David Laws' expenses

[longfingernailspaintedblue]

I really thought he was the very best of the Lib Dems.

Given his fortune he obviously doesn't need the expenses, but hiding his landlord/partner from the authorities is unacceptable, even if it was to hide his sexuality.

I'm completely shellshocked.

From the Sun's article
"Although it was an open secret in Westminster that he was homosexual, colleagues have respected his decision to keep his relationship private."

so it must have been an open secret to political journalists and probably even in the expense office. So what was the problem? People respected his decision to keep it private, but he must have known that at any point, anybody with whom he fell out might make it public, so he couldn't have been in so much fear about it. I don't think his story holds water.

vesala there is a HELL of a lot of difference between exploiting a loophole and lying to obtain money.
you must see that.

To me it's a similar thing to when a SAHM pretends to be a single parent even though her partner is living with her in order to cliam more benefits.

They're both wrong.

I don't see this "scandal" as about sexuality or money, it's about 'to whom do the rules apply?'. Yes Mr Laws that does include you.
He doesn't need any further money, public or private, and it appears the important people in his life were either fully aware of his relationship or had brains larger than half a pea to work it out.
This isn't dis-similar to the DPP many years ago being caught for kerb crawling - a belief that if it suits one at the time then other people's regulations don't apply to you. He had multiple ocassions to come clean in the past 2-3 years but chose against it.
As for his massive talent, we only have others words as evidence. But if his pal Paddy's words of support ( Mr Integrity) are anything to go by even this looks a bit suspect.

thanks, BeenBeta. One of the best things about the coalition is being on the same side as Iain Dale.

well said LordPanofthePeaks. If we believed Paddy then we would be bowing down to these paragons of virtue, these Mr. Integrities, just as the made men in the cosa nostra bow down to the Mr. Bigs.

harpsichordcarrier. He didn't obtain any more money. Not sure how many more times I have to say that. He didn't do it to save the taxpayer money, but he didn't cost them any more either. So no, it doesn't stick in my throat.

Quite right Prolesworth

A benefit cheat doesn't say, 'well, you're lucky I didn't (falsely) claim more...'

if you watch the documentaries you will see loads of acquaintances saying that Ronnie Kray was a lovely fellow, loved his mum, and did lots for charities.

Ronnie Kray

Leningrad - he saw his relationship as he saw it. If there's no financial difference I don't have a problem with that. He clearly wasn't doing anything for any kind of dishonest gain.

ok told DH and DD I'd catch them up because someone was wrong on the internet.

in DH's words not mine

Sorry, how did he not gain from it vesela?

He wasn't allowed to claim rent on the home he shared with his partner, isn't that correct?

So the rent that he claimed, how can he not have gained from that?

I am totally confused.

So what's the solution? He is admitting a mistake, paying back the money etc so where do we go?
His constituency party are not going to de-select him, so he will be around. Cameron and Clegg are investing in him heavily. Lines and detention may not be enough. Gross error of judgement and what looks like a certain arrogance and seem to be his sins. Are we binning him on these grounds, or are we relying on this as a personal education for him which will transmit to a greater maturity in office? ( remember "Howards End" and Mrs Wilcox insisting 'I will make you see the connection if it kills you'?).

Vasela - he DID obtain money by deception. See this post... By rarebite Sat 29-May-10 08:52:41

It wasn't just the £950 a month - that's the bit he is paying back. He also claimed £150 a month for cleaning the second bedroom, £150 for repairs and maintenance (the landlord's responsibility), utility bills, etc, etc. In total he claimed £90,000. The records are available as they publish the account details - so check if you don't believe me. You can see he stopped claiming for these extras the month he had to produce receipts. He was nearly up to the £20,000 limit. So this is why I say he was driven by greed - because he couldn't both hide his sexuality and make the claim. He had to choose and as a millionaire he had a choice - unlike benefit claimants.

HOW is this not obtaining money by deception?