Thursday, 9 April 2009

Brian Coleman says shut up about his expenses

Brian Coleman
Brian Coleman used GLA resources in order to tell another politician to 'keep their mouth shut' about his expense claims.

The press release, titled "News from Brian Coleman: Slams Shah over use of public money" was posted on the Assembly website last week.

In it Coleman is quoted as saying:

“My expense claims are published and totally legitimate.

“I am not going to take lecturing on the use of public money from a man who after his stint as leader of Harrow left the Council with a £9million black hole.

“Or who’s Labour colleague in Harrow, Tony McNulty, claimed that his parents’ home was his second home and charge the tax payer £60,000 for it – even though he’d never lived there.

“And they’re both from the same political party as the Home Secretary, whose husband puts ‘adult films’ on expenses and expects the tax payer to fund it.

“Navin Shah is throwing very big stones in a very small glass house. He would do well to keep his mouth shut.”

The release was preceded by a disclaimer that:

"[these] are the views of the individual Assembly Member identified in the release and do not necessarily reflect the views of the London Assembly or the Greater London Authority."

However, it is generally accepted practice that press releases should be restricted to the work of Assembly members, rather than to furthering their political grievances.

In fact under the GLA Code of conduct Assembly Members:

Members have also been urged to 'err on the side of caution' when using GLA resources as there are 'significant consequences' if they are used for political purposes.

Yet within an hour of me first asking questions about this, the original Coleman press release was  removed from the GLA website.


In the past year I have run a number of stories about Brian Coleman's expense claims, some of which have found their way into the local press and the Evening Standard.

Brian Coleman has subsequently used Mayor's question time to ask the Mayor totally irrelevant questions about London's daily newspaper,

So is Brian Coleman's mind on the job at hand, or has he been too busy attending to other matters?

(click on image for full picture)

10 comments:

Brian Coleman (aka Mr Toad) has got to go said...

His mind is not on the job at hand.
His mind is on the lunch at taxpayers expense.

Brian Coleman (aka Mr Toad) has GOT to go!:

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24061317432

MySpace:
http://www.myspace.com/mr_toad_has_got_to_go

Will said...

Rah hah hah! One too many glasses of tax-payer supplemented bolly Brian???

James said...

Coleman should be censured for not knowing the difference between "whose" and "who's"

Anonymous said...

Coleman should be censured for not knowing the difference between "ours" and "Mine, mine, mine! All Mine!"

CH Paul said...

I wouldn't mind spending £100k + on him if he was actually doing the job he's paid to do but it's all looking like one big jolly from this side of the fence. What in God's Earth was Boris thinking hiring him?

By the way whens he getting his chauffeur driven Mercedes?

AdamB said...

It's a Jaguar I believe and he should get to use it when he becomes the Mayor of Barnet next month.

AdamB said...

Link to cache of original press release.

Anonymous said...

'Coleman should be censured for not knowing the difference between "whose" and "who's"'

The Queen B Press Officer; the written word was never his forte!

To be fair to Coleman, he was always ultra cautious when it came to declarations of interest, expenses, misusing GLA resources and the like. Borderline paranoid in fact. Makes you wonder...

Time to FOI some GLA emails perhaps? They can't delete them they're all archived! :P

W

Anonymous said...

Adam - You missed a trick , the headline should really say
"Let Them Eat Cake!"
:)

Harold said...

There we have it: Brian Coleman sets high standards - he has not claimed mucky films on GLA money nor a house he doesn't live in - what a model public servant he is and we need more like him, don't we?