Just because it's allowed doesn't make it right

SIR – Regarding your article headlined, MPs expenses: Barbara Follett claims �25k for security at second home. I am outraged that Ms Follett MP has been using taxpayers money in this way. I would firstly question why the taxpayer should be funding a se

SIR - Regarding your article headlined, MPs' expenses: Barbara Follett claims �25k for security at second home.

I am outraged that Ms Follett MP has been using taxpayers' money in this way.

I would firstly question why the taxpayer should be funding a second home at all if her constituencies are Stevenage, Knebworth and Codicote.

Can she not commute like all the thousands of others from the area that work in London?

The odd overnight stay could be accommodated in an economy hotel, just like the rest of us.

Ms Follett's comments about how much she puts in to her role are even more unbelievable.

It seems that she believes that commitment and hard work give her the right to do this.

In my world hard work and commitment give me the right to my pay packet, and in this day and age, we hope a little job security.

If I decided that it entitled me to extract money from my employers by exploiting expenses payments I would be fired.

Just because her claims might sit within the (ridiculous) allowed items category does not make it morally or ethically right.

If Ms Follett wishes the respect of her constituents she ought to give a little thought to all who are working hard to provide essentials for their families and not expect those same people to fund her lavish lifestyle.

Sue Topham,

Broomhills, WGC.