Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

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.

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....

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.

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

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?

*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?!

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...