David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

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.

totally agree with you there lostinrates. by david laws was not being asked to disclose his sexual past. whether he likes to be a top or bottom or whatever. however, you don't pretend that your husband is your 'friend' do you? and you are not claiming any public funds based on your sexual past.

what if clegg or cameron was living with a female friend who later turned out to be their longterm partner? and if they were claiming expenses for that? i could think of instances where straight people might want to use the 'privacy' excuse too. for example, if there were religious differences the parents disapproved of. however, if you enter public life then there are certain things you really can't expect privacy over. if david laws was so worried about his parents finding out maybe he should have gone for a different career where his relationship status would not be reported in the press.

StevieJ

As a taxpayer, if the £40k was less than he otherwise was entitled to claim I personally can't get get too hung up about the whole story.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

totally agree with you there lostinrates. by david laws was not being asked to disclose his sexual past. whether he likes to be a top or bottom or whatever. however, you don't pretend that your husband is your 'friend' do you? and you are not claiming any public funds based on your sexual past.

what if clegg or cameron was living with a female friend who later turned out to be their longterm partner? and if they were claiming expenses for that? i could think of instances where straight people might want to use the 'privacy' excuse too. for example, if there were religious differences the parents disapproved of. however, if you enter public life then there are certain things you really can't expect privacy over. if david laws was so worried about his parents finding out maybe he should have gone for a different career where his relationship status would not be reported in the press.

I agree with all of that, but my different opinion from yours is that I do not feel everyone should have to publically (as opposed to fiscally/financially) declare their sexuality,colour, religion, or favouritre tv show. I think this SHOULD be respected more in public life,because what happens is the people who are discrete, or perhaps have one some wrongs in their youth (minor rather than major I'm thinking) they have truley repented are out of public life,leaving the unabashed riff raff or those who feel forced to secrecy to fill the boots.

I have no issue with Laws being gay, publically or privately, merely an issue with any finanial gain therein. I do not feel it should be mandatory to publish details not impacting on public work to the public.

A._Badger

For once, I agree with Ninky. Had Laws been applying for access to the public purse, as does Joe Bloggs - say for housing benefit - you can be absolutely certain that all details of his relationship would have become known.

As usual, the political class expects preferential treatment.

lostinrates

A._Badger wrote: »

For once, I agree with Ninky. Had Laws been applying for access to the public purse, as does Joe Bloggs - say for housing benefit - you can be absolutely certain that all details of his relationship would have become known.

As usual, the political class expects preferential treatment.

Really? I know of (straight)couples who have declared they are flat sharers not a couple. I understood from a conversation that an acquaintance had someone come and check there were two obviously occupied bedrooms (this would have been about 10 years ago I guess,is i still the same?)

It seems to me that we would all be asked and honesty or the ability to appear honest is relied on, whatever level the application is made at.

Wookster

lostinrates wrote: »

I agree. Furthermore I think exactly the same IS an issue we need to address with gay/straight cohabiting couples claiming as sharing singles.

This isn't a like for like comparison.

Benefits are different for sharing couples & sharing singles. Not so for David Laws. Also he could have claimed an annual limit of £22k (or there about) and he actually claimed about half that.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Really? I know of (straight)couples who have declared they are flat sharers not a couple. I understood from a conversation that an acquaintance had someone come and check there were two obviously occupied bedrooms (this would have been about 10 years ago I guess,is i still the same?)

It seems to me that we would all be asked and honesty or the ability to appear honest is relied on, whatever level the application is made at.

of course this happens lir. but the truth is it is illegal. and if people are caught doing it they can end up with a criminal record.

ninky_2

Wookster wrote: »

This isn't a like for like comparison.

Benefits are different for sharing couples & sharing singles. Not so for David Laws. Also he could have claimed an annual limit of £22k (or there about) and he actually claimed about half that.

you're not blinded by party loyalty here by any chance wookster. i mean, are you sure you'd give the same opinion a labour shadow minister had been caught out in the same fraudulent act?

lostinrates

Wookster wrote: »

This isn't a like for like comparison.

Benefits are different for sharing couples & sharing singles. Not so for David Laws. Also he could have claimed an annual limit of £22k (or there about) and he actually claimed about half that.

What is alike for like comparison in this case? I'm happy to think about it in another way. But it does seem a good contrast to make.


He could have claimed more, he could have claimed less. He probably could have scraped by claiming nothing. It doesn't really matter all that much to me, if I'm honest. It does serve to highlight existing ''imperfections'' but whether they are possible to erradicate? I doubt it.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

What is alike for like comparison in this case? I'm happy to think about it in another way. But it does seem a good contrast to make.


He could have claimed more, he could have claimed less. He probably could have scraped by claiming nothing. It doesn't really matter all that much to me, if I'm honest. It does serve to highlight existing ''imperfections'' but whether they are possible to erradicate? I doubt it.

scraped by? isn't he a millionaire?