David Laws statement excusing himself

[joeluke]

Quote from David Laws 'justifying my dishonest actions' statement

"At no point did I consider myself to be in breach of the rules which in 2009 defined partner as "one of a couple ... who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses".
"Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses - for example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social lives


er hello liar, you live together as erm man and wife but don't class yourselves as a couple?.......if a 2 people live (and I presume sleep) together then just because they don't have a joint bank account or socialise together doesn't mean they are not co-habiting (only reason they didn't have joint bank account/socialise together was because he wanted to stay in the closet).......sorry but that bullsh1t statement doesn't wash........otherwise all unmarried benefit claimants could claim the same excuse and get more benefits

[jno]

he doesn't seem to have thought that through, does he? And him such a bright guy, or so everyone says.

[jackthehat]

I think he was so deeply closeted that he chose to close his eyes to the blindingly obvious.
His protestations certainly have a hollow ring about them and I believe he's facing up to that now.
The rules he refers to were brought in in 2009.
Does anyone know what they were prior to that ?

[bibblebub]

Wasn't it 2006 when the rules were changed?

And you haven't mentioned his utility bills, how they miraculously dropped to a fraction of what he had previously been claiming once bills had to be produced as evidence of outgoings.

[MarkRae]

IMO, this (and all the other expenses fraud from all parties) is a criminal act and should be prosecuted as such.

If any employee of any "normal" organisation such as a limited company or a local authority stole (for that is what this is) money from them, the police would be informed and then maybe the SFO depending on how serious it was.

I can't see how this is any different, certainly morally, although I appreciate that the Commons and the Lords are not the same as, say, Enron...

[joeluke]

Agree MR

[jackthehat]

I think (although I am happy to be proven wrong) that in order to satisfy anyone who may wish to investigate, he registered himself as renting a room from a friend. This circumstance, once set in motion, continued, raising no eyebrows or red flags, up to the point where the rules changed.

DL was then faced with 2 choices;
1. ceasing to claim, which 'may' have raised eyebrows, in some quarters - he's living in the same place with the same chap and now he's not claiming any more ....hmmm, I wonder why and what is could possibly mean ?
2. continuing to claim, which maintained his carefully constructed facade, protected him from intrusion but was a deliberate act of 'omission'.
Unfortunately, for him and, possibly, for us,he made the wrong decision.

I don't know the detail of his 'utility bills' however, from what you say, bibblebub, that 'does' seem to be unacceptable.

[ummmm]

I don't share a bank account with my partner. I never plan to either....but I am engaged to him.

[joggerjayne]

I don't share a bank account with my partner.

He lives in Switzerland ...

... so he has a Swiss bank account.

Maybe I should start sharing with him !!!!!!!

[MarkRae]

> up to the point where the rules changed.

But that's the whole point! The rules DID change and he, as a member of the "organisation" to whom those rules apply, must abide by them. I appreciate that he wanted to keep his private life private - if that was so important to him, then he ought to have found some other way of maintaining his relationship within the confines of the amended rules.

This isn't the parliamentary equivalent of nicking a Mars Bar from Sainsburys. He has knowing defrauded parliament and, by extension, the people who put him there...

[jackthehat]

I'm glad you agree with me, MarkRae.

[joeluke]

or perhaps we should let any homosexual who is accused of a crime use the excuse that he did it because he didn't want to come out of the closet?

[MarkRae]

I thought it wouldn't take you long...

This has NOTHING to do with the sexuality of the person in question - I would feel exactly the same if a married MP was shacked up with his mistress in a London flat...

[chattykathy]

The man is a multi millionaire!!! Why on earth didn't he have his own house and have his 'friend' as a l'odger'? IMO it was a ruse to give his lover some money - funded by us taxpayers!!! He, like the other fiddlers, should be prosecuted.

[joeluke]

erm....it has EVERYTHING to do with his sexuality, its the reason why he didn't come clean when the expenses row erupted last year

[joggerjayne]

"IMO it was a ruse to give his lover some money - funded by us taxpayers"

Kathy ... d'ya think !

[joggerjayne]

No, joe ... I don't think it has anything to do with his sexuality.

It has to do with exactly whay Kathy said ...

... abusing the system to make a bit of extra money on the side.

[MarkRae]

> it has EVERYTHING to do with his sexuality

That's the real reason you're upset, isn't it...?

[joeluke]

JJ....if it wasn't do do with his sexuality and desperation to stay in the closet then why didn't he come clean on his expenses last year?

[jackthehat]

I actually agree with joeluke, this case erupted because DL was, apparently, attempting to hide his sexuality.
A similar case with a couple of the opposite sexes would also have been wrong. However, the 'opposite sex' couple would, possibly, not have so much to hide ?

[joggerjayne]

Because he thought he would get away with it ??