goes without saying, tom84 - we should all have an allowance for that sort of thing; the handing over of money is degrading to all concerned
Chat Forum
[closed]
David Laws resigns - what a load of ****
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
I read a couple of stories about it at the start, and did a wee google
I think you've given this story more time and effort than it deserves. The geezer was a chancer and a charlatan.
On the 6th of May 2010 David Laws agreed that :
"If spending is cut too soon, it would undermine the much-needed recovery and cost jobs. We will base the timing of cuts on an objective assessment of economic conditions, not political dogma. Our working assumption is that the economy will be in a stable enough condition to bear cuts from the beginning of 2011–12."
Six days later on the 12th of May 2010, David Laws enthusiastically agreed he would identify £6bn for immediate cuts.
I would possibly trust him to make the tea, but not with anything more responsible.
Certainly not with setting the spending levels for things such as health and education.To be honest, I'm surprised that the Tories ever trusted him. Why would you trust someone to implement policies which they had argued and stood against ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
if this was my forum i would throw someone off for this. it is not my forum so i just want to say...
Posted 1 year ago # -
"It'd be true for me to say that I wasn't permanently there but wholly disingenuous for me to argue that we were not in a real relationship "
Again, habitation is only a part of it. If you were living together as a typical man-and-wife couple, then yes, you're right but that's not all there was to it.
Ernie, we're on P3 so apparently it's not just me that finds it interesting
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ernie, we're on P3 so apparently it's not just me that finds it interesting
I'm finding this thread absolutely riveting. I doubt whether David Laws domestic arrangements with his gay mate deserves much attention, but your bizarre and fascinating attempt to defend him undoubtedly does.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Again, habitation is only a part of it. If you were living together as a typical man-and-wife couple, then yes, you're right but that's not all there was to it.
spill yer guts, then - what else is there ?and (possibly the crux, then) do you imagine that another gay man or couple describe them as being in an ongoing relationship or a nine-year series of casual encounters ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Scaredypants, getting a wee bit tired of repeating myself tbh. They didn't have shared social life or friends, or finances, they weren't a public couple at all, etc etc. 2 seperate lives basically. Again, the definition of a partner is: "one of a couple ... who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses". Now I said that before but it didn't seem to hit the mark, so for clarity "As spouses" iterally means living as, well, man and husband. That doesn't just mean "Living under the same roof and shagging".
(Why does the opinion of another gay couple matter any more than anyone elses btw? If it was a man and a woman it'd be the same if you ask me. Though people would probably consider it a bit more odd)
Ernie, not really defending him, he's just another failed MP. Just annoys me when I see all the kneejerking. All these excited ejaculations about "He stole £40000 of our money out of pure greed". You just need to get past the headlines for a second and engage your brain to realise that makes no sense. I find people's reactions to it far more interesting than the story itself.
The real meat of it to me is still that if he'd been acting purely out of greed he'd still have his job AND he'd have taken more of our money and made a greater profit. And that brings you to a weird full circle- throughout the expenses stories all we were interested in was people working the system, now we've got a guy being condemned for not working the system. All he had to do was gouge us for more money and that'd be absolutely OK.
Posted 1 year ago # -
just annoys me when people are so uninterested in the facts
Well it seems to me that David Laws probably has a fair grasp of "the facts".
And according to him, quote : "I regret this situation deeply, accept that I should not have claimed my expenses in this way and apologise fully."
So he reckons he shouldn't have claimed his expenses in the way he did. Well that will do for me, and I'm not interested in the fine details of the case.
The fact that the claim was not for financial gain and made no sense at all - and in fact exposed his closet homosexuality, is hardly a redeeming factor. It just betrays him as a muppet with poor judgement. Which hardly inspires confidence.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Course he regrets it, it's blown his career up! I'm sure if he had the chance to do it again he'd take out a mortgage instead in his own name and both profit, and keep his privacy intact. But that's not a great verdict on the system really.
Posted 1 year ago # -
He WASN'T living there full time. That's kind of the point. They weren't a cohabiting couple.
I would imagine practically none of the non-London MPs' partners shuttle backwards and forward with them every week (now that the MPs aren't supposed to employ their own spouses as "secretaries"
), so going by what you're suggesting, none of them should be considered cohabitants either.
The fact that he didn't buy his own place and get a mortgage is probably more damning than mitigating - it just goes to show that he'd rather have lived with his boyfriend than on his own...
Posted 1 year ago # -
"The fact that he didn't buy his own place and get a mortgage is probably more damning than mitigating - it just goes to show that he'd rather have lived with his boyfriend than on his own... "
And why would that be damning exactly?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Because it shows that his desire to live with his boyfriend was driven by an emotional attachment. It makes it even more implausible that they weren't partners if they were shagging AND living together AND it would have made more financial sense for him to live elsewhere.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ernie /northwind you 2 in a a relationship or what, you chat more than most married couples.
There does seem to be a thing lately about haveing a gay freind or freinds and saying you find it acceptable, as is hating gays by another minority.
Sometimes gay people just want to live their own life,with no interference from anyone else,then again some want to shake their gayness at every possible chance to get attention or to just be annoying.
You take your choice as to what camp you fall into.
Posted 1 year ago # -
some want to shake their gayness at every possible chance
They DO do that! I've seen them.
Posted 1 year ago # -
to shake their gayness at every possible chance to get attention or to just be annoying.
Ever thought they are just being themselves?
Do you get just as annoyed when you can tell that someone is obviously straight, get outraged at them doing it JUST for attention or to annoy you like when you see a hetrosexual couples holding hands or kissing? Do you just save it up for the "gays" Posted 1 year ago # -
some want to shake their gayness at every possible chance
are you talking about helicoptering?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Some people want to be in your face gay and some straight guys want to be in your face straight, just have a look at the shaven headed,tattoo wearing, football shirted,overweight ,beer swilling,small butch dog owning men walking down any street near you now.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think people just want to be able to express themseves whatever their sexuality is .....what point are you making?
Should I really care how someone chooses to express their sexuality WTF has it got to with me? Your example is how I picture you by the way 
Posted 1 year ago # -
Junkyard
Posted 1 year ago # -
small butch dog owning men walking down any street near you now.
He's starting on dog walkers now!
Posted 1 year ago # -
As usual you have no answer when asked nor a witty reposte.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Some people want to be in your face gay and some straight guys want to be in your face straight, just have a look at the shaven headed,tattoo wearing, football shirted,overweight ,beer swilling,small butch dog owning men walking down any street near you now.
Strange thing is that I know a number of gay shaven headed,tattoo wearing, football shirted,overweight ,beer swilling,small butch dog owning men. There's quite a fetish within the gay scene for such stereotypes, even though it seems like insecurity to the max. And they are completely out.
BTW what's "in your face gay"? Sounds a bit nebulous to me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Adam do gay men like football :-)In your face Gay like the lad off Glee.
Perhaps i stereo typed a large majority of the non working classes there above, there was definately no offence meant towards gay men,with small butch dogs, or dogs, or anything or anyone else.
Goes off to check nebulous in dictioanry at WH Smiths,just incase its a sexual practice.Back soon.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Some gay men do like football. There's even a league:
I must admit I haven't seen 'Glee'. I've heard good things about it. I take it he's as camp as a row of tents at Butlins?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I read the first post on this thread and am astounding someone would consider a millionaire defrauding the tax pay to the tune of 40 grand a suitable minister for this country. bizare. I also feel somewhat annoyed that said minister doesnt have the strength of mind to be open about his sexuality in this day and age.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
