Robber Barons

Robber baron is a term revived in the 19th century United States for businessmen and bankers who dominated respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically by anti-competitive or unfair business practices. The term may now relate to any person who used questionable business practices to become powerful or wealthy.
For some time a number of Lords have been under a Police investigation for expense “padding”.
Baroness Uddin, the first female Muslim peer, had been the first peer to be exposed for wrongly claiming a generous allowance which helps members of the Lords pay for accommodation in London. Peers can claim £174 a night if they live outside the capital. She had lived within four miles of the House of Lords for 20 years but she has claimed almost £200,000 by saying that her main home was outside London. 
Lord Paul, for 18 months, to July 2006, Paul claimed £38,000 by saying he lived in Bignell Cottage, Oxfordshire. This was, in fact, a one-bedroom flat at the back of a hotel he owned. The flat was permanently occupied by the hotel manager and Paul admitted he had never actually slept in his “main home”.
Lord Taylor of Warwick claimed £70,000 by saying a relative’s boyfriend’s house in Oxford was his main home. He did not live there and apparently visited only once for a party.
Baroness Hayman, the Speaker has claimed £200,000 in expenses by having a “main residence” in Norfolk, despite having lived in the same house in London for 35 years.
In a letter last month, Michael Pownall, the clerk of the parliaments, revealed he had decided on a new definition of “main home” to help him deal with complaints about members’ expenses.The definition: a “main residence has to be visited with a degree of frequency: in the order of at least once a month”.
For months, the police had been asking the Lords authorities to define the term “main home” but were politely told there was not one. Now, out of the blue, there was a definition and no matter how absurd it appeared, the police had to take it seriously. “To say you only have to visit your main home is ridiculous by anyone’s standards and it made it very hard to build a strong case,” said one detective. It meant that to find proof against Uddin and also Lord Paul, would be almost impossible.
The director of public prosecutions, delivered the news that detectives had expected since Pownall’s ruling was announced: Uddin could not be prosecuted because the Lords’ new interpretation of the rules was so lax. Paul had also been informed that no further action would be taken against him.
The Commons rules make clear that an MP’s main home is the place where he or she spends most nights, but the Lords has never had a definition because it relies on peers to act on their “honour”. The new definition was intended to be used to judge the 20 or so peers who were the subject of the complaints to the House, mostly following articles in The Sunday Times.
The Lords firmly deny that there had been any attempt to influence the police inquiries.
If the Lords’ position really is that a peer has to stay overnight at their main residence, that would mean Paul — who never slept in his main home — should be reinvestigated. But will he?
I don't know if the Lords has a Anthem, if not may I suggest “Life's been Good” by Joe Walsh? With the lovely lines of
“I have a mansion forget the price
Ain't never been there they tell me it's nice”