Tough. He knew the rules, the ones that dated from 2006.
Regardless of his sexuality he has essentially defrauded the taxpayer to the tune of £40'000.
it's nothing to do with his sexuality and all about the money - not the media's fault, live by the sword.
tough
950 a month .. nice 'allowance' 😯
Sounds like he's using the gay thing to deflect the issue .. I mean who cares? It's not like he's in football 😐
Its called fraud.
Stealing-get caught-trouble.
Who cares about who he porks.
I reckon he'll be lucky if he doesn't end up in court, given it appears he may have fraudulently claimed £40,000.
Don't feel sorry for him in the slightest.
The 'protect my partner/sexuality' issue is a smokescreen IMHO. He's hoping that fear of being accused of homophobia will deter his critics from a full on assault.
His sexuality is irrelevant, his defrauding the public purse is the issue - nothing more, nothing less.
he's an already wealthy, blood sucking, self-serving knob who didn't have the balls to come out - maybe so he could use that as an excuse if he got caught. to deny that his fella was a 'partner' just shows the scum haven't realised that the public are not all as thick as pig shit.
wonder how long the telegraph will be drip feeding the expenses saga?
given that the claims were made from 2007 onwards, the press will have known about these but have sat on them until David Laws is famous enough to make it a worthwhile story
lowlife journalists as usual
£950/month for a room if that's not taking the piss I dont know what is.
So its ok because his partner was a bloke?
Thieving git whichever way you look at it, that's yours and my money he has swindled us out of
Strange how they can think giving the money back makes it all go away
So I go out and rob the local post office and if I get caught its alright as long as I pay the cash back
Oh yeah, sure that would work, more like five years in the nick for me and hopefully for those thieving bleeders too
If it were up to me I'd give him a year to repay the money before he's chucked in the clink and the key thrown away.
Aren't Libcon going to introduce a bill to allow voters to kick out their MP for "wrongdoing" 🙄
Here's a chance to try it out.
given that the claims were made from 2007 onwards, the press will have known about these but have sat on them until David Laws is famous enough to make it a worthwhile storylowlife journalists as usual
You have absolutely no idea when the press found out about it. Maybe they did know, maybe they didn't start looking 'til he was 'famous enough'.
One thing's for sure though, [u]he[/u] knew it was wrong from the day he started claiming it.
Personally, I find it distasteful that he's playing the gay card to deflect criticism from what is basically fraud.
If it were up to me I'd give him a year to repay the money before he's chucked in the clink and the key thrown away.
Is that for all thieves or just MPs?
Maybe I could have a word with Andy down the bike shop? I get to nick anything I want from his shop if I get away with it. If he catches me, I get a year to pay him back before he calls the cops.
How sad is this story
I don't see how it is sad at all to be honest. Apart from the fact that thousands have lost there jobs due to the recession and c***s like him are screwing the system for all they can get.
Another corrupt politican on their way out? Good-o. Shame we don't have any labour camps* in, err, Norfolk for them to repay their debt to the nation.
EDIT: *Yeah, Bernard ****ing Matthews! Corrupt politicians and other high level white collar crims (insider trading, cowboy boot wearers) can do 12 months rendering meat for big Bernie.
I think he'd find that if he was on benefits the DWP would treat the 'partnership' rather differently.
[rest of the post edited to remove comments]
It's seems that this millionaires excuse for stealing 40k from us was to keep his relationship secret
My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality
Strange career to choose if you're bothered about revealing your sexuality
One thing which I do think's more relevant is that he could easily have claimed for the value of a mortgage, but he didn't- if he'd been out to take more money off us he could've done so effortlessly, without breaking the rules. His actions are cheaper for the taxpayer not more expensive, so complaining that it's our money seems a bit, well, absurd tbh. How dare he take the cheaper option to our profit? especially when it benefits him less than the more expensive option would have?
Think his judgement's horrendous but it's not as open and shut as some of you lot choose to believe. And tbh I don't think many people deny that the rules are open to interpretation on this one.
Another pig who got caught with his snout in the trough, on a par with Jackie Smith's better half knocking one out on the tax-payers expense while watching 'late night movies'..... Are those spiked poles still there outside Pariament, would come in use I reckon
He didnt have to claim the money, as his partner already owned the office,at least Eurovision is on for them tonight to enjoy a bottle of wine over.
<waves>
bartat - Member
He's gone
Back in the closet.
Regardless of his sexuality he has essentially defrauded the taxpayer to the tune of £40'000.
+1. It's hard to feel too much sympathy.
Northwind - Member
One thing which I do think's more relevant is that he could easily have claimed for the value of a mortgage, but he didn't- if he'd been out to take more money off us he could've done so effortlessly, without breaking the rules. His actions are cheaper for the taxpayer not more expensive, so complaining that it's our money seems a bit, well, absurd tbh. How dare he take the cheaper option to our profit? especially when it benefits him less than the more expensive option would have?
Very fair comment Northwind - any figures to back that up? Not knocking your comments - just interested to know how that works.
Hmm, seems I'm in last chance saloon... obviously they're everwhere
at least Eurovision is on for them tonight to enjoy a bottle of wine over.
you are Jim Davidson and I claim my £5
Well this story has successfully obscured another story concerning David Laws - his breathtaking hypocrisy.
Because whilst he was presenting himself as the hard man who would cut public spending and "take the difficult decisions necessary", he was advertising for his own personal spin doctor on a £58,000 salary (enough to pay the wages of two nurses) Paid for of course, out of taxes :
[i]David Laws, Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is the new Conservative pin-up because of the unflinching way he puts the case for cutting public spending, ignoring what his own party said on the subject before the election.
But there is a little corner of the Government where Mr Laws has committed himself to extra spending. He has advertised for a personal spin doctor, whose £58,000 salary will, naturally, be paid out of taxes. It is, suggests Gail Cartmail of the union Unite, "a lot of money to pay someone to peddle a glossy spin on what the public already knows". [/i]
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/village-people-29052010-1986208.html ]Laws puts a new spin on jobs freeze[/url]
My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality
Utter baws. He's arguing two things: "oh, it wasn't against the rules because we didn't consider ourselves partners" and then "oh, i wasn't trying to make money, i was just trying to protect privacy".
But it's total nonsense: it's completely bloody obvious that the rules were designed to stop people paying taxpayers' money to the people they were porking, and if he wanted to protect his privacy, all he would have had to do is not claim the money!