Laws
04 June 2010, 04:40 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You did not read what I said closely enough Paul.
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
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
04 June 2010, 04:51 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and you are in exactly the same position, defending him yet not knowing much if anything about him or his motives...'lynch mob' ffs, its just the internet and only Scoobynet NSR
04 June 2010, 05:01 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leslie View Post
You did not read what I said closely enough Paul.
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!
Lesl
You did not read what I said closely enough Paul.
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!
Lesl
In Laws' mind and how he thought it would look best to the outside world is Him (Laws) renting a room in the house thus helping to create an illusion that the relationship was purely tennant and landlord, purely a professional/business arrangment rather than a pair of ******** living as man and wife or man and man or whatever.
This is where the poor judgement and the deception comes into it really.
Martin - i have to LOL, you are defensding the chap even though he admitted to his wrong doing and why he did it. Bless you and i hope that if i ever (actually when I) **** up big-time you will fight my corner so vigerously
Last edited by The Zohan; 04 June 2010 at 05:10 PM.
04 June 2010, 06:23 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, finally we have got the the crux of it but i'm afraid you have missed the whole point (however it might be me missing the point and if so please tell me to STFU)
In Laws' mind and how he thought it would look best to the outside world is Him (Laws) renting a room in the house thus helping to create an illusion that the relationship was purely tennant and landlord, purely a professional/business arrangment rather than a pair of ******** living as man and wife or man and man or whatever.
This is where the poor judgement and the deception comes into it really.
Martin - i have to LOL, you are defensding the chap even though he admitted to his wrong doing and why he did it. Bless you and i hope that if i ever (actually when I) **** up big-time you will fight my corner so vigerously
In Laws' mind and how he thought it would look best to the outside world is Him (Laws) renting a room in the house thus helping to create an illusion that the relationship was purely tennant and landlord, purely a professional/business arrangment rather than a pair of ******** living as man and wife or man and man or whatever.
This is where the poor judgement and the deception comes into it really.
Martin - i have to LOL, you are defensding the chap even though he admitted to his wrong doing and why he did it. Bless you and i hope that if i ever (actually when I) **** up big-time you will fight my corner so vigerously
I'm trying to be reasonable and not rush to judgement, what he did was wrong nobody is arguing that point. His motives though look somewhat different to previous MP expenses cases, I may be wrong, but at least I'll wait for all the facts before judging the guy and calling him a thief and a liar.
04 June 2010, 06:31 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If think I'm defending him, then re-read my posts. I'm suggesting that maybe just maybe, this isn't a greed and money motivated issue, and something altogether more complicated. If that is the case then it's pretty rough seeing the guy losing the key job 2 weeks after starting it, having his sexuality very publicly revealed (something he may well of been desparate to keep secret), being called a thief and a liar, oh and handing handing over £40k.
Thats pretty rough if he didn't deliberate set out to steal money, not sure that his punishmnet is fitting for the 'crime'
I believe that some people don't actually care about the circumstances, and are applying a daft logic that says any MP + any expenses issue = theft! Is it so hard to think that not all these MP expenses cases are the same?
Of course if it transpires that he did take the money for himself then he deserves everything he gets, just like all the others that fiddled expenses.
Last edited by Martin2005; 04 June 2010 at 06:37 PM.
05 June 2010, 01:53 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, finally we have got the the crux of it but i'm afraid you have missed the whole point (however it might be me missing the point and if so please tell me to STFU)
In Laws' mind and how he thought it would look best to the outside world is Him (Laws) renting a room in the house thus helping to create an illusion that the relationship was purely tennant and landlord, purely a professional/business arrangment rather than a pair of ******** living as man and wife or man and man or whatever.
This is where the poor judgement and the deception comes into it really.
Martin - i have to LOL, you are defensding the chap even though he admitted to his wrong doing and why he did it. Bless you and i hope that if i ever (actually when I) **** up big-time you will fight my corner so vigerously
In Laws' mind and how he thought it would look best to the outside world is Him (Laws) renting a room in the house thus helping to create an illusion that the relationship was purely tennant and landlord, purely a professional/business arrangment rather than a pair of ******** living as man and wife or man and man or whatever.
This is where the poor judgement and the deception comes into it really.
Martin - i have to LOL, you are defensding the chap even though he admitted to his wrong doing and why he did it. Bless you and i hope that if i ever (actually when I) **** up big-time you will fight my corner so vigerously
. It does seem very strange that a man of his stated intellect should put himself in the position of claiming for the rent when he knew what he was doing was absolutely against the rules. Whatever his intentions, he broke the rules deliberately in either circumstance and that was of course a very silly path to take.Martin, you give a very good impression of being in denial!
Les
05 June 2010, 08:07 PM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
06 June 2010, 12:33 AM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Paul either of us could be right so I won't go all "previous" about it of course . It does seem very strange that a man of his stated intellect should put himself in the position of claiming for the rent when he knew what he was doing was absolutely against the rules. Whatever his intentions, he broke the rules deliberately in either circumstance and that was of course a very silly path to take.
Martin, you give a very good impression of being in denial!
Les
. It does seem very strange that a man of his stated intellect should put himself in the position of claiming for the rent when he knew what he was doing was absolutely against the rules. Whatever his intentions, he broke the rules deliberately in either circumstance and that was of course a very silly path to take.Martin, you give a very good impression of being in denial!
Les
Please stop pretending you know the facts to this case or anything about me for that matter
What's your view on the Daily Telegraphs role in all this?
06 June 2010, 09:17 AM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And very predictable!
Les
06 June 2010, 10:41 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 June 2010, 07:50 AM
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
That's where your whole reason for posting in this thread falls apart. We Do know the facts. that's the whole issue. Laws wanted to keep something *private* (what *it* was is quite irrelevant) and to that end knowingly defrauded the fees office (i.e. the UK tax payer!) of tens of thousands of pounds. End of!
Any 'reasons' or 'excuses' for his actions are just that. He KNOWINGLY stole money to which he was not entitled. The FACTS say this. He has said this. What sort of parallel universe do you live in???
Dave
Any 'reasons' or 'excuses' for his actions are just that. He KNOWINGLY stole money to which he was not entitled. The FACTS say this. He has said this. What sort of parallel universe do you live in???
Dave
07 June 2010, 11:43 AM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said your impression of someone in denial is a particularly good one.
Try to look at it with a completely open mind without all the PC ideals.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SDB
ScoobyNet General
21
15 July 2001 08:45 PM
