
The widow of an RAF serviceman killed in Afghanistan last night criticised the Government over the equipment available to the troops. At the end of an inquest into the death of Senior Aircraftman Gary Thompson, 51, his widow Jacqui Thompson said British forces in Afghanistan are having to cope with “limited resources".
Reg Keys whose son, Lance Corporal Tom Keys, was once of six Royal Military Police killed in Iraq in June 2003, also criticised the MoD bonus awards.
He said: "They are trying to run the Armed Forces on a shoestring, but still pay their own employees huge bonuses."
Col Bob Stewart, the former commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia, said: “I am absolutely staggered. No civil servant should be getting any kind of a bonus when our country is broke and our troops are fighting for their lives.”
An MOD spokesman said: “These pay awards are met from within salary budget and have no impact on the operational or equipment budget. The awards were given to around 50,000 civil servants resulting in an average payment of less than £1,000.
“The vast majority of these awards were paid in August as part of previously agreed pay deals, so we are not expecting this year's total to increase significantly.”
Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, and Mr Brown has authorised the deployment of another 500.
President Barack Obama is also considering a military request for another 40,000 US troops. The request was made in September, and the president’s delay has caused frustration in the British government.
In the House of Commons yesterday, Mr Brown said that Mr Obama would make an announcement on troops “in the next few days.”
But the White House insisted that the decision is still "weeks and not days" away.
Ministry of Defence officials paid £47 million in bonuses
Civil servants at the Ministry of Defence have been paid £47 million in performance bonuses this year, it can be disclosed.
By Rebecca Lefort and James Kirkup
Published: 10:00PM GMT 11 Nov 2009
The figure, which covers just the first seven months of the current financial year, has been revealed as the Government faces charges of failing to provide British troops with adequate support and equipment on the front line in Afghanistan.
Additional bonus payments for the rest of year could take the total above the £53 million paid out to MoD officials in 2008/09.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
- <LI class=bullet sizcache="29" sizset="48">Obama decision on Afghanistan troops 'in days'
<LI class=bullet sizcache="29" sizset="49">Afghan fighting leaves one in ten infantry soldiers not fit to fight
<LI class=bullet sizcache="29" sizset="50">Army chief: Afghans losing patience with Nato 'failure'
<LI class=bullet sizcache="29" sizset="51">Obama's 'dithering' hurts Afghan mission, British sources say
- British Army recruitment reduced in £97 million cuts package
The MoD has claimed that the bonuses would average less than £1,000, but some officials will get much bigger payments.
Last year, the department had senior 95 employees who were paid salaries of more than £100,000; and the average bonus for a senior civil servant in the department was £8,000.
An Army private can be paid as little as £16,681, with a £2,380 bonus for serving in Afghanistan.
The disclosures come as British troops are dying in Afghanistan at a rate not seen since the Falklands war, and polls show voters are turning against the mission.
A total of 232 British service personnel have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001. Commanders have said that some of those deaths could have been averted if there had been more helicopters available to British forces.
The MoD says that bonuses are paid to officials for exceptional performance, yet the department has faced repeated criticism over its mismanagement of major defence projects and its failure to deliver enough helicopters to Afghanistan.
The bonus payments have risen sharply even as MoD’s record has come in for growing criticism. In 2003/04, total bonus payments were £24.9 million.
The £47 million paid out so far this year would be pay for 47,000 sets of body armour, 26,111 SA80 A2 assault rifles or 156 Ridgeback armoured vehicles which help protect troops against roadside bombs.
Last night, as Gordon Brown continues to face intense pressure over his treatment of the Armed Forces. the bonus figures drew criticism of the Government.
The figures were revealed in the Commons following questions from Liam Fox, the Conservative shadow defence secretary, who said the bonus payments would anger service personnel.
"Many in the Armed Forces will be aghast that bonuses are being paid on the basis of outstanding performance," Dr Fox said. "This will only increase the view that the Armed Forces and the MoD administration are hugely out of balance."
Ministers awarded the Armed Forces a 2.8 per cent pay rise this year, meaning a private soldier is now paid between £16,681 and £25,887.
Soldiers deployed to Afghanistan receive a tax-free “operational allowance” worth £2,380 and a Longer Separation Allowance worth at least £1,194. The MoD says that means a private soldier deploying on his first operation is paid at least £20,255.
Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph revealed that Britain has more military bureaucrats for every active serviceman than any of its allies.
Ministers have promised to cut the number of officials at the MoD head office by a quarter. The Conservatives say they will reduce MoD bureaucracy by a third.
Last month, an MoD review of defence procurement found that the department has overspent its equipment budget by £35 billion yet is still putting British troops on the frontline at risk by failing to provide the right kit
And earlier this month an independent inquiry found that years of incompentence and cost-cutting by MoD officials had contributed to the crash of an RAF Nimrod in Afghanistan in 2006, killing 14 British service personnel.
Earlier this week, Mr Brown was confronted by Jacqui Janes, whose son Jamie Janes died in Afghanistan last month. Mrs Janes told the Prime Minister that her son died because there was no helicopter available to take him to a field hospital. Mr Brown has promised a full investigation into the incident.
The widow of an RAF serviceman killed in Afghanistan last night criticised the Government over the equipment available to the troops. At the end of an inquest into the death of Senior Aircraftman Gary Thompson, 51, his widow Jacqui Thompson said British forces in Afghanistan are having to cope with “limited resources".
Reg Keys whose son, Lance Corporal Tom Keys, was once of six Royal Military Police killed in Iraq in June 2003, also criticised the MoD bonus awards.
He said: "They are trying to run the Armed Forces on a shoestring, but still pay their own employees huge bonuses."
Col Bob Stewart, the former commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia, said: “I am absolutely staggered. No civil servant should be getting any kind of a bonus when our country is broke and our troops are fighting for their lives.”
An MOD spokesman said: “These pay awards are met from within salary budget and have no impact on the operational or equipment budget. The awards were given to around 50,000 civil servants resulting in an average payment of less than £1,000.
“The vast majority of these awards were paid in August as part of previously agreed pay deals, so we are not expecting this year's total to increase significantly.”
Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, and Mr Brown has authorised the deployment of another 500.
President Barack Obama is also considering a military request for another 40,000 US troops. The request was made in September, and the president’s delay has caused frustration in the British government.
In the House of Commons yesterday, Mr Brown said that Mr Obama would make an announcement on troops “in the next few days.”
But the White House insisted that the decision is still "weeks and not days" away.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Again from the Telegraph:
Soldiers deserve bonuses as much as civil servants
By Con Coughlin Defence Last updated: November 12th, 2009
17 Comments Comment on this article
There is something deeply wrong at the heart of our government if we can find the funds to reward MOD civil servants for performing their jobs to a satisfactory level, but not doing the same for the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen who daily risk their lives in defence of the realm.
I personally have no objection to civil servants receiving bonuses for hitting their performance targets, although I can see why there has been an outcry over the scale of the awards paid out at the MOD so far this year given the mess the department has made of getting the right equipment to our troops at the right time in the three years since our forces deployed to Helmand in 2006. Then there is the tricky issue of the billions of pounds that have been wasted because of the MOD’s highly inefficient procurement system.
But what concerns me more is the inherent unfairness of rewarding one group of employees and not another. Many of our young soldiers – the ones who have to go eyeball to eyeball with the Taliban – earn less than a traffic warden, as General Sir Richard Dannatt, the recently retired head of the British Army, pointed out.
And if they are unfortunate enough to get horribly maimed by a roadside bomb, they then find their civilian counterparts in the MOD challenging how much compensation they should receive for having their lives ruined in the service of their country.
If we can pay bonuses to the civil servants, then we should do the same for all our brave service men and women who risk their lives to defend our freedom and security.
Now that would be a popular election pledge for one of our political parties come the general election.
compensation
Soldiers deserve bonuses as much as civil servants
By Con Coughlin Defence Last updated: November 12th, 2009
17 Comments Comment on this article
There is something deeply wrong at the heart of our government if we can find the funds to reward MOD civil servants for performing their jobs to a satisfactory level, but not doing the same for the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen who daily risk their lives in defence of the realm.
I personally have no objection to civil servants receiving bonuses for hitting their performance targets, although I can see why there has been an outcry over the scale of the awards paid out at the MOD so far this year given the mess the department has made of getting the right equipment to our troops at the right time in the three years since our forces deployed to Helmand in 2006. Then there is the tricky issue of the billions of pounds that have been wasted because of the MOD’s highly inefficient procurement system.
But what concerns me more is the inherent unfairness of rewarding one group of employees and not another. Many of our young soldiers – the ones who have to go eyeball to eyeball with the Taliban – earn less than a traffic warden, as General Sir Richard Dannatt, the recently retired head of the British Army, pointed out.
And if they are unfortunate enough to get horribly maimed by a roadside bomb, they then find their civilian counterparts in the MOD challenging how much compensation they should receive for having their lives ruined in the service of their country.
If we can pay bonuses to the civil servants, then we should do the same for all our brave service men and women who risk their lives to defend our freedom and security.
Now that would be a popular election pledge for one of our political parties come the general election.
compensation
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Now, the new Speaker of the House of Commons has shown himself to be completely out of tune with the sentiments of the average man. The Telegraph has disclosed he has spent more than twice the national average income on the apartment he lives in and charged it to who? You and me. Again where will this stop.
Here is the article:
Speaker John Bercow's official residence refurbished for £45,000
The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has had his grace-and-favour Westminster apartment refurbished at a cost of £45,000 to the taxpayer.
<!-- Make sure there is no whitespoace at the end of the bline -->By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 10:00PM GMT 13 Nov 2009
John Bercow with wife Sally Photo: PA
Mr Bercow ordered the makeover, covering work from child-friendly redecorating to new televisions and furniture, within weeks of his election as Speaker in June.
His wife, Sally, oversaw most of the work and the couple pushed ahead with the overhaul despite being warned by Parliamentary officials that the costs may be seen as excessive.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
The new documents, released under Freedom of Information laws, also disclose that Mr Bercow has spent almost £13,000 on entertaining and hospitality - including a three-night trip to Rome costing almost £4,000 - in just three months.
Mr Bercow had faced criticism over his use of expenses when he was a backbench Conservative MP, claiming the maximum amount permissible to fund another Westminster flat.
The new disclosures about Mr Bercow's spending are likely to prove embarrassing for the new Speaker who was elected on a promise to restore trust in Parliament in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal.
During his campaign to become speaker, he said: “It is high time the House (of Commons) was run by professionals on a transparent basis, ensuring that we are accountable to the people who put us here.”
Michael Martin, his predecessor as speaker, had been criticised for his use of taxpayers’ money, including extensive renovations of the speaker’s official residence which ran to more than £700,000.
After succeeding him, Mr Bercow vowed to modernise Parliament and make it “accountable to the people” and transparent in its operation.
He pledged to surrender the MP's second homes allowance worth more than £24,000. However, the new documents disclose, he has already ordered renovations on his new Westminster appartment worth more.
In August, the Speaker admitted that he spent just over £20,000 on refurbishing his official apartment before moving in with his wife and children.
However, documents have now revealed how the true cost was actually £45,581, as Commons officials agreed to account for extensive redecoration and other work as 'routine maintenance' which Mr Bercow did not declare publicly.
Mr Bercow is expected to be under pressure to release a breakdown of the work conducted as 'routine maintenance'.
Emails show how Mrs Bercow, who last week declared her desire to become a Labour councillor in Westminster, communicated with Parliamentary officials over the refurbishment requirements.
“The existing wall paper is very office/board-roomy,” she wrote on June 30th.. “So, if at all possible, can the walls be redecorated.
“Can the TV be replaced with a larger one and moved into a more central location (like it or not, it will be a focal point for the kids!!!),” she continued. “I assume it will have SKY and we’ll need a DVD player too if possible.”
The work – initially estimated to have cost £23,400 by July 8th - had almost doubled in price by the end of the same month.
The emails show that Commons officials were becoming concerned about the spiralling cost of the work. However, they agreed to allow the Bercows to continue with the renovations.
One official wrote on July 1st: “My concern is that the list is getting longer, which isn’t technically a problem, but I know that you are very mindful of the costs and only wish to do what is considered as ‘reasonable’.
“The latest version [of the renovations spreadsheet] has everything included and I think that the best way to view it, is as a shopping/wish list. If any costs come out as excessive…we can always review the options and make the necessary decisions.”
An email discloses that the £45,000 cost of the work was split into two spreadsheets before the lower £20,000 figure was released in August.
Any redecorating which had not been done for at least five years was described as the 'routine maintenance' and excluded.
However, it can also be revealed how the costs of this routine maintenance doubled between an estimate in early July of £11,500 and the final cost of £24,922 just three weeks later.
A source close to the Speaker said that most of the extra work was to parts of the official residence which are not used as the family’s private living quarters.
He said that the £20,000 figure which had been released originally represented the additional cost to the taxpayer of the Speaker being someone with children.
“We tried to isolate the costs to the taxpayer of Mr Bercow and his family moving in,” he said. “A lot of the other work is beyond the control of the Speaker and is determined by English Heritage and other bodies.
“Mr Bercow has no plans to do anything, this is a one off.”
The new Speaker has also spent £12,812 on entertaining and official functions during his first three months. This is far higher than the amounts spent by Lord Martin of Springburn during his final three years in office.
Mr Bercow’s entertainment costs include £3,599 on a three night trip to Rome to attend a G8 Speaker’s conference. He was accompanied by three other people whose identities are not disclosed in the released documents but are thought to be officials.
He is the second youngest Speaker in history and the first in living memory to have three young children – Oliver, Freddie and Jemima, who are all under six.
The official speaker's residence is underneath Big Ben in the Palace of Westminster. It was designed by Charles Barry and contains a state dining room and a canopied bed to be slept in by the monarch on the night before a coronation.
Mr Bercow has previously said that much of the renovation work was necessary to make the apartment child-friendly. For example, locks had to be fitted to the windows for the safety of his young children.
He previously lived in another flat in Westminster which was also funded by the taxpayer. He repaid almost £8,000 earlier this year after The Daily Telegraph raised questions about his lawful avoidance of capital-gains tax on the sale of two properties.
However, Mr Bercow is thought to have refused to surrender his gold-plated pension – which guarantees to pay half his income when he retires regardless of how long he remains in the job. As he is only currently aged 46, this is a very valuable perk.
In an interview to be broadcast on Sunday, Mr Bercow will defend his wife’s right to stand as a Labour candidate in next year’s council elections.
But he acknowledged that he could expect the mother of his three children to be portrayed as “a cross between Jerry Hall, Lady Macbeth and Eva Peron” because of her decision to get involved in electoral politics.
“My wife isn't my chattel, she's my wife,” he will say on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.
“She is a private citizen who has her own views and is an independent person. And it has long been known that my wife is a supporter of the Labour Party, so I don't think there's anything odd, embarrassing and certainly there's nothing underhand about it.”
II
In the UK ? Please don't do 'nothing' about this . Protest to your own MP in as loud a voice you can muster and write in an angry vein insisting your MP passes your sentiments to the PM.
Will all this ever end ? They, the Members of Parliament are still controlling their own budgets and ripping the arse out of everything we hold as fiscally virtuous. What do we tell our children in years to come ? THAT WE DID NOTHING ?? Please write and do it now.
Here is the article:
Speaker John Bercow's official residence refurbished for £45,000
The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, has had his grace-and-favour Westminster apartment refurbished at a cost of £45,000 to the taxpayer.
<!-- Make sure there is no whitespoace at the end of the bline -->By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 10:00PM GMT 13 Nov 2009
Mr Bercow ordered the makeover, covering work from child-friendly redecorating to new televisions and furniture, within weeks of his election as Speaker in June.
His wife, Sally, oversaw most of the work and the couple pushed ahead with the overhaul despite being warned by Parliamentary officials that the costs may be seen as excessive.
<!-- BEFORE ACI -->
Related Articles
- <LI class=bullet sizcache="29" sizset="41">Cameron and Osborne mocked up as Jedward by Labour
<LI class=bullet sizcache="29" sizset="42">Queen's Speech: pay to have your DNA removed from database
- Labour 'can win fourth general election after Glasgow North East'
The new documents, released under Freedom of Information laws, also disclose that Mr Bercow has spent almost £13,000 on entertaining and hospitality - including a three-night trip to Rome costing almost £4,000 - in just three months.
Mr Bercow had faced criticism over his use of expenses when he was a backbench Conservative MP, claiming the maximum amount permissible to fund another Westminster flat.
The new disclosures about Mr Bercow's spending are likely to prove embarrassing for the new Speaker who was elected on a promise to restore trust in Parliament in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal.
During his campaign to become speaker, he said: “It is high time the House (of Commons) was run by professionals on a transparent basis, ensuring that we are accountable to the people who put us here.”
Michael Martin, his predecessor as speaker, had been criticised for his use of taxpayers’ money, including extensive renovations of the speaker’s official residence which ran to more than £700,000.
After succeeding him, Mr Bercow vowed to modernise Parliament and make it “accountable to the people” and transparent in its operation.
He pledged to surrender the MP's second homes allowance worth more than £24,000. However, the new documents disclose, he has already ordered renovations on his new Westminster appartment worth more.
In August, the Speaker admitted that he spent just over £20,000 on refurbishing his official apartment before moving in with his wife and children.
However, documents have now revealed how the true cost was actually £45,581, as Commons officials agreed to account for extensive redecoration and other work as 'routine maintenance' which Mr Bercow did not declare publicly.
Mr Bercow is expected to be under pressure to release a breakdown of the work conducted as 'routine maintenance'.
Emails show how Mrs Bercow, who last week declared her desire to become a Labour councillor in Westminster, communicated with Parliamentary officials over the refurbishment requirements.
“The existing wall paper is very office/board-roomy,” she wrote on June 30th.. “So, if at all possible, can the walls be redecorated.
“Can the TV be replaced with a larger one and moved into a more central location (like it or not, it will be a focal point for the kids!!!),” she continued. “I assume it will have SKY and we’ll need a DVD player too if possible.”
The work – initially estimated to have cost £23,400 by July 8th - had almost doubled in price by the end of the same month.
The emails show that Commons officials were becoming concerned about the spiralling cost of the work. However, they agreed to allow the Bercows to continue with the renovations.
One official wrote on July 1st: “My concern is that the list is getting longer, which isn’t technically a problem, but I know that you are very mindful of the costs and only wish to do what is considered as ‘reasonable’.
“The latest version [of the renovations spreadsheet] has everything included and I think that the best way to view it, is as a shopping/wish list. If any costs come out as excessive…we can always review the options and make the necessary decisions.”
An email discloses that the £45,000 cost of the work was split into two spreadsheets before the lower £20,000 figure was released in August.
Any redecorating which had not been done for at least five years was described as the 'routine maintenance' and excluded.
However, it can also be revealed how the costs of this routine maintenance doubled between an estimate in early July of £11,500 and the final cost of £24,922 just three weeks later.
A source close to the Speaker said that most of the extra work was to parts of the official residence which are not used as the family’s private living quarters.
He said that the £20,000 figure which had been released originally represented the additional cost to the taxpayer of the Speaker being someone with children.
“We tried to isolate the costs to the taxpayer of Mr Bercow and his family moving in,” he said. “A lot of the other work is beyond the control of the Speaker and is determined by English Heritage and other bodies.
“Mr Bercow has no plans to do anything, this is a one off.”
The new Speaker has also spent £12,812 on entertaining and official functions during his first three months. This is far higher than the amounts spent by Lord Martin of Springburn during his final three years in office.
Mr Bercow’s entertainment costs include £3,599 on a three night trip to Rome to attend a G8 Speaker’s conference. He was accompanied by three other people whose identities are not disclosed in the released documents but are thought to be officials.
He is the second youngest Speaker in history and the first in living memory to have three young children – Oliver, Freddie and Jemima, who are all under six.
The official speaker's residence is underneath Big Ben in the Palace of Westminster. It was designed by Charles Barry and contains a state dining room and a canopied bed to be slept in by the monarch on the night before a coronation.
Mr Bercow has previously said that much of the renovation work was necessary to make the apartment child-friendly. For example, locks had to be fitted to the windows for the safety of his young children.
He previously lived in another flat in Westminster which was also funded by the taxpayer. He repaid almost £8,000 earlier this year after The Daily Telegraph raised questions about his lawful avoidance of capital-gains tax on the sale of two properties.
However, Mr Bercow is thought to have refused to surrender his gold-plated pension – which guarantees to pay half his income when he retires regardless of how long he remains in the job. As he is only currently aged 46, this is a very valuable perk.
In an interview to be broadcast on Sunday, Mr Bercow will defend his wife’s right to stand as a Labour candidate in next year’s council elections.
But he acknowledged that he could expect the mother of his three children to be portrayed as “a cross between Jerry Hall, Lady Macbeth and Eva Peron” because of her decision to get involved in electoral politics.
“My wife isn't my chattel, she's my wife,” he will say on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.
“She is a private citizen who has her own views and is an independent person. And it has long been known that my wife is a supporter of the Labour Party, so I don't think there's anything odd, embarrassing and certainly there's nothing underhand about it.”
II
In the UK ? Please don't do 'nothing' about this . Protest to your own MP in as loud a voice you can muster and write in an angry vein insisting your MP passes your sentiments to the PM.
Will all this ever end ? They, the Members of Parliament are still controlling their own budgets and ripping the arse out of everything we hold as fiscally virtuous. What do we tell our children in years to come ? THAT WE DID NOTHING ?? Please write and do it now.
Last edited:
