Most rational people accept that both Houses of the British legislature are hopelessly corrupt.
The House of Commons is stuffed with placemen, selected by unaccountable party hierarchies for their loyalty to the party or as a quota to further a particular agenda. The interests of the country at large or the people they claim to represent are not very high on their list of priorities.
The Expenses Scandal which was brought to light by a whistle blower proved what the public had suspected for some time, that their representatives were nothing more than venal, klepocrats with no respect for their constituents or their hard earned money.
"I didn't do anything wrong" or "it was all within the rules" were the standard excuses but using the excuse that "everyone was doing it" as justification for robbing the public was particularly loathsome. It also gave an indication of how widespread the stealing was.
Incredibly only four MP's were successfully prosecuted, a few lost their seats at the next election but by far the majority got away with it with their loot intact.
The corrupt House of Commons is an oasis of probity compared to the House of Lords. This used to be a respectable place populated by harmless aristocrats, Church of England bishops and venerable old buffers who used the red benches for a post lunch nap before collecting their attendance allowance and heading off to their Gentleman's Clubs.
Now the House of Lords a den of iniquity. The taxpayer subsidised bars and restaurants are packed with party donors, retired Trade Union leaders, villains, scoundrels, perverts and retired MP's who are so addicted to power and the gravy train that they can't give it up.
Apart from a rump of hereditary peers all these parasites are appointed for life so the public are unable to remove them no matter how bad they are.
This is the perfect place for third world kleptocrat Baroness Uddin to show the local guys how its done.
An economic migrant from Bangladesh, Manzila Pola Uddin was a poster girl for the Labour Party's policy of cultural replacement. A woman, a Muslim, a community activist, a Labour Councillor, a human rights activist and an advocate for Women's Equal Rights.
One would have thought that Muslim Bangladesh where women have the status lower than the family pet rather than liberal Great Britain would be a more productive place for an advocate of Human Rights and Women's Equal Rights.
London resident Baroness Uddin lied when she designated a property outside London as her primary residence in order to qualify for tax free expenses and allowances incurred while performing her duties in the House of Lords. To add further insult to the British taxpayer Uddin's residence in London is a Housing Association property which was built at public expense and which was intended for the poor or needy
Uddin made two mistakes that confirmed that she was deliberately scamming the taxpayers. She confirmed on her Facebook page that she lives at the London property and secondly she claimed attendance allowance for more days than which the House Of Lords was actually in session.
Uddin's false claims amounted to an eye watering one hundred and eighty thousand pounds ($296,000).
Coincidentally after Uddin's elevation to the House of Lords she built a mansion back home in Bangladesh complete with Italian marble floors, mosaics and a balcony which was reputed to have cost over one hundred and twenty thousand pounds ($192,000).
It appears to be a mystery how an economic migrant from one of the worlds poorest countries and who's only jobs were a community activist and a Labour councillor could finance such a expensive property.
According to the police report Uddin refused to co-operate with their enquiries or to answer any of their questions, her only statement was the standard rogues defence of " I do not believe I have done anything wrong or breached any rules"
In a shameless attempt to get their token Muslim woman and other expenses cheats off the hook and in complete disregard for justice and the taxpayer, those responsible for standards and ethics in the House of Lords retroactively moved the goalposts by stating that spending as little as one night per month can qualify a property as a primary residence for the purposes of claiming expenses and allowances.
This should not have helped Uddin defence as neighbours have confirmed that her outer London residence was unfurnished, unoccupied and she had never spent a single night there.
The police passed her file to the Crown Prosecution Service who predictably decided not to prosecute. She was suspended pending the pay back of some but not all of her loot after which she would be free to resume her position in the legislature.
Similarly, Indian born economic migrant, multi millionaire businessman and Labour Party donor Lord Paul claimed that a room in a hotel which he owned was his primary residence thus qualifying him for taxpayer funded expenses and allowances and by his own admission he had never spent a night there in his life.
He was not prosecuted either and was suspended from the House of Lords for only four months.
Lord Bhatia, a East African born Muslim migrant falsely claimed a property outside London as his primary residence while he lived in a multi million pound mansion in Hampton, West London. He was not prosecuted but suspended from the Lords for just eight months.
Contrast this with Lord Taylor who claimed eleven thousand pounds ($17,600), a paltry sum in comparison with Uddin, by falsely claiming his nephews house in Oxford was his primary residence while he resided in his London property, he was prosecuted and sentenced to twelve months in prison.
Lord Taylor although being black was born in Great Britain and was a member of the Conservative Party.
Uddin, Paul and Bhatia came to Britain as migrants and were extended the traditional hospitality of the British people, they were able to take advantage of the freedoms and liberties to better themselves to a degree unachievable in the countries they left behind. They were even involved in the legislative process producing laws, rules and regulations to which their hosts would have to comply.
They repaid the British people by lying and stealing their money and in the process caused further damage to the now fragile relationship between the British people and its immigrant communities.
The message sent out to the world's poor is that Britain, in addition to cash in hand welfare benefits, will provide them with free housing, free education and free healthcare benefits and more importantly, they will give them a special status that allows them to break the law and abuse the British people completely free from any consequences.
The message from the political establishment to the British people is that the politicised police force and the politicised criminal justice system will give cultural and demographic replacement agenda a far higher priority than justice or their wellbeing.