Following hard on the heels of Cameron's Tory front bench revolt over 2nd jobs, where virtually all his shadow cabinet refused to give up their outside interests, comes this call from the shadow minister for police reform, David Ruffley.

He is demanding a ban on police officers having second jobs.

He said officers'
jobs were too important for them to be compromised “in any way”,
regardless of the economic crisis.

But rather than petition the government to finally provide them with their full pay increase, he just took the usual and easy statist option and called for a ban.

What a totally hypocritical action from Ruffley, especially when we look at Mr Ruffley's own outside interests which he refused to give up, from Theyworkforyou.com

2. Remunerated employment, office, profession etc
Solicitor (non-practising).
Adviser on economic affairs to Lotus Asset Management (with effect from 26 May 2005). (£15,001-£20,000)
Adviser to Dentons Pension Management Ltd, giving general strategic business advice. (£25,001-£30,000)
Adviser to Partnership Group Holdings Limited,
giving strategic business advice (with effect from 19 April 2007).
(£25,001-£30,000)
4. Sponsorship or financial or material support
Mr Derek Sayer of London is paying for research services relating to my shadow frontbench responsibility for police reform. (Registered 17 October 2008)

Add all that to his MP's salary of £60,675, his last published expenses of £136,963 noting that he Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament, we can see that Mr Ruffley is sitting quite pretty, a pig at the trough one might say.

Ruffley said: “The prime responsibility of an officer of the law is to have all focus
and attention on serving. It is hard to see what circumstances would
justify having more than one job.”

No Mr Ruffley, thats what we expect of our MP's. That's what we taxpayers pay you for.

If there is one thing that I detest just as much in politicians that lie, cheat and are corrupt, its the bare faced hypocrits amongst them.

It is clear that this Tory MP doesnt consider his own role of being an MP important enough to be compromised “in any way”.

Doesn't it tell us so much of what to expect if the Tories ever win the next election. Cameron really should get a grip.

Interesting corrupt fact for today: The Pesticide Action Network, who were interviewed by the BBC yesterday, welcoming the EU's decision to ban a range of pesticides, are funded by…the EU.

This is how the corrupt EU uses your tax money, this is why their accounts are never signed off.

That is why we are better off OUT.

Hattip Bishop Hill

Popout

From Daniel Hannan

The
Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolánek, is a mild-mannered man. Although
he is no great enthusiast for the Lisbon Treaty, his coalition partners
have forced a compromise on him: his government will not stand in the
way of ratification if the Irish change their minds; but he won't seek
to bully them in the mean time.

Fair
enough, you'd have thought. The Czech Republic has now assumed the
presidency of the EU, and Mr Topolánek duly came before the European
Parliament to set out his position. The Lisbon Treaty was nothing to
get excited about, he told MEPs. The EU could work perfectly well with
it, or with the existing Nice arrangements. Although he personally
would vote for Lisbon, he could see the point of view of those who
disagreed.

“Telling member states in advance
that they have to ratify the treaty,” he argued, with reference to
Ireland, “and that they do not have the right to decide whether to
approve it or not, is absurd”.

Who could disagree with such a moderate defence of the democratic principle?

Step
forward Proinsias de Rossa, formerly of the Workers' Party, now an MEP
for the Irish Labour Party. “I am appalled by your disgraceful comment
here this morning that Lisbon is worse than Nice,” he raged. “That is
not only untrue, it is divisive and it is a breach of trust. You have
to seriously consider withdrawing your comments here this morning in
relation to Lisbon”.

You see? Even to be
pro-Lisbon, but insufficiently enthusiastic about it, is deemed
unacceptable. (Yes, those were his exact words: watch the clip

here if you don't believe me.) This, remember, is a treaty rejected by a majority of Proinsias's own constituents in Dublin.


Not
that I want to pick on Proinsias. Similar comments were made by dozens
of MEPs, who tore into the Czechs for being too pro-American, too
pro-British, insufficiently committed to political integration. Still,
it is pretty shocking that the position taken by 54 per cent of Irish
voters is now being dismissed by their own elected representatives (
Proinsias is not the first) as plain wrong.

Hattip Old Holborn

Popout

From Daniel Hannan

The
Czech Prime Minister, Mirek Topolánek, is a mild-mannered man. Although
he is no great enthusiast for the Lisbon Treaty, his coalition partners
have forced a compromise on him: his government will not stand in the
way of ratification if the Irish change their minds; but he won't seek
to bully them in the mean time.

Fair
enough, you'd have thought. The Czech Republic has now assumed the
presidency of the EU, and Mr Topolánek duly came before the European
Parliament to set out his position. The Lisbon Treaty was nothing to
get excited about, he told MEPs. The EU could work perfectly well with
it, or with the existing Nice arrangements. Although he personally
would vote for Lisbon, he could see the point of view of those who
disagreed.

“Telling member states in advance
that they have to ratify the treaty,” he argued, with reference to
Ireland, “and that they do not have the right to decide whether to
approve it or not, is absurd”.

Who could disagree with such a moderate defence of the democratic principle?

Step
forward Proinsias de Rossa, formerly of the Workers' Party, now an MEP
for the Irish Labour Party. “I am appalled by your disgraceful comment
here this morning that Lisbon is worse than Nice,” he raged. “That is
not only untrue, it is divisive and it is a breach of trust. You have
to seriously consider withdrawing your comments here this morning in
relation to Lisbon”.

You see? Even to be
pro-Lisbon, but insufficiently enthusiastic about it, is deemed
unacceptable. (Yes, those were his exact words: watch the clip

here if you don't believe me.) This, remember, is a treaty rejected by a majority of Proinsias's own constituents in Dublin.


Not
that I want to pick on Proinsias. Similar comments were made by dozens
of MEPs, who tore into the Czechs for being too pro-American, too
pro-British, insufficiently committed to political integration. Still,
it is pretty shocking that the position taken by 54 per cent of Irish
voters is now being dismissed by their own elected representatives (
Proinsias is not the first) as plain wrong.

Hattip Old Holborn