David Laws - corrupt hypocrite?

lvader

headcone wrote: »

What relevance does your post have to a thread about a corrupt Tory politician? Bizzare!

Hes not a Tory, he's Lib Dem.

97trophy

headcone wrote: »

What relevance does your post have to a thread about a corrupt Tory politician? Bizzare!

You might notice the poster had asked a specific question to which I gave a truthful answer

Shame you can't handle the truth.

headcone

97trophy wrote: »

You might notice the poster had asked a specific question to which I gave a truthful answer

Shame you can't handle the truth.

Obviously acceptable behaviour by your standards then?

Annisele

I like this bit (quoted from the article the OP linked to):

At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.
“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives.

I can't say that I've ever considered the sharing of bank accounts to be the determining factor in whether or not a couple lives as spouses! It reminds me of some of Clinton's excuses.

marklv

amcluesent wrote: »

MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim

The Cabinet minister charged with rescuing the Government’s finances has used taxpayers’ money to pay more than £40,000 to his long-term partner, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Mr Laws, a Liberal Democrat, has the task of implementing public-sector cuts worth more than £6  billion. He has already drawn up tough new rules limiting the pay and perks of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers.

He's just a filthy dog. Cameron should sack him and whack him! :mad:

Shakethedisease

At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as ‘one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses’.
“Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses. For example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives.

Just imagine trying to use that excuse if you're on any sort of benefits ? You'd be given pretty short shrift I expect.

And when was this :-

"My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality."

..ever an excuse to defraud the system ?

Spartacus_Mills

headcone wrote: »

What relevance does your post have to a thread about a corrupt politician? Bizzare!

Who appointed you to moderate the thread ?

The_White_Horse

shame this wasn't revealed before the election - that way we wouldn't have had to put up with the houlier than thou St. Nick

ash28

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Just imagine trying to use that excuse if you're on any sort of benefits ? You'd be given pretty short shrift I expect.

And when was this :-



..ever an excuse to defraud the system ?

Your first point is the same as my initial thoughts about it. It seems to be one rule for him and one for the rest of the proles.

He had 3 options

1. Hide the relationship, claim nothing and pay his share of the expenses out of his own pocket.

2. Be open about it - make it a joint mortgage and claim (legitmately) probably more money than he has already claimed.

3. Hide the relationship and claim money for renting a room

He chose option 3, which shows some quite poor judgement IMHO, it's not the money, though in my book £40k is a lot of money, it's the intent to deceive, for whatever reason. Dishonest, on the fiddle, what ever you want to call it.

It was against the rules and he knew it was against the rules however he tries to justify it now.

Should he go? TBH, I'm not sure, he's seems to be a competent politician and there seem to be few of those around. Morally, he probably should.

Andy_L

amcluesent wrote: »

>He had [STRIKE]3[/STRIKE] 4 options<

Through prayer and finding God's love, leave the path of abomination that is against nature

Whilst it is low, I don't think being in a coalition with the Tories is an abomination against nature