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.

OK, I think David Laws actually has a very valid point when he says that he did not regard his lover as a spouse.

I am sorry but just because two people have a sexual relationship under the same roof does not make them like spouses (or, rather, does NOT have to).

Why are we hellbent on "partnering" everybody up?! Aren't we supposed to be living in an age where we respect each others lifestyles?
This is the 21st century yet everybody it seems- gay or straight- has to fit into neat little boxes of coupledom.

Fully prepared for flaming here, BUT...

To a lot of gay people, the concept of having a "spouse" is absurd.

I am prepared to say that perhaps, just perhaps,David Laws - as a gay man- finds the concept of "spouses" absurd and is genuine when he says that he did not regard himself as anyone's spouse.

Live under the same roof with someone and have a sexual relationship and now you're somehow akin to being a spouse (well sometimes people are just like spouses without the marriage certificate- but not ALWAYS) whether you wish to be or not!

Oh yeah, we pay lipservice and say we respect those who want to not live in a neat little defined image of coupledom but it's bullshit- as this sorry saga shows!

I don't think that Laws is disputing that they are a couple and has said they have been in a relationship since 2001.

LeninGrad - no my name isn't Diddy

Prolesworth, MmeLindt et al- I am following you all. I feel like such a new boy in Twitland

Yes, but ilovemydogeandMrObama the wording is akin to a spouse. Is everyone in a relationship in a SPOUSAL relationship?

I honestly don't think so.

Really, it is NOT just semantics and sophistry- not everyone who is bunked up with a love interest regards themselves as being married to them.

Laws has a fair point.

Clear to who, LeninGrad? now don't get me wrong, married people/those in civil partnerships cannot argue that they are a couple- after all, they made an official declaration as such. If Laws and lover (for want of a better word) were CIVIL PARTNERS imo he wouldn't have a leg to stand on- but they didn't, their relationship was between themselves and only THEY know the nature of it.

How is it clear they were a couple- did we have access to their home 24/7, were we witness to their conversations, their bedroom habits? No, we weren't.
I will not pass judgement about the nature of their relationship.

I simply do not know, nor, with respect to yourself and I mean this in the nicest possible way- do you.

OK, LeninGrad I admit that he said they were in a relationship. But, my point is this:

Not all live-in relationships are "spousal"-like and that he has a fair point in that he personally didn't believe his relationship to be like a marriage.

Marantha - I think you are overthinking his response

How so, Blackduck?

Marantha, that's exactly what I think too. He chose the "wrong" box and now everybody wants to tell him why.

marantha- i agree with you: for how many MPs do you think SPOUSE = REGULAR SEXUAL PARTNER ?

Mr Laws' life is probably not as black and white...inconvenient for our form filling but I think we should (have) considered giving him the benefot of the doubt. Why does he have to prove his innocence when we can't prove that is his spouse?

BBC reporting that David Laws is stepping down as an MP

Yes, back to the city to make some real cash.

We SHOULD stop this nonsense and pay our MPS properly

I thought I heard it on the BBC news channel but may have misheard.