Case 1 - MP 'duplicity'
The so-called 'reform' of MP's expenses will actually allow an MP to claim almost double the level of monthly subsistence/food allowance currently permissible, without producing a receipt. Naturally, one of the members of the 'tribune of the people', Labour MP Tom Bell, is indirectly quoted in the article as:
'... denying the system could be abused, saying MPs would be expected to keep a record of nights spent away from home.'
- although according to BBC political correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti believes 'the wording of the new rules, set out in the parliamentary green book, is broad enough to enable MPs to claim the [unreceipted] subsistence allowance every day of the month if they wish.' Most likely without any form of audit. So that's all right then!
Case 2 - MOD 'pettiness'
The MOD is attempting to claw back increased compensation awards from military personnel for injuries suffered during military service, for injuries incidental to [but consequent upon] the service injury for which lower compensation was originally granted and increased upon appeal. The MOD wishes to overturn the increases granted during the appeals and claims it is trying:
"... to clarify an earlier judgment about how the armed forces compensation scheme is administered, and to protect the key principle of the scheme: the most compensation for the most seriously injured."
That's official-speak for 'not set a precendent' and 'reduce the impact of compensation pay-outs on the public purse'.
The moral of these two cases? Well, it seems that there is one rule for those whom we elect to our elective-dictatorship and another for those who risk their lives to protect that elective-dictatorship. It stinks!