Dnarever wrote on Jan 10
th, 2013 at 7:01am:
Do we all understand that he was using cab charge instead of having a personal car provided and often having a chauffeur driven Limo on standby for his use?
The fact is that even though if true this abuse is not supportable in any way that he has probably saved us a lot of money on his legitimate transport over the years.
By the way - I have seen chauffeur driven government Limo's at the wineries and restrauants.
that from what I read is what he is being charged with by the AFP...misuse of cabcharge..it said he knew full well he was not allowed to use it for said purpose..so one presumes the AFP have got that right....I mean he has been charged...
one assumes that if comcar is available then thats what he should use... might ask daughter who used to work at comcar.....
I suspect that it is optional, and cheaper.
DNA... THEY HAVE RULES ARE YOU SAYING THAT ALL HE HAS TO DO IS CLAIM IT WAS CHEAPER???????.. DO YOU REALLY THINK OUR MPs WORRY ABOUT CHEAP!as for seeing these cars at wineries doesnt mean they shouldnt be there..it could be official.. [ well it could be}..
but using a Taxi for the purpose I doubt it would be official..I would think that either could be official or not - there is no reason to connect the function of the visit with the mode of transoprt.
WHEN SOMEONE CLAIMS MONEY FROM THE GOVT THERE HAS TO BE A REASON FOR DOING SO..ie.. CABFARE TO WINERY...SOUNDS LIKE A PRIVATE VISIT...we do not know how much the fare was... he may have had the taxi wait..
what would you concider to be abuse then dna??
the fact he used a TAXI to go to winery ??
If he didn't have a valid reason he is probably done.
or the fact he dished out extra cabchecks... blank ones.?
Is he going to court about that? My belief is that the accusation was withdrawn?