The female peer in charge of the Commonwealth Secretariat has said that criticism of her curiously large expenses is down to the fact that she is a woman.

In an interview with The Guardian (obviously) from her grace and favour Mayfair mansion, Baroness Scotland complained that she has been “absolutely traduced” while “flinging her arms out in frustration” at the fact that her male predecessors’ expenses weren’t analysed so closely.

“I am amazed they think this is a proper issue for a secretary general of an international organisation to be consumed by”, the Baroness fumed.

Taxpayers are likely to respond to this by asking why it is “proper” for this woman to be billing taxpayers nearly £250,000 to renovate her house – including £30,000 for some paint, £4,020 for a cupboard and £300 for a toilet seat.

(Image: Chatham House)


  1. Contrary to feminists mantras our society is still very concerned to protect women from harm and upset. Indeed the success of the feminist enterprise is based not on dramatic lobbying (after all feminists usually fall back on the suffragettes as their example of robust public protest) But on “crying” sometimes literally, to see males tumble over themselves to resolve the cause of upset.
    So one can assume that her very protected status in fact means that the examples must be particularly egregious for them not to be hushed up.

    • Yes, but the worm is slowly turning. Women like the baroness have overplayed the victim card, and in some cases they find it has lost its power. And don’t they hate it when that happens, because they have no other excuse for their behaviour.

  2. Not only is she tokenism in human form, but she has Robert Mugabe’s attitude to other people’s property (or Nicolás Maduro’s – take your pick and spot the common denominator).

    • I’d like to know exactly how much of the wealth she enjoys is actually
      How much of it is, in fact, taxpayers’ money used for her sole benefit ?

  3. For those that have been following this item in other boards it can be seen that it is not just the house renovations, is it? There are quite a number of issues that call into question the Baroness’s conduct.
    In the past, there would have been the tendering of a resignation but no, she is a poor put upon, ethnic minority woman. Misogyny seems to be the get out clause that allows for a lack of action to dispense with the services of such a person. If Saunders would get her act in gear, it is has been alleged that it is possible that the Baroness could have been answering charges. Then again, do the ‘sisterhood’ do each other down?

  4. The bills sound perfectly acceptable to me because everything costs more since since people of low understanding voted for Brexit.
    It’s no good going into Homebase for some paint without £30,000 quid in your pocket.

  5. Ones sex isn’t any barrier to the largesse of the lax state. Taxpayer cash is loved by them all but none love it more than the newly crowned Labour bourgeoisie.

    • To be fair, the New Labour bourgeoisie is the worst. After them, I can understand many members of the Labour party resorting to Corbyn, if only (as I’ve heard Americans say of Trump) like resorting to chemotherapy to clean out the cancer.


  6. “£300 for a toilet seat”

    Perhaps we should be grateful that she hasn’t billed the taxpayer for having a throne installed in her bathroom – yet.

  7. So where is the body that oversees and regulates this spending/expense? What does she actually achieve, as opposed to ‘do’, in her role that makes her believe she is ‘worth’ the expense?

  8. From the Guido site:

    ‘Baroness Scotland claimed she was the victim of a “partisan campaign” by the Daily Mail, that the paper’s articles about her were “distorted“, inaccurate and that the Mail had published knowingly false allegations against her. IPSO rejected all of this and threw out every single one of Scotland’s complaints against the Mail.

    Baroness Scotland claimed reports recruitment rules had been bypassed to hire her friend Lord Patel’s company were untrue. IPSO found the standard recruitment process had been waived – the reports were true.

    Baroness Scotland denied reports her spending figures, published every three months, had not been released on time. IPSO found they were not released on time, the reports were true.

    Baroness Scotland claimed reports she had “brought in” interior designer Nicky Haslam were untrue. IPSO found Haslam had indeed been brought in by Scotland, the reports were true.

    Baroness Scotland denied Haslam had “partly overseen” the planned renovations. IPSO found this was an accurate description.

    Baroness Scotland denied that her advisers were “left-wing political fixers”. IPSO found they worked closely with the Labour Party and Labour figures and the reports were accurate.

    Baroness Scotland denied reports of plans for a “swanky new dining area” in her Mayfair residence. IPSO found there were plans to relocate a chandelier to the dining room so this report was accurate.

    Baroness Scotland denied reports staff had received a “sinister” notification from her office warning their communications were being monitored. IPSO found the reports were accurate.

    Baroness Scotland claimed it was misleading to refer to Lord Patel as her “partner in crime”. IPSO found Scotland had herself referred to him using those words.

    Baroness Scotland denied she had been “dubbed Baroness Brazen”. IPSO found that a Conservative MP had indeed dubbed her Baroness Brazen.

    Baroness Scotland claimed newspaper reports suggested she had paid her sister for advice. IPSO found the reports made clear she hadn’t paid her sister.

    Baroness Scotland claimed there was no evidence to suggest the Queen was “embarrassed” by her. IPSO found a well-placed Royal source said the Queen was embarrassed.

    Baroness Scotland claimed there was no whistleblower, as there was nothing to blow the whistle on. IPSO found it was accurate to call the concerned source a whistleblower.

    Baroness Scotland claimed it was misleading to say Downing Street had refused to give its confidence in her. IPSO found Downing Street would only give confidence in the role of Secretary-General, the reports were accurate.’

  9. She has abused her position of power for many years at a huge cost to the taxpayer – she should now be forced to resign and then pay back all the money she has stolen.

    Typical thieving champagne socialist.

  10. The dodgy Dame would have made the perfect chairwoman of the Grenfell Tower enquiry that the so-called victims have been noisily demanding – entitled, foreign, corrupt, arrogant and anti-British. What a very fitting symbol she is of of the Blair-Brown legacy.

    • The House of Lords would have the Olympic rings painted on the brickwork? Would the motto change to: aquila non capit muscas?

  11. I’ve heard this claim from Diane Abbott, Jess Philips, Harriet Harman, Caroline Flint.

    Yet I’ve never heard May, Golda Meir, The Queen, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey or Ruth Davidson claim it.


    • “never heard May, Golda Meir, The Queen, Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey or Ruth Davidson say the same thing”.
      Might even be difficult for them to use the fall back position: Is it cos I is black?

  12. Totally ridiculous as a male, heterosexual WASP like myself would not be awarded such favours as we’re in a tiny, unfluential minority.

  13. It is so easy isn’t it to hide behind the “persecuted minority ” stance. Once a card is pulled that is marked “race” or I’m a woman”, you can be fairly sure that there really is a problem requiring investigation. True women or anyone of integrity of a minority group, stand or fall on their own merits, as they don’t need to rely on excuses.

Comments are closed.