to be unforgiving of my employees?

[PigletJohn]

With some other people, I own a share of an organisation. I recently discovered that one of the managers fiddled £45,000 on her expenses. She's offered to pay £5,000 back. Her basic salary is £141,000 but she gets perks on top.

I say we should sack her at once, but her colleagues say that she's apologised so we should forget about it.

I don't think the other owners are too pleased either. Should we do what the other managers say, or are they just saying that because some of them have been fiddling their expenses as well?

[hotcrosshunny]

It is OK people. She's not a benefit scrounger so it is ok.
Sack her I say. Having a fanjo doesn't excuse.

There's probably a good reason that the Tories cannot promote women. It is because they're backwards and think women should be at home wearing pinnies while the men go to work.

[Viviennemary]

She's above the law and it was all just a mistake. Heaven forbid that anybody on benefits would fail to notify a change. They wouldn't be let off so easily. I'm disgusted.

[PigletJohn]

good grief there's more

[Justanotherlurker]

Hotcross, please don't bring political bias into this.

She should be sacked and dragged through the press, the same as Margeret more, hazel blears and many others.

This is a problem with career politicians

[Justanotherlurker]

Sorry Margaret Moran....
Damn phone

[PigletJohn]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Miller#Expenses_claims

[stackablegoatbearingcheesecake]

There are quite a lot of us, but we do own the business and we employ the managers

I think we own the business, bankrole and finance the business and therefore employ the managers, however, we don't actually appoint them.

[Paleodad]

Oh come on now, she devote a whole 30 seconds to giving her apology
Not, you understand, an apology for actually cheating us out of 45 grand, but for her "attitude to the commissioners enquiry"....

[ohmymimi]

Miller's despicable and Cameron is craven and spineless. Thanks, piglet, for those links.

[BlackeyedSusan]

compare it to the bedroom tax they have brought in...she only needed one bedroom for her. the extra should have been paid for by her. live by the standards you set or face the consequences.

[Financeprincess]

I think she's heading the way of Mandelson, actually. I just watched Newsnight.

However, if she does follow the Mandelson pattern, this means that after being compelled to stand down she will be brought back to the front benches after a year.

Even David "I can't be blamed for fraudulently claiming rent money because I didn't want people to know I had a boyfriend" Laws was allowed back after a couple of years in the wilderness.

[PigletJohn]

Wikipedia is quickly editing her web page.

It read earlier:

"Miller is believed to be the first serving minister to be forced to apologise for their misuse of expenses.[21] David Cameron expressed his "full, strong, very warm support" for her.[22] The prime minister was then forced to apologise for a "slip of the tongue" when he claimed that it was not Miller's fellow MPs on the Select Committee who had overruled Hudson, but rather its independent members, who had "effectively […] had the casting vote"; in fact, only MPs on the committee, not its lay members, can vote on its findings.[23]

Unfortunately for Miller, the row did not die down, and her case was referred to the police by MP Thomas Docherty;[24] Cameron expressed his wish for the press to leave the matter alone.[25] On 4 April it was reported that Miller had attempted to intervene into the investigation into her, telling Kathryn Hudson, the parliamentary standards commissioner, "that she was acting outside the law and threatening to refer her to a Commons committee".[26]

It is widely considered by citizens of the UK that she has, so far, got off very lightly. Any other employee who was caught fiddling thousands of pounds on their expenses, and refused to co-operate with an investigation, would have been sacked, and probably prosecuted."

the final paragraph quickly disappeared.

[SueDoku]

The wonderful Steve Bell gets it spot on, as usual...!

[Jinsei]

The responses from those who haven't made the connection are indeed telling. Not one of us would get away with this kind of conduct in any other job. I think her position is untenable.

However, route is also right that the "owners" of this particular company need to take more notice. We should all be writing to our MPs to demand that she is sacked.

[HughJarrs]

Even worse is that the property against which this manager fiddled the expanses has appreciated in value by around £1.2million so maybe the owners of your company should claim that in view of the fact that it was funded with money that was yours not hers.

Sadly the pillock the owners elected as senior manager is unlikely to get rid of this dubious woman as he wants to look good by having some women on the board

[Jinsei]

I do not understand why we allow MPs to claim mortgage interest on second homes in any case. We should just have a block of flats in which MPs from outside London are each entitled to a simple one bedroom flat for the duration of their time as an MP. Anything above and beyond that is unnecessary.

[YouTheCat]

Sack her. Make her pay back every single penny.

Anyone in any other field (bar banking ) would face criminal proceedings.

And what Jinsea said. Give them all a nice 2 bed flat in an MP block - would be better security wise too.

[PigletJohn]

but if they had 2-bedroom flats, surely they should have a penalty deducted from their allowances. They'd probably call it a "bedroom tax."

[YouTheCat]

Oh no surely not! That would be barbaric!

[Heavitree]

She's made forty grand out of you lot. Not a bad investment.

People get sent away for shoplifting petty items.

Let me know next time there's a vacancy at your firm, I could do with a quick cash injection.

Seriously, Of course she should be sacked and police called.

[NutcrackerFairy]

I find this situation absolutely outrageous and it's probably the tip of the iceberg in terms of fraudulent expense claims made by our MPs.

Compare and contrast to this a situation I am currently in with Tax Credits [the bastards]. They feel I have made an error with a previous claim in failing to declare a change in childcare costs [I didn't and am currently disputing it]. They have termed it 'negligence' not fraud by the way and so accept there was no deliberate attempt to misappropriate funds but that I did not inform them in a timely manner of a change [which I bloody did but that's beside the point I'm trying to make].

My point is, that if Tax Credits have their way, they require me to pay back every penny of the overpayment AND a fine. If I am indeed at fault, this is fair enough [and in fact I am happy to gradually pay back any overpayment even if I am not at fault as I don't want more money from the taxpayer than I am rightly entitled to anyway].

So if this is the hard line for my relatively minor misdemeanour [and for an amount far far less than £45,000] why the hell has this woman got away with it, not been sacked, and only been asked to pay £5,000 back????

Oh yeah Dave, we really are all in this together aren't we. I am absolutely disgusted at the brass necks of these people. I think it's just about time for a revolution.

[StealthPolarBear]

exactly Heavi :)

[Joysmum]

Funny how those fiddling benefits get a far greater penalty. Personaly I think it's dishonest and deliberately deceitful and is stealing. I think she should go.

[MrsMaryCooper]

Sack her and prosecute for theft/fraud. That's what my organisation would do. (public sector)

[LtEveDallas]

One of my bosses, who audits claims, is currently having to go through the last 5 years of a colleagues claims (which would have been checked and cleared at the time) because he erroneously (no intent) claimed an extra 1.99 for something he wasn't entitled to claim for and a senior checker didn't notice, and didn't know that it wasn't allowed.

This 1.99 was in the middle of a claim of around £4K, and prior to December would have been allowed - on 1 Dec the rules changed and neither he nor the auditor were aware. He IS fully entitled to the rest of the £4K.

For the sake of 1.99 his current claim (that he IS fully entitled to and non payment of which WILL effect others) has been suspended and my boss is going to have to put in something like 40 extra hours work that she will NOT be paid for, checking every single claim he has ever made as if he were some common criminal.

1.99 versus 45 Grand.

All in it together MY ARSE