We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?
Comments
-
have i missed something or were these two part of the last government?
Jonathan Aitken = convicted
Jeffrey Archer (Conservattive party deputy chairman) = convicted for perjury in two separate cases.
Mr A. Badger = In, Glass, throw, stones, houses, shouldn't, people
Your point, such as it is, doesn't disprove mine. The last government was notorious for disgraced ministers refusing to resign and being reinstated.
Chucky = read, should, learn to.0 -
have you forgotten that David Laws is a public figure...Just because you came out at 14 does not mean that David Laws has to. The fact he chose to keep his relationship hidden from his parents is his choice not yours.
It wasn't really to his financial benefit, he could have claimed more had he been more open about the relationship. In fact the idea that it is fraud when he claimed something disallowed under one rule, but could have claimed twice as much under another, makes it a bit of a grey area in my eyes.
once you make that choice, you're relationship becomes public regardless of your sexual orientation.
when you say he did not have financial benefit - he may not have but his boyfriend whom he was in a relationship did. is it ok that he break the rules just because he was in a gay relationship and it was a secret? are we meant to give him a break because he didn't want his relationship being made public?
if he wanted his relationship being private he shouldn't have claimed the £40,000, it's quite simple. he wanted to have his cake and eat it. he got caught out for being arrogant and thinking he was above it all.0 -
my point is pretty obvious.Your point, such as it is, doesn't disprove mine. The last government was notorious for disgraced ministers refusing to resign and being reinstated.
Chucky = read, should, learn to.
all political parties and governments will have 'sleaze' issues. it's nothing new.
pointing the finger exclusively at one political party like you do is stupid.0 -
my point is pretty obvious.
all political parties and governments will have 'sleaze' issues. it's nothing new.
pointing the finger exclusively at one political party like you do is stupid.
What is stupid is your unwillingness to admit to distinctions. In his post. ash28 claimed some sort of sleaze record for the last Tory government.
To be precise, he wrote: "Labour may have won in the expenses stakes in the last administration by a fair margin - but in the sleaze stakes the last Tory administration have it by landslide"
As I pointed out, there was a major difference between the way the two handled such revelations.
You don't have to be a Conservative supporter to see the difference. And, indeed, I'm not.
How's life under the bridge, by the way?0 -
hahaha - you do get very sensitive.What is stupid is your unwillingness to admit to distinctions. In his post. ash28 claimed some sort of sleaze record for the last Tory government.
To be precise, he wrote: "Labour may have won in the expenses stakes in the last administration by a fair margin - but in the sleaze stakes the last Tory administration have it by landslide"
As I pointed out, there was a major difference between the way the two handled such revelations.
You don't have to be a Conservative supporter to see the difference. And, indeed, I'm not.
How's life under the bridge, by the way?
i'm really sorry that i dared post something contradicting what you post or even post something contrary to what you think. it won't happen again. i promise.0 -
Just because you came out at 14 does not mean that David Laws has to. The fact he chose to keep his relationship hidden from his parents is his choice not yours.
It wasn't really to his financial benefit, he could have claimed more had he been more open about the relationship. In fact the idea that it is fraud when he claimed something disallowed under one rule, but could have claimed twice as much under another, makes it a bit of a grey area in my eyes.
we are all legally obliged to disclose our relationship status to the state for certain matters. privacy is not an option for us - why should it be for him?Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
As far as I know (from my gay friends) there are two steps to be crossed as part of being gay. One is coming to terms with it in yourself, accepting that and resolving any shame issues that it brings up. The second is making disclosures to people around you. Like it or not, there is still an enormous amount of stigma about sexual orientation.
The ease of these steps varies enormously from person to person. It isn't really fair for you to make judgements such as these until you know all of that person's circumstances - which no one can.
Smoke screen!0 -
we are all legally obliged to disclose our relationship status to the state for certain matters. privacy is not an option for us - why should it be for him?
Privacy to the ublic and the state might be different for some people. Make no mistake,I do not condone this matter, but I know a few people who like to keep some things discreet...sexuality being one of them. e.g. I don't think DH's family need to know my sexual past, I accept my relationship past is something that might have had fiscal bearing if I were in an official union with any of those people.0 -
As far as I know (from my gay friends) there are two steps to be crossed as part of being gay. One is coming to terms with it in yourself, accepting that and resolving any shame issues that it brings up. The second is making disclosures to people around you. Like it or not, there is still an enormous amount of stigma about sexual orientation.
The ease of these steps varies enormously from person to person. It isn't really fair for you to make judgements such as these until you know all of that person's circumstances - which no one can.
i had the same issues when i discovered straight feelings in my 30s - it was a bit of an identity crisis. do you think if i'd been on benefits and moved a straight partner in and not declared it that would have been okay in the eyes of the court?Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
i had the same issues when i discovered straight feelings in my 30s - it was a bit of an identity crisis. do you think if i'd been on benefits and moved a straight partner in and not declared it that would have been okay in the eyes of the court?
I agree. Furthermore I think exactly the same IS an issue we need to address with gay/straight cohabiting couples claiming as sharing singles.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards