>I notice this morning after mounting criticism from amateur geographers in Scotland and beyond still list Alan Reid MP for Argyll and Bute on their list of shame with the extract:

Alan Reid claimed more than £1,500 on his parliamentary expenses for staying in
hotels and bed-and-breakfasts near his home.

These were hardly just up the road from Cardross. Nor when taking in the island nature, CalMac timetabling, weather rescheduling at standard of roads in much of the outlying reaches of Argyll and Bute.

There has been growing outrage over MPs making outrageous claims. But not call for Martin Beckford (pictured left) to apologise or dare I say it resign for the inaccuracies and misleadings of his article. I for one think he should and am wondering why none of the letters that I’m sure have been sent along with mine complaining about this have been published in the Telegraph.

Michael Beckford what say you?

Update: A quick bit of research, almost as quick as looking up the Wikipedia constituency map, shows that Martin Beckford is social and religious affairs correspondent for The Daily Telegraph. He’s not really a political mover and therefore may have little knowledge of the working of constituency politics.

Therefore I call on Benedict Brogan (right) the Chief Political correspondent on the Telegraph who must have overall editorial control over the revelations over the last week to answer some questions.

  1. Did he have final editorial say in what went into the 6 pages per day coverage in the Telegraph?
  2. Did he look at each of the articles to see if there was justification to call the MP to account?
  3. As he failed to answer last night on BBC’s Question Time how exactly did he come to have in his procession what are stolen goods? And has he handed details of his source to the police who are investigating their theft?
  4. Does he have nay idea how beautiful, vast and awkward to get to bits of the Argyll and Bute constituency actually are? Or do any of the 25 members of staff he claims on these stories have such knowledge?
  5. Why wasn’t such knowledge either used or checked before publication?
  6. Why is there still no apology, no retraction or no other action over these spurious claims?