It seems that Mr Bercow is trying to play down the unpaid Capital Gains Tax from profits made on second home sales going back to 2003. Trying to make out that he has written a cheque for what his accontant now thinks he owes the HMRC but if he doesn't it can go to charity. Trying to give the impression that he might not of done anything wrong. According to the Daily Telegraph there definately was unpaid Capital Gains Tax not paid when it should of been and HMRC have confirmed this. Also it is quite normal for people to have to pay interest on unpaid taxes from previous years, it is also normal for HMRC to fine people who don't pay their taxes on time. So if MR Bercow has made a cheque to HMRC for the monies he owes them plus interest this is not some generous gesture it is what he has to do in such circumstances. Why is he trying to make out as if the HMRC might not want the money and if not he give the money to a charity! What! Is he trying to mislead the public into thinking he is such a generous person for making such a hyperthetical statement? If he hasn't paid his taxes, he hasn't paid his taxes, it is simple as that and of course HMRC want the money if it due and he should face the consequenses like any one else. £6000 plus might be a small sum to Mr Bercow but this is as much as some people earn in a year his constituency, to them this is no small sum, it is a very significant amount of money not to have paid in tax as the Daily Telegraph claim. Constituents are also interested in the sum of approx. £40,000 additional private money he received as an adviser to a private health care company that is registered in the Cayman Islands a tax haven. Did mr Bercow pay UK taxes on this income?
What does he do for this company to be paid so much? Is there any conflict of interest in being an MP and his finanial gain from this company? What is the name of this company? What products do they produce and services do they provide? Do this company or their agents lobby Par

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE>>>>Do this company or their agents lobby Parliament for anything that they could possibly gain financially? I think Mr Bercow has many questions to answer. The electorate would like full and detailed answers to these questions and more. After all wasn't it Mr Bercow who spoke in Parliament recently about Members'Allowances as recorded on Hansard ' Quote Mr Bercow...I have outside interests, which is listed in the register, but I am entirely open to the view that thou shalt declare more about it, and answer questions such as the following: What exactly do you do? When were you appointed? What is your role? How long do you devote to it? and How frequently do you visit the company? That seems perfectly reasonable' Unquote.... Quite! Mr Bercow, I couldn't put the questions better myself. But what about the detailed answers to your own questions? I and many others, I'm sure would like to hear them.

I agree with Simon, Mr Bercow is only in office because his is hiding in Conservative clothing, he is a Labour candidate really and hardly ever votes with the Tories.

Both he & David Lidington should resign.

I don't think that Mr Bercow is a bad MP just because he does not vote with his party on every issue.

If that were the case would he have not had the whip removed from him?

It's a shame more MP's don't represent the interests of all their constituents rather than their party. Although Mr Bercow is an elected Tory MP, there will be many people in his constituency of other political persuasions. He has a duty to them as well as his party, and if this means voting against the party then so be it.

Both Mr Liddington & Mr Bercow have been found to be tax dodging, but so, I fear are many others who are playing a flawed system.

Mr Liddington, however, seems to be milking it to a greater extent than Mr Bercow with his cleaning, vitamins & toiletries claims etc. This would be laughable if we weren't so angry.

In the last year I have lived in the constituencies of both Mr Bercow & Mr Liddington. I know who I would rather have representing me, and that's Mr Bercow.

Wouldn't it be nice to think when Mr Bercow goes against the majority of his party he is doing it to represent his constituents. Please take your rose coloured glasses off. Mr Bercow was voted in on a Conservative ticket not because everyone in Buckingham thinks he is a great guy. On every moral issue Mr Bercow always votes with his trendy liberal chums whether they be in New Labour or The Lib Dems. He is the self appointed champion of the millitant gays rights and millitant feminists groups.(which probably relects 2% to 3% of his the Buckingham constituency) To these people he is their hero. So when Mr Bercow votes in the house against his party whip please don't believe he is doing it to represent the majority of his constituents who mostly hold taditional conservative family values. No Mr Bercow is a 'maverick', who thinks because he has such a safe seat he can do as he pleases and follow his own liberal agenda. If he was honest he would do the decent thing and cross the floor to join his liberal new labour chums. Mr Bercow's politics are now those of The Guardian newspaper not The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Express and The Sun which I expect most Conservatives read in his Buckingham constituency. I am a traditional Conservative voter and Mr Bercow certainly doesn't represent me as a constituent even when I have written to him on a specific issue he has still voted with the liberals.

Simon, I feel that you have a problem personally with Mr Bercow.

He has represented my area well of late, and yes that is contrary to the view of local conservatives who have their own agenda. So, based my on personal experience of the man I think it is fair to say that he has put the interests of his constituencey before that of the local Tories. His constituents do spread beyond Buckingham you know.

I also don't have a problem with him championing gay causes. You come across as sounding a bit homophobic in your post particulary when you refer to "traditional Conservative family values". You must realise that these values, like all things, are changing with the times as we become a more inclusive and tolerant society.

If he is as alien to the Conservative party as you say, then it makes no sense that he has not had the whip removed and been cast out of his party.

Finally, I would like to comment on your description of him as a "maverick". Again, I have no problem with mavericks and think the world would be a much duller place without them.

If Mr Bercow left the Conservative party and joined either New Labour or the Lib Dems I would no longer have a problem with him because then his politics and liberal values would truly reflect the party he belonged to.
And you are right there is nothing wrong with fighting for gay rights or any other minority groups rights,so long as the rights of a minority group don't ride rough shod over other peoples beliefs and values as happended with the SORs (sexual orientation regulations) which were undemocratically forced through Parliament and Mr Bercow was a key supporter. I very much believe that the views of any minority group should be heard and considered in a open democracy, However, the views and beliefs of the silent majority should also be respected. It shouldn't be the case that those who shout the loudest get the most attention and always get their way, otherwise that groups influence on a society is disproportionate to their number in the population as a whole. In a democracy surely the majority group should be heard also. (Talking about minority groups, it is interesting though that no MP or rich white feminist or any militant UK feminist group is prepared to fight for ethnic womens' equal rights in the UK, it seems no one dare champion this obvious cause).

I'm afraid I agree with nbw on this one.

Simon you have come across as personally attacking Mr Bercow and it's all on one issue. Your views are draconian and representative of only a tiny minority of hard right wing people who need dragging into the 21st Century.

It may be the case that only two or three % of people are gay or feminist but that doesn't mean that 97/98% of people are anti-gay and anti-feminist. In fact, times have moved on so that you, Simon, are in a minority with your out-of-date opinions.

Why would the rights of gay people ride rough shod over your beliefs and values? If two men or two women wish to get married because they love each other what is this actually doing to infringe upon your life?

Also how can you expect the views and beliefs of the silent majority be respected? The fact that they remain silent suggests that maybe they don't actually care or mind all that much.

Finally, with respect to your comment on ethnic women's equal rights, I'm sure Germaine Greer and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown would be interested in sitting down with you over a nice cup of tea to discuss their work and views.

Breaking News.....John Bercow has the support of just one per cent of the public for the Speakers job; it seems the general public agee with me on this one.

Reality check....I doubt many members of the general public are as well aquainted with John Bercow as you are Simon.

I believe the rather scary star of reality TV, Anne Widdecombe, topped the poll.

Says it all really.