1. Originally posted by KieranU2:[..]


    Possibly...

    They do specialise in taking second holidays and homes while claiming back unnecessary or untrue expenses.

    Well, some of them do. That's the kind of thing there should be good laws against.

    I was thinking more of government as a whole. You don't run it like a business. If there's a surplus in the UK Cameron won't take it all and move to a tax haven.
  2. Anyway, good night!
  3. Originally posted by Mr_Trek:[..]

    Well, some of them do. That's the kind of thing there should be good laws against.

    I was thinking more of government as a whole. You don't run it like a business. If there's a surplus in the UK Cameron won't take it all and move to a tax haven.

    That's where the UK government has its flaws. Every month, an MP has taken part in some racial attack or another has taken extra expenses.
  4. Originally posted by Mr_Trek:[..]

    Well, some of them do. That's the kind of thing there should be good laws against.

    I was thinking more of government as a whole. You don't run it like a business. If there's a surplus in the UK Cameron won't take it all and move to a tax haven.

    Just spend it on their pet projects to keep their constituents happy.

  5. In theory, they dont have term limits, so they cant be affected by the opinons of other officials.
  6. Yeah, I know it's a lifetime appointment. I can see both advantages and disadvantages with that. For example their mental health could deteriorate as they get old. They could lose connection with modern society... But there are advantages too as you say.
  7. There function is to interpret the law as it is written. I despise justices on both sides who try to rewrite it as they see fit.

    Historically, it has worked. All of the justices apointed by Nixon went against him during Watergate. More recently, they seem to have less backbone.