Quote:
Originally Posted by blazey
Why would they even need a right? They have no right under the Act to avoid declaring the information so knowing about the person would make no difference.
And I think when it comes to public money it should be scrutinised very carefully and yes, if someone wanted proof that he offset the personal calls then I think he should have to prove that, ESPECIALLY if those personal calls are going to be included in the overall expense, otherwise the figures are incorrect and misleading, both to the public and against the person whose expenditures they are.
If Graham DID pay for the personal calls then they shouldn't be included in that figure and I'm sure he would agree with that unless he's an idiot.
|
It wasn't so much as who asked for the information. More why they asked for that information. And also what they intended doing with that information.