Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology11 mins ago
Laws an Ass ?
BBC reports “Chief Treasury Secretary David Laws has apologised for claiming MPs' expenses to rent rooms in homes owned by his partner. Mr Laws said he would immediately pay back the money the Daily Telegraph claimed totalled more than £40,000.
He said his motivation was to to keep the relationship with the man private and not to reveal his own sexuality. David Cameron said he agreed with Mr Laws' decision to refer himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner
Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, voiced his surprise that the details had only just emerged. He told the BBC: "I'm a genuinely shocked that somebody who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury is faced with disclosure of this nature where he clearly hasn't told the full truth to the people dealing with expenses in the House of Commons.
"Given all the expenses farrago that has gone on over the past two or three years, the fact that it has
come to light now when he is a key part of a coalition government is staggering really."
Laws should go now - anyone disagree ?
He said his motivation was to to keep the relationship with the man private and not to reveal his own sexuality. David Cameron said he agreed with Mr Laws' decision to refer himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner
Sir Alistair Graham, the former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, voiced his surprise that the details had only just emerged. He told the BBC: "I'm a genuinely shocked that somebody who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury is faced with disclosure of this nature where he clearly hasn't told the full truth to the people dealing with expenses in the House of Commons.
"Given all the expenses farrago that has gone on over the past two or three years, the fact that it has
come to light now when he is a key part of a coalition government is staggering really."
Laws should go now - anyone disagree ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by olddutch. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Now we have a bent Chief Treasury Secretary, This government gets better everyday
Had it not been for the Daily Telegraph exclusive on the expenses claims of Chief Treasury Secretary David Laws, he would have been able to take comfort from the praise offered by other papers for his role in the government.
Writing in the Times, Matthew Parris says the Liberal Democrat minister is "calm, deft and strong on detail".
Patrick O'Flynn, chief political commentator for the Daily Express, says when David Laws spoke in the Commons he "instilled belief in the coalition among the Conservative awkward squad".
Had it not been for the Daily Telegraph exclusive on the expenses claims of Chief Treasury Secretary David Laws, he would have been able to take comfort from the praise offered by other papers for his role in the government.
Writing in the Times, Matthew Parris says the Liberal Democrat minister is "calm, deft and strong on detail".
Patrick O'Flynn, chief political commentator for the Daily Express, says when David Laws spoke in the Commons he "instilled belief in the coalition among the Conservative awkward squad".
Mr Laws may bleat on about being coy about his sexuality, but it has been well known in his constituency for a long time, even if he doesn't flaunt it.
The crux of the matter is whether or not a government minister has significantly done anything wrong, and if so, has it been done accidentally or deliberately?
The answers appear to be "yes" and "deliberately". He has been in this relationship since 2001, yet claims that he and his partner were not what could properly be described as "spouses" because, for example, they allegedly did not share a bank account. Well...duh!!!! Does every married couple necessarily share a bank account?
That sounds to me an extremely lame and desperate excuse.
He should either stand down from his present position at least, but should preferably retire altogether from politics. He has replicated so many of his colleagues who also saw fit to make lame apologies AFTER their wrongdoings were exposed.
Ideally, though, he ought to be prosecuted, but of course won't.
The crux of the matter is whether or not a government minister has significantly done anything wrong, and if so, has it been done accidentally or deliberately?
The answers appear to be "yes" and "deliberately". He has been in this relationship since 2001, yet claims that he and his partner were not what could properly be described as "spouses" because, for example, they allegedly did not share a bank account. Well...duh!!!! Does every married couple necessarily share a bank account?
That sounds to me an extremely lame and desperate excuse.
He should either stand down from his present position at least, but should preferably retire altogether from politics. He has replicated so many of his colleagues who also saw fit to make lame apologies AFTER their wrongdoings were exposed.
Ideally, though, he ought to be prosecuted, but of course won't.
Questions for Mr Laws.
(1) How do you account for the discrepancy in you "utility bills" before April 2008, when receipts were not required (up to £150 per month), and after April 2008, once you had to start producing receipts (when the bills magically dropped to £37 per month)?
(2) Are you the giver, or the taker?
(1) How do you account for the discrepancy in you "utility bills" before April 2008, when receipts were not required (up to £150 per month), and after April 2008, once you had to start producing receipts (when the bills magically dropped to £37 per month)?
(2) Are you the giver, or the taker?
"The question must be asked, are closeted homosexuals in high positions vulnerable to blackmail and cover-ups?"
Why must the question be asked? Why should they be?
The question that must be asked is this: "The guy's a millionaire: he fiddled his benefits, but it's OK as he's offered to repay it. What would happen to a poor person who fiddled their benefits?"
Why must the question be asked? Why should they be?
The question that must be asked is this: "The guy's a millionaire: he fiddled his benefits, but it's OK as he's offered to repay it. What would happen to a poor person who fiddled their benefits?"
Couldnt care less that he is a homosexual. Its clear that he was living with a partner and it is a fact that the rules do not allow for claims on behalf of a partner. It is disingenuous to claim that 'the rules were not clear'.
It is was always unlikely that his lifestyle could be kept private. I listened to Paddy Ashdown this morning claiming to be a very good friend but yet not knowing of his lifestyle. Seems that either Ashdown was not a good friend or he was being economic with the truth.
Laws should resign on the basis that it will damage the Coalition.We really need the Coalition to work if we are to avoid the worst of the economic crisis we are in. Much better that Laws falls on his sword rather than be sacked with the acrimony that might bring.
It is was always unlikely that his lifestyle could be kept private. I listened to Paddy Ashdown this morning claiming to be a very good friend but yet not knowing of his lifestyle. Seems that either Ashdown was not a good friend or he was being economic with the truth.
Laws should resign on the basis that it will damage the Coalition.We really need the Coalition to work if we are to avoid the worst of the economic crisis we are in. Much better that Laws falls on his sword rather than be sacked with the acrimony that might bring.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank102 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles148 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles149 mins ago
News211 mins ago
