Northwind, if your partner magically had an extra £900 a month coming in, are you saying you wouldn't be benefiting? £900 extra allowed them together either to live a more expensive lifestyle, or simply to line their pockets.
"Northwind, if your partner magically had an extra £900 a month coming in, are you saying you wouldn't be benefiting?"
No, I'm saying nothing of the sort. What I AM saying (and I've said it about 3 times) is that he had other options available which would have made him more money, at our expense, which would have been legit under the rules. Instead he went for a less profitable option, and one which cost us less. So the greed argument doesn't stack up, because if the motivation was greed his actions make no sense.
And also, I'm saying (as Laws says) that they don't really live as conventional partners, their lives are very seperate, so your example "my partner" doesn't neccesarily apply. I think people are making wrong assumptions and judgements based on more conventional relationships and how they work.
And I know from personal experience that unconventional relationships do bother people, I think if he'd been living in a conventional "married" relationship with a man that'd bother a lot of people less than living in an unconventional, extremely loose, relationship with either a man or a woman.
Telegraph have stuck the doc martens into his successor for flipping homes....
Tory old boys at play
Not honest about his sexuality...
Not honest about his expenses claims...
Scared of his parents thoughts about his life, well that's a strong principled man that you'd want in cabinet or to represent you in parliament?
He won't resign as an MP in fact he's considered it but the party are begging him to stay as the coalition won't weather a by election at this point!
Scared of his parents thoughts about his life, well that's a strong principled man that you'd want in cabinet or to represent you in parliament?
Except that apparently he was actually good at his job.
Unconventional 😯
Unconventional my ****ing a r se! What not having a joint bank account makes their lives seperate and "unconventional" do me a favour. This is just utter nonesense and spin to draw away from the fact he was fiddling his expenses.
No, I'm saying nothing of the sort. What I AM saying (and I've said it about 3 times) is that he had other options available which would have made him more money, at our expense, which would have been legit under the rules. Instead he went for a less profitable option, and one which cost us less. So the greed argument doesn't stack up, because if the motivation was greed his actions make no sense
then surely he was living there BECAUSE he wanted to be with the other geezer, you know, as a couple ?
oh, and maybe this is all a prelude to big Dave calling an end to the coalition - "they're all too sleazy..." and calling a new election 😕
Good at his job, that's interesting, aren't MP's elected to represent their constituents, so I presume he's from gayintheclosetrobbington then?
How can someone be considered a good employee if they're involved in fraud?
Good at his job, that's interesting
Apparently his supposed prowess as Chief Sec to HMT comes from his city experience, ie, he made a multi-million £ punt on the value of the dollar as a 28 year old and it came off meaning he never had to work again and could pursue his interest in politics.
Now he may have been a good CST or may not but I'm not sure how this kind of gamble equates to the role of cutting billions out the economy that he was in.
David Law may well appear on here soon, heard he was a mountainbiker,liked downhilling.
"then surely he was living there BECAUSE he wanted to be with the other geezer, you know, as a couple "
<bangs head against wall> He WASN'T living there full time. That's kind of the point. They weren't a cohabiting couple.
Ed2001 - Member
"Unconventional my **** a r se! What not having a joint bank account makes their lives seperate and "unconventional""
No it doesn't, and nobody says it does. It's just one tiny part of the bigger picture. Do you honestly think the relationship was that of an everyday couple? If you know anything about it, anyway? It's obvious most people in this thread, or in general, haven't paid much interest to the actual nuts and bolts of the whole case, which is why people are still spouting utter bollocks about greed.
come on northwind - he clearly told a load of lies over a considerable amount of time to enrich himself and his partner.
He WASN'T living there full time. That's kind of the point. They weren't a cohabiting couple
you mean he also spent some nights in his constituency? or something more convincing, like that it wasn't the full-time London residence of both of them?
"come on northwind - he clearly told a load of lies over a considerable amount of time to enrich himself and his partner. "
TJ, come on yourself, it's a fact that if he'd been out to enrich himself, he could have made more money within the rules. Nobody disputes that. He passed up on the legitimate opportunity that most MPs take, and took an option that makes him less. I know I keep banging on with this but it doesn't really seem to be sinking in with some people.
You seem to know an awful lot about the set-up behind this gay relationship Northwind ?
Any particular reason me ol' mate ?
I fully confess to not knowing how many nights a week he spent in the apartment. Nor do I know about the intimate details concerning their finance arrangements. But I do know that the closet shirt-lifter has apologised for his error of judgement.
So all that is left to say, is ............ well done, thank you, and goodbye.
I agree he could have gone further as many did - but that still does not man what he did was OK - just less wrong than many. £40 000 is not just small change and his excuses for doing it are pathetic. He has paid a fair amount of his partners mortgage and he should have known what he was doing was against the rules.
Maybe stupid and naive rather than criminal - but I don't believe it. I believe it was a cynical attempt to flout the rules
"You seem to know an awful lot about the set-up behind this gay relationship Northwind ?
Any particular reason me ol' mate ? "
Nah, I don't know anything more than has been reported, I just paid a bit of attention while everyone else was getting worked up and shouting ZOMG EXPENSES FRAUD!!1!ONE. The rules state that 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" and he's always stated that this wasn't the case.
TJ "just less wrong than many."
Less wrong than many? There would have been nothing wrong with it at all if he'd gone for the fat payout, he'd have been completely entitled. Just as he'd have been completely entitled to go for a joint mortgage with his partner. In both situations he'd have profited more. I see you're casting aspersions as to other MP's expenses here but don't try and cloud the issue, I'm not saying "Oh, other MPs made dodgy claims for more", that's not the issue at all.
So what did he gain by "cynically flouting the rules" as you say? Absolutely nothing. Not financially anyway.
you mean, since yesterday ?he's always stated that this wasn't the case
(The only way I can see that he's off the hook is if the other geezer had a permanent London home elsewhere or that one or other of them had other sexual partners with the knowledge and consent of the other and, if the rest is true about his family, he'll never use that defence unless it's to prevent a jail term)
I don't know either the details of the rules and their serial changes or any detail about his actual circumstances but people as clever as he's made out to be don't make stupid errors like this, so he either did it knowingly & hoped not to be caught or he's dafter than his references suggest. Either of the above mean that I won't miss him now he's gone from his job
I don't know anything more than has been reported
So just a bizarre fascination in the case then.
Pity, it would have been well ace if David Laws gay lover had been a punter on this forum.
"(The only way I can see that he's off the hook is if the other geezer had a permanent London home elsewhere or that one or other of them had other sexual partners with the knowledge and consent of the other and, if the rest is true about his family, he'll never use that defence unless it's to prevent a jail term)"
Why? Laws had another permanent home elsewhere, the London home in question was the other guy's permanent home but Laws wasn't permanently there. Or so he says at least but nobody's going to disprove that I think. Not sure I understand your point tbh.
"So just a bizarre fascination in the case then."
Not much fascination that I can think of, I think I read a couple of stories about it at the start, and did a wee google after starting posting in this thread. You don't need more than a very basic understanding of the case to do that tbh, the fact that most people can't be bothered to obtain even that before they form an opinion ain't my problem 😉 I think I got my main point from reading the Times in A&E the other day.
Now, if you want a proper go at Laws, you might notice that his expenses claims changed massively once he was required to receipt them 😉
Why? Laws had another permanent home elsewhere, the London home in question was the other guy's permanent home but Laws wasn't permanently there. Or so he says at least but nobody's going to disprove that I think. Not sure I understand your point tbh
well, the whole point of this residence for laws is that it was his place to stay whilst in london on parliamentary duty
Of course that means he had a contituency home too, but that's no disqualification from him & his partner being in a relationship that's essentially cohabiting. If I went & worked on the oil rigs but came home to live with my partner half the time, could I argue that we weren't cohabiting ? 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
'never slept with a hooker'
if this was my forum i would throw someone off for this. it is not my forum so i just want to say the insinuation that it is OK to pay for the use of prostitutes is offensive and puts everyone associated with it in a bad light.
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
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 :
"[i]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."[/i]
Six days later on the 12th of May 2010, David Laws enthusiastically agreed he would identify £6bn for [i]immediate[/i] 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 ?
if this was my forum i would throw someone off for this. it is not my forum so i just want to say...
[img] 
[/img]
"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 😉
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.
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 ?
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 [i]more[/i] money and that'd be absolutely OK.
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]"I regret this situation deeply, accept that I should not have claimed my expenses in this way and apologise fully."[/i]
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.
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.
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...
"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?
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.
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.
some want to shake their gayness at every possible chance
They [b]DO[/b] do that! I've seen them.
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" 🙄
[i]some want to shake their gayness at every possible chance[/i]
are you talking about helicoptering?
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.
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 😉 😆
Junkyard 🙄
small butch dog owning men walking down any street near you now.
He's starting on dog walkers now!
As usual you have no answer when asked nor a witty reposte.
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 [i]shaven headed,tattoo wearing, football shirted,overweight ,beer swilling,small butch dog owning men[/i]. 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.
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.
Some gay men do like football. There's even a league:
[url= http://www.gfsnleague.co.uk/falcons ]here's a link to GFSNleague[/url].
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?
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.