Laws
02 June 2010, 09:06 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it so difficult to understand why a son would not want to force his parents to choose between him and their religious faith?
This guy by all accounts was very talented, and to quote George Osbourne 'born to do the job he was handed'. Anyway thanks to our friends at the Daily Telegraph his position became untenable we are all losers.
If he wanted the money he would of declared his partner and been able to claim significantly more. This is such a cruel situation
This guy by all accounts was very talented, and to quote George Osbourne 'born to do the job he was handed'. Anyway thanks to our friends at the Daily Telegraph his position became untenable we are all losers.
If he wanted the money he would of declared his partner and been able to claim significantly more. This is such a cruel situation
A double first from Cambridge should have told him that sooner or later this info was going to come out, and when it did they would try to make as much of it as possible. Would have been far better to get this over and done with before the election.Let's hope things all get cleared up and he will be back in government shortly.
02 June 2010, 11:03 AM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
No! He's a thief. End of. He chose to steal money from the tax payer and thus forfeits any right to represent the electorate in parliament. Or are you saying that if a bloke was on benefits and told the benefits people he was renting a room from a 'landlady'. If they then found out he was living with her as man and wife would the explanation 'I wanted to keep my private life private' be taken as an excuse? Like h3ll it would. He'd be in court charged with benefit fraud before he could wipe his ****! Why should politicians be treated any differently????
Dave
02 June 2010, 01:20 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No! He's a thief. End of. He chose to steal money from the tax payer and thus forfeits any right to represent the electorate in parliament. Or are you saying that if a bloke was on benefits and told the benefits people he was renting a room from a 'landlady'. If they then found out he was living with her as man and wife would the explanation 'I wanted to keep my private life private' be taken as an excuse? Like h3ll it would. He'd be in court charged with benefit fraud before he could wipe his ****! Why should politicians be treated any differently????
Dave
Dave
02 June 2010, 01:33 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has he been found guilty of stealing, or is that just your own personal interpretation?He could clearly of claimed more if he's been upfront about his sexuality, so it may actually of saved the tax payer money. Think about that, and whilst you're at it think about how he must feel.As I said we are all losers if a capable and decent man is brought down like this, I accept that much of this is his own fault, but it's hardly worthy of all the vitriol is it?Finally, do you understand the meaning of the word 'compassion' because I see precious little from you?
Compassion for a thief? You feel it, I don't. He is not a *capable and decent man*, he is a thief!
Oh, his sexuality is irrelevant here. See my previous post about an analogy. You didn't answer that one.
Just to edit, I don't give a monkeys about his *feelings*. He is stealing from me, you and all other tax payers. Put him in jail.
Dave
Last edited by hutton_d; 02 June 2010 at 01:34 PM.
02 June 2010, 02:40 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compassion? He claimed money from the tax payer to which he was not entitled. No mistake. he KNEW that he was not entitled to it but claimed anyway. Therefore he is a thief. As an MP he won't go *up before the beak* to be found guilty or not but the fact that he is repaying it says volumes!
Compassion for a thief? You feel it, I don't. He is not a *capable and decent man*, he is a thief!
Oh, his sexuality is irrelevant here. See my previous post about an analogy. You didn't answer that one.
Just to edit, I don't give a monkeys about his *feelings*. He is stealing from me, you and all other tax payers. Put him in jail.
Dave
Compassion for a thief? You feel it, I don't. He is not a *capable and decent man*, he is a thief!
Oh, his sexuality is irrelevant here. See my previous post about an analogy. You didn't answer that one.
Just to edit, I don't give a monkeys about his *feelings*. He is stealing from me, you and all other tax payers. Put him in jail.
Dave
02 June 2010, 03:46 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
"... Laws had simply fallen in love with his landlord, started a relationship – but in his desire to keep it secret, he did not stop claiming rent as he should have. He’s a millionaire, he can (and has) written a £40,000 cheque in a second ..."
I'll repeat. He claimed money to which he was not entitled. He deliberately did this. He knew what he was doing. That is theft! Again, you don't reply to the analogy I gave earlier. If *one of us* had done similat we'd be up before the courts! As all of thes epoliticians should be who *overclaim*. I mean, Flash had to repay about £12K!
Dave
02 June 2010, 03:51 PM
#37
I'm with Hutton_d on this one.
If we under pay tax (due from money we earned) we get into trouble and penalties.
If politicians over claim (from tax money we paid) they make an excuse up and may pay it back if they feel like it.
If we under pay tax (due from money we earned) we get into trouble and penalties.
If politicians over claim (from tax money we paid) they make an excuse up and may pay it back if they feel like it.
02 June 2010, 05:22 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has he been found guilty of stealing, or is that just your own personal interpretation?He could clearly of claimed more if he's been upfront about his sexuality, so it may actually of saved the tax payer money. Think about that, and whilst you're at it think about how he must feel.As I said we are all losers if a capable and decent man is brought down like this, I accept that much of this is his own fault, but it's hardly worthy of all the vitriol is it?Finally, do you understand the meaning of the word 'compassion' because I see precious little from you?
He certainly could not have justifiably been employed at the treasury after all that came to light. It is a great shame since we need someone as clever as him in that job, but his actions have disqualified him.
I personally think that all the MP's who remained and were guilty of similar behaviour should have been given the push without all the severance pay and the generous pension. So many did get out of course and have taken all the cash which goes with losing the job. It was all wrong that they got away with that!
We are now in the position of being unable to trust our MP's and that is a very bad position to be in. The only way to regenerate any respect for those pikers was to start again from square one.
Your attitude towards forgiving all those who have done wrong regardless will do nothing for the future as we see with the weak knee'd behaviour of our PC judiciary with their ideas of letting the criminals go with a minor slap on the wrist!
Les
02 June 2010, 05:35 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
I agree with PH, Hutton and Leslie. He took money that he shouldn't have. If his main concern was to protect his parents from his sodomy then he should have just not paid rent to his gay lover. Then there would have been no story and we wouldn't be having this discussion
02 June 2010, 06:25 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02 June 2010, 07:37 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
get over yourself you big girls blouse, just because people do not agree with you doesn't make you right, more a flaming Martyr2005
Have a good 'un
02 June 2010, 07:42 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Hutton - your analogy comparing hiding a marriage with hiding a gay relationship is a very weak one IMHO. Marriage has been accepted by society for centuries but it was only a few years ago that gays became slowly accepted by society.
Morally Laws was entitled to charge a reasonable amount for rent in a London flat. Technically he may have broken the rules but it is the rules that need changing so they don't force someone to reveal his/her sexuality. Martin's comments make a lot of sense. dl
Morally Laws was entitled to charge a reasonable amount for rent in a London flat. Technically he may have broken the rules but it is the rules that need changing so they don't force someone to reveal his/her sexuality. Martin's comments make a lot of sense. dl
Last edited by David Lock; 02 June 2010 at 07:43 PM.
02 June 2010, 08:11 PM
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr Hutton - your analogy comparing hiding a marriage with hiding a gay relationship is a very weak one IMHO. Marriage has been accepted by society for centuries but it was only a few years ago that gays became slowly accepted by society.
Morally Laws was entitled to charge a reasonable amount for rent in a London flat. Technically he may have broken the rules but it is the rules that need changing so they don't force someone to reveal his/her sexuality. Martin's comments make a lot of sense. dl
Morally Laws was entitled to charge a reasonable amount for rent in a London flat. Technically he may have broken the rules but it is the rules that need changing so they don't force someone to reveal his/her sexuality. Martin's comments make a lot of sense. dl
Dave
02 June 2010, 10:40 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mentioned living together *as* man and wife, not necessarily married, but hey ho. Alluding to the fact that single claimants get more than those living together so lying about this is a criminal offence. The same thing (basically, and nowt to do with where Laws inserts his wotsit!) by a politician and it's supposedly a minor technical infringement of the rules. Bollux! It's theft from us, the tax payer. His excuses/reasons are totally irrelevant here. He stole money from the tax payer. End of.
Dave
Dave
Shouldn't we wait for the enquiry before completely rubbishing the mans character?
It's a troubled world we live in when The Daily Telegraph is allowed to accuse, try and convict someone!
btw Dave, are you seriously saying that there are no mitigating circumstances to any 'crime'?
02 June 2010, 11:13 PM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
02 June 2010, 11:18 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read all your unpleasant and vitriolic comments on this thread actually. You have said he's a theif and his personal circumstances are an irrelevance. Or are you changing your mind now?
03 June 2010, 08:09 AM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
03 June 2010, 10:27 AM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les
IMHO you have completely missed the point, his sexuality is/was the reason he got into this situation, not willing to come out of the closit and paying 'rent' to his long-term lover so to create the illlusion of being straight and just renting a room/space in a house.
Bloke is a fool, no one cares if he is gay, well it seems he does, or at least did do so to the extent he used tax payers money to pay ofr his non existant rent - poor show in anyone's books - gay or straight.
One thing is for sure - most people who can read or hear now know he likes the co*k - the secret is well and truely out and he is 'outted'
It is not like he is short of a bob or two either is it
IMHO you have completely missed the point, his sexuality is/was the reason he got into this situation, not willing to come out of the closit and paying 'rent' to his long-term lover so to create the illlusion of being straight and just renting a room/space in a house.
Bloke is a fool, no one cares if he is gay, well it seems he does, or at least did do so to the extent he used tax payers money to pay ofr his non existant rent - poor show in anyone's books - gay or straight.
One thing is for sure - most people who can read or hear now know he likes the co*k - the secret is well and truely out and he is 'outted'
It is not like he is short of a bob or two either is it
Regardless of his excuse, he did not actually have to claim the cash at all anyway if he wanted to keep his homosexuality quiet and also he has more than enough personal wealth as it is.
That is why I said that his sexuality has no real bearing on this affair, either that he is actually homosexual or that it could have really been an excuse for pocketing the money.
What really counts is his morality with relation to claiming those expenses in the way that he did.
Les
03 June 2010, 10:29 AM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 June 2010, 10:34 AM
#53
03 June 2010, 12:10 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not missed the point at all. He tells us it was down to his homosexuality, he was quick enough to say that even though he says he wanted to keep it under cover. Why expose his sexuality now then unless he was scraping the barrel for an excuse.
Regardless of his excuse, he did not actually have to claim the cash at all anyway if he wanted to keep his homosexuality quiet and also he has more than enough personal wealth as it is.
That is why I said that his sexuality has no real bearing on this affair, either that he is actually homosexual or that it could have really been an excuse for pocketing the money.
What really counts is his morality with relation to claiming those expenses in the way that he did.
Les
Regardless of his excuse, he did not actually have to claim the cash at all anyway if he wanted to keep his homosexuality quiet and also he has more than enough personal wealth as it is.
That is why I said that his sexuality has no real bearing on this affair, either that he is actually homosexual or that it could have really been an excuse for pocketing the money.
What really counts is his morality with relation to claiming those expenses in the way that he did.
Les
OK so the chap admits that he took the money to help with his deception of being straight or anything else other than gay. The money to look like rent being paid to his landlord who was also his lover.
"His sexuality had no bearing on the affair", oh come on Les, the chap admits this is exactly why unless you belive he is wrong and lying.
His homosexuality did not make him commit fraud or whatever you want to call it, his poor judgement and his trying to hide his sexuality for whatever reason(s) was the cause Les.
03 June 2010, 12:42 PM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said before the rules are wrong. If he rented from a little old lady he could claim but his Landlord happened to be his sexual partner. Let's assume he did actually pay the Landlord but it seems the only way he could claim this legitimate expenditure back was to reveal his gayness which I think he was entitled to choose to keep private.
To argue that he was wealthy enough to pay it all himself is a ridiculous argument IMHO. dl
To argue that he was wealthy enough to pay it all himself is a ridiculous argument IMHO. dl
03 June 2010, 01:04 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Les you (and a few of the usual suspects on here) can do your usual trick of mindlessly rushing to judgement, but please leave us sensible people alone to wait for the inquiry to uncover what the real level of wrong doing was, and what were the underlying motives.
04 June 2010, 03:46 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so the chap admits that he took the money to help with his deception of being straight or anything else other than gay. The money to look like rent being paid to his landlord who was also his lover.
"His sexuality had no bearing on the affair", oh come on Les, the chap admits this is exactly why unless you belive he is wrong and lying.
His homosexuality did not make him commit fraud or whatever you want to call it, his poor judgement and his trying to hide his sexuality for whatever reason(s) was the cause Les.
"His sexuality had no bearing on the affair", oh come on Les, the chap admits this is exactly why unless you belive he is wrong and lying.
His homosexuality did not make him commit fraud or whatever you want to call it, his poor judgement and his trying to hide his sexuality for whatever reason(s) was the cause Les.
I repeat that I said that he did not need to claim the money at all in the first place since he is so wealthy. If he was sensitive about his sexuality he could have continued to live with his mate without claiming any cash and no one would have been any the wiser!
He did however claim the money outside the scope of the regulations which he well knew and therefore he was guilty of deception. it was therefore not his sexuality which made him trouser the money but one can only surmise it was down to greed!
Let me try to make it clearer. He made off with the cash even though he knew that if he admitted that he was living with his male partner he was ineligible to make those claims since that was against the rules to pay a relative with the money.
Les