Mr Laws resigns

[SeanMacGabhann]

Someone wake me up when the hysterical hating has stopped

If his partner had been female he would have perfectly legally, no fraud no anything, been allowed to claim a LOT more for his partner and the flat. As it happened, the law changed several years later and he was faced with the choice of outing himself and his partner for the sake of a technicality.

So yes he ended up breaking the law, but for (IMO) understandable reasons. Had he followed the letter of the law it would have saved the taxpayer not a single dime BUT would have presented the tabloids with lot?s of GAY MP OUTED type headlines so cut the guy SOME slack for cryin out loud

And to dress all this hatred up as faux-morality, concerned taxpayers, blah blah blah ? it?s f***ing sickening

God I hate people sometimes

[*Bob*]

Nice to hear Amanda Platell on LBC literally bursting with glee at being able to say 'paying rent to his gay lover' on LBC this week.. well done you, Amanda.

[silverfox]

David Laws resigned his cabinet post after revelations that he used taxpayers? money to pay rent to his boyfriend.

He is a millionaire former investment banker and has a double first from Cambridge. He claimed ?40,000 over eight years to rent accommodation from James Lundie, in a clear breach of Commons rules on expenses.

The rules on the additional costs allowance, which Laws used to claim for rooms in Lundie?s properties, state that the money

?must not be used to meet the costs of ... leasing accommodation from a close business associate, or a partner, or a family member?.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Politics/article304022.ece

He accepted his expenses claims were wrong. He apologised to his constituents for ?falling below the standards? they were entitled to expect.

The facts are he was holding a exalted position in public office. He is an intelligent, wealthy man who knew full well what he was doing was wrong, if not downright deceitful. His behaviour cannot be excused. There is nothing hysterical about this.

[SeanMacGabhann]

You aren't repudiating any of the facts I mentioned silverfox - if his partner had been a woman all of this would have gone through due process

No-one, least of all Laws, is saying he DIDN'T do anything wrong - everyone accepts that he did, the law changed and he was required to declare, but prurience and hysteria (yep) are clouding the bigger picture . He made the decision to keep it covered up for the reasons I state above - it doesn't make it right but it does make it understandable. As this isn't costing the taxpayer any money what exactly is the point of it all ?

Given the headlines he would have faced if he had followed the letter of the law, and given it's not costing anyone anything, can you not empathise? It wasn't a deliberate coveting of money - he was entitled to the money but would have needed to declare his partner sexuality with the tabloid fun that entails....

[Belle]

Exactly - I don't understand the feeling of outrage that he somehow swindled the taxpayer. I also don't think his wealth is relevant to be honest.

[silverfox]

Yes I do empathise and there is a lot of support for his personal dilemma. You're also right to say there has been a lot of schadenfreude about his downfall from many quarters, including the homophobe brigide.

My point though is the British Public are fed up with our leaders adopting one rule for themselves and other rules for the rest of us. The whole row about the expenses scandal wasn't that the politicians had done anything wrong legally - it was that they had granted themselves privileges which allowed them to feather their nests at our expense which was a insult to hard working families struggling to make ends meet. David Laws has been tarnished by this same issue.

This is also why Danny Alexander should do the decent thing and resign immediately. The office of Chief Secretary to the Treasury is about to oversee cuts that will deeply affect all households in the country. How can Danny Alexander introduce punitive changes to Capital Gains tax that he himself avoided and made a decent profit from (albeit technically legally).

There are credibility and legitimacy issues here and it poses the question as to the competence of this coalition partnership in making suspect appointments.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I disagree that Laws has been tarnished with the SAME brush

I don?t doubt that the British People are fed up, but that doesn?t make them wholly correct to complain about everything and conflate multiple problem into one Given the turmoil most people will face in coming years it is going to be all too easy to feed peoples disaffection (be it with politicians, immigrants, the media ? whatever) and it?s time for clear heads and a sense of dealing with stuff appropriatelty and not finding scapegoats.

I don?t necessarily agree that it?s one rule for them and one for us ? whatever that quite means. Clearly it?s easier to manage a relatively small number of MPs on a case by case basis and see what common sense actions need to be taken

When it comes to Joe Public, it depends on the size of the institution ? if you are being dealt with by a small outpost of government, with some autonomy, then chances are that you may well be excused ?inncuracies? which might otherwise be a problem. But given the sheer scale of the taxpaying public, it isn?t feasible to look into or make a case for everyone making mistakes to be ?excused?. There are also a hell of a lot of Joe Public trying to defraud the taxpayer and the system in place has to deal with sheer volume ? THAT is the reason for the less flexible attitude to ?us? ? not some invisible divide

Sometimes, a stroppy child or partner who has been moping around the house whining ?s?not fair? needs to have a look at themselves and stop worrying about Tommy down the road and what HIS parents let him do.

MPs do a hard job, beyond the scope of most of us and get payed relativly (given the hours, the stress, the responsibilities and expenses) small amounts to do so. I?m glad expenses are more transparent and I?m glad that culture will be gone, but ultimately it?s neither here nor there ? a diversion.. a fireworks show for masses to complain about. The overall cost to the taxpayer is infintessimaly small and irrelevant ? but we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of the media witchunt

We should be better than this

[*Bob*]

Before the year is out, I expect Vince Cable will be dismissed from the cabinet for failing to drive with his hands in the 'ten to two' position.

[edcam]

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But at least he's fallen on his sword (excuse the

> pun!!)

What?! This either makes no sense or is offensive and I can't quite be sure which...

[*Bob*]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> dbboy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > But at least he's fallen on his sword (excuse

> the

> > pun!!)

> What?! This either makes no sense or is offensive

> and I can't quite be sure which...

Well - you know! He's GAY, isn't he?! So basically it's just gotta be about cock, cock, cock all day long, like all homosexuals - right?

[Belle]

Well said Sean. Completely agree.

[womanofdulwich]

men.!

[edcam]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > dbboy Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > But at least he's fallen on his sword (excuse

> > the

> > > pun!!)

>

> > What?! This either makes no sense or is

> offensive

> > and I can't quite be sure which...

>

> Well - you know! He's GAY, isn't he?! So basically

> it's just gotta be about cock, cock, cock all day

> long, like all homosexuals - right?

Right. Astonishing isn't it?!

[SteveT]

SeanMacGabhann wrote:- We should be better than this

So should those MP's doing such a hard job which is no doubt beyond the scope of most of us too,

they made up their own rules and then they break them.

They also make up the rules for us,

but if we transgress and break those rules we are punished by the law, we either do time in gaol, or are fined.

Why should the transgressions of their rules not be punished by the same law?

When they pay back what they should never have taken in the first place, and resign, that seems to be their punishment,

why are they not fined or imprisoned like the rest of us would be on this forum?

Is it because he is gay he is exempt, or because he is a very wealthy, and very clever politician?

I am only asking out of ignorance as I do not understand how the system works,

but I do not expect anyone to get all heated about it.

[Trump]

Nothing to do with his [Mr Laws] sexuality ? If he wanted to keep his sex life confidential ? He should never have made these claims ? If he wanted his partner to profit from their relationship ? Claim:

[SteveT]

The system does not seem to have improved one jot.

The MP's are still falling foul of the system which they created.

Perhaps it is too complicated and should be simplified.

Maybe one payment per year for expenses rather like a salary, might be more reliable.