Multi-Million/Billionaires Owning Farms
Society & Culture0 min ago
Time for a Double Standards Committee ?
The Express reports “A Cake factory worker who was sacked after 17 years service for eating part of a hazelnut said last night: “I have been treated like a criminal. It’s a joke.” Grandmother Susan Longworth, 53, says she was branded a thief after she absentmindedly popped a piece of nut less than half an inch in size into her mouth as she waited for a conveyor belt to deliver a batch of toffee cakes for her to decorate. After being suspended, she was fired and frogmarched from the premises. She said yesterday: “I’ve never stolen anything in my life and I didn’t see any harm in eating a tiny little bit of hazelnut. It’s just nuts.” Susan, who joined the Park Cake company in Bolton in 1993, added: “I am going to appeal to clear my name but if they offered me my job back tomorrow I wouldn’t take it. I’m not being classed as a thief ”
Compare this to
David Laws who has resigned (and not been sacked) from the Coalition Cabinet (but not resigned as an MP) after revelations that he claimed £40,000 of Taxpayers Money to pay rent to his boyfriend. After this David Cameron writes to David Laws “ You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else. Your decision to resign from the government demonstrates the importance you attach to your integrity. I hope that, in time, you will be able to SERVE AGAIN as I think it is absolutely clear that you have a huge amount to offer our country”
Should the Government, despite our hard times, now set up yet another Quango - a Double Standards Committee to bring in the same laws for rich and poor alike and ensure they are applied fairly ?
Compare this to
David Laws who has resigned (and not been sacked) from the Coalition Cabinet (but not resigned as an MP) after revelations that he claimed £40,000 of Taxpayers Money to pay rent to his boyfriend. After this David Cameron writes to David Laws “ You are a good and honourable man. I am sure that, throughout, you have been motivated by wanting to protect your privacy rather than anything else. Your decision to resign from the government demonstrates the importance you attach to your integrity. I hope that, in time, you will be able to SERVE AGAIN as I think it is absolutely clear that you have a huge amount to offer our country”
Should the Government, despite our hard times, now set up yet another Quango - a Double Standards Committee to bring in the same laws for rich and poor alike and ensure they are applied fairly ?
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.
Jack
You don’t appear to have properly read or ingested what I or bibblebub have posted above.
You seem very unreasonably to be in denial over the gravity of David Laws wrongdoing here. You’.re happy to shout gross misconduct over the eating of a hazelnut but prepared to find any amount of excuses for Laws much grosser misconduct - namely a mega misappropriation of FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS of taxpayers money. If this doesn’t strike you as a trifle perverse than there is not much more to be said - as the saying goes - there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Laws deserves to be sacked and prosecuted for what hes done and never be brought back - that would amount to atonement for his sins - there are no excuses for mega expense fiddlers whatever their public service track record and their rising stars - If anything doesn’t stand up to scrutiny here its your judgement regarding Laws wrongdoing and suitable punishment.
You don’t appear to have properly read or ingested what I or bibblebub have posted above.
You seem very unreasonably to be in denial over the gravity of David Laws wrongdoing here. You’.re happy to shout gross misconduct over the eating of a hazelnut but prepared to find any amount of excuses for Laws much grosser misconduct - namely a mega misappropriation of FORTY THOUSAND POUNDS of taxpayers money. If this doesn’t strike you as a trifle perverse than there is not much more to be said - as the saying goes - there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Laws deserves to be sacked and prosecuted for what hes done and never be brought back - that would amount to atonement for his sins - there are no excuses for mega expense fiddlers whatever their public service track record and their rising stars - If anything doesn’t stand up to scrutiny here its your judgement regarding Laws wrongdoing and suitable punishment.
Dutch - You seem determined to misunderstand my post.
1. I DO have sympathy for Mrs Longworth; however, the company for which she worked had strict policies in place and she took a decision to transgress one of these. The ability to discipline her resided with her employers and they decided to terminate her employment rather than give her any written or veral warnings. This may be heavy-handed on their part but it is not illegal for them to do so.
2. David Laws has indeed needlessly trousered £40,000 of 'our money'. However, he has given up a ministerial position, paid the money back, apologised, rolled up his tent and stolen away into the night and behaved with a darned sight more dignity than many caught when the expenses scandal broke. They may all have behaved 'immorally' but as they sought to remind us, they haven't behaved illegally.
Please feel free to misunderstand and misconstrue as is your right.............
1. I DO have sympathy for Mrs Longworth; however, the company for which she worked had strict policies in place and she took a decision to transgress one of these. The ability to discipline her resided with her employers and they decided to terminate her employment rather than give her any written or veral warnings. This may be heavy-handed on their part but it is not illegal for them to do so.
2. David Laws has indeed needlessly trousered £40,000 of 'our money'. However, he has given up a ministerial position, paid the money back, apologised, rolled up his tent and stolen away into the night and behaved with a darned sight more dignity than many caught when the expenses scandal broke. They may all have behaved 'immorally' but as they sought to remind us, they haven't behaved illegally.
Please feel free to misunderstand and misconstrue as is your right.............
We don't know the true story in either case. Maybe with Mrs Longworth it was a question of hygiene , eating at the same time as decorating cakes is certainly not hygienic. The punishment seems harsh but I haven't heard the company's side of the story.
As far as David Law goes we don't know why he chose to come clean ( if that is an apt expression ) at this time. If he is a " good and honourable man " as Cameron says then Cameron's values are suspect. It's a case of all the MPs looking after their own. They are already trying to water down the new expense regulations and their support of Law is a part of the process.
As far as David Law goes we don't know why he chose to come clean ( if that is an apt expression ) at this time. If he is a " good and honourable man " as Cameron says then Cameron's values are suspect. It's a case of all the MPs looking after their own. They are already trying to water down the new expense regulations and their support of Law is a part of the process.
as has been pointed out, it seems Laws would actually have got *more* public money if he'd gone by the book and just taken out a joint mortgage. So the accusation that he was fleecing us doesn't hold water; he was saving us money. His offence was simply the technical one of breaking the rules. He's paid the price for that, and rightly: he could hardly have commanded respect for his financial actions if his own finances weren't above board. But he hasn't left us any poorer.
one last go at this
Jack
Look, with respect. I don’t understand your lenient attitude regarding the penalty David Laws should pay .
You say “ he has given up a ministerial position, paid the money back, apologised, rolled up his tent and stolen away into the night and behaved with a darned sight more dignity than many caught when the expenses scandal broke.” - here the punishment still doesn’t fit the crime - if we are caught with our hand in the till, and then say a dignified sorry,that we'll pay the money back and say we’ll take a down- grade of job for a while, we would still be sacked and prosecuted. What is good for Joe Public, should be equally good for our political class. They are our elected public servants and not some superior species of demi-god who are an untouchable law unto themselves.
“ They may all have behaved 'immorally' but as they sought to remind us, they haven't behaved illegally.” Under any just rules on MPs expenses/allowances immoral behaviour should have been nailed down as illegal behaviour - MPs fixing of their own dubious rules to facilitate, if not downright encourage, immoral expense claims by themselves is a threadbare shield - a hollow rogues refuge.
“Please feel free to misunderstand and misconstrue as is your right............. “ I’m sorry Jack but as I have said I don’t understand your lenient point of view.
Jack
Look, with respect. I don’t understand your lenient attitude regarding the penalty David Laws should pay .
You say “ he has given up a ministerial position, paid the money back, apologised, rolled up his tent and stolen away into the night and behaved with a darned sight more dignity than many caught when the expenses scandal broke.” - here the punishment still doesn’t fit the crime - if we are caught with our hand in the till, and then say a dignified sorry,that we'll pay the money back and say we’ll take a down- grade of job for a while, we would still be sacked and prosecuted. What is good for Joe Public, should be equally good for our political class. They are our elected public servants and not some superior species of demi-god who are an untouchable law unto themselves.
“ They may all have behaved 'immorally' but as they sought to remind us, they haven't behaved illegally.” Under any just rules on MPs expenses/allowances immoral behaviour should have been nailed down as illegal behaviour - MPs fixing of their own dubious rules to facilitate, if not downright encourage, immoral expense claims by themselves is a threadbare shield - a hollow rogues refuge.
“Please feel free to misunderstand and misconstrue as is your right............. “ I’m sorry Jack but as I have said I don’t understand your lenient point of view.
It's not lenient, it just fits the censures available.
The only person to have suffered in this matter is DL. He shouldn't/can't be prosecuted because the 'offence' he committed is non-prosecutable.
Was it immoral ? Possibly, however I happen to believe that the over-weening reason for his behaviour was to safe-guard his private life.
Was it illegal ? Apparently not.
We can't drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way with which the rest of us disagree.
<They may all have behaved 'immorally' but as they sought to remind us, they haven't behaved illegally.” Under any just rules on MPs expenses/allowances immoral behaviour should have been nailed down as illegal behaviour - MPs fixing of their own dubious rules to facilitate, if not downright encourage, immoral expense claims by themselves is a threadbare shield - a hollow rogues refuge.> It may well be but it certainly safeguards against prosecution in this case.
The only person to have suffered in this matter is DL. He shouldn't/can't be prosecuted because the 'offence' he committed is non-prosecutable.
Was it immoral ? Possibly, however I happen to believe that the over-weening reason for his behaviour was to safe-guard his private life.
Was it illegal ? Apparently not.
We can't drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way with which the rest of us disagree.
<They may all have behaved 'immorally' but as they sought to remind us, they haven't behaved illegally.” Under any just rules on MPs expenses/allowances immoral behaviour should have been nailed down as illegal behaviour - MPs fixing of their own dubious rules to facilitate, if not downright encourage, immoral expense claims by themselves is a threadbare shield - a hollow rogues refuge.> It may well be but it certainly safeguards against prosecution in this case.
I really don't want to think about the possibility of people eating off a food production line.
The worst part is that she ate 'part' of the nut. Did the rest of the nut that she didn't fancy eating end up in a cake? Lovely.
And, she just thought of doing this after 17 years? In all probability it means she's only just been caught after 17 years of eating bits of food off the production line.
As for David Laws, I think you need to compare like for like.
The worst part is that she ate 'part' of the nut. Did the rest of the nut that she didn't fancy eating end up in a cake? Lovely.
And, she just thought of doing this after 17 years? In all probability it means she's only just been caught after 17 years of eating bits of food off the production line.
As for David Laws, I think you need to compare like for like.
Jack
///The only person to have suffered in this matter is DL/// untrue - the taxpayer , the coalition and the national interest has suffered .
////It's not lenient, it just fits the censures available…… He shouldn't/can't be prosecuted because the 'offence' he committed is non-prosecutable //// Laws should have been sacked as a Minister and it should have been constitutionally possible for someone in Laws situation to be both sacked as an MP and prosecuted for misappropriation of Taxpayers money - just as benefits cheats would be .
.
////Was it immoral ? Possibly, however I happen to believe that the over-weening reason for his behaviour was to safe-guard his private life.//// definitely immoral as is evidenced by his quick departure as Minister and now MP
////Was it illegal ? Apparently not. //// - But it certainly should have been and should be in the future.
////We can't drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way with which the rest of us disagree.//// We can and should drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way to abuse taxpayers money - esp to the tune of £40k.
>> a threadbare shield - a hollow rogues refuge<<
//// It may well be but it certainly safeguards against prosecution in this case//// But it absolutely shouldn’t - MPs should pay the same price as ordinary folk for financial cheating and abuse of taxpayers money
Jack, still don’t understand your defence of Laws and your lenient viewpoint on the penalties that he, as an expenses cheat, should face .
///The only person to have suffered in this matter is DL/// untrue - the taxpayer , the coalition and the national interest has suffered .
////It's not lenient, it just fits the censures available…… He shouldn't/can't be prosecuted because the 'offence' he committed is non-prosecutable //// Laws should have been sacked as a Minister and it should have been constitutionally possible for someone in Laws situation to be both sacked as an MP and prosecuted for misappropriation of Taxpayers money - just as benefits cheats would be .
.
////Was it immoral ? Possibly, however I happen to believe that the over-weening reason for his behaviour was to safe-guard his private life.//// definitely immoral as is evidenced by his quick departure as Minister and now MP
////Was it illegal ? Apparently not. //// - But it certainly should have been and should be in the future.
////We can't drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way with which the rest of us disagree.//// We can and should drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way to abuse taxpayers money - esp to the tune of £40k.
>> a threadbare shield - a hollow rogues refuge<<
//// It may well be but it certainly safeguards against prosecution in this case//// But it absolutely shouldn’t - MPs should pay the same price as ordinary folk for financial cheating and abuse of taxpayers money
Jack, still don’t understand your defence of Laws and your lenient viewpoint on the penalties that he, as an expenses cheat, should face .
<untrue - the taxpayer , the coalition and the national interest has suffered .> Read jno's post on the first part; it has caused embarassment to the coalition rather than damage. Although, I do believe he would have performed his Treasury role well.
<Laws should have been sacked as a Minister and it should have been constitutionally possible for someone in Laws situation to be both sacked as an MP and prosecuted for misappropriation of Taxpayers money - just as benefits cheats would be > There is a legal framework to deal with benefit cheats, there is nonesuch for MP's and their ill-advised expenses claims.
<definitely immoral as is evidenced by his quick departure as Minister and now MP> well I should think that you are satisifed with his ministerial step-down, although I should hold off on ordering the food for his resignation as an MP just yet.
<But it certainly should have been and should be in the future.> As I've already commented it is NOT at the moment............
<We can and should drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way to abuse taxpayers money - esp to the tune of £40k.> Once there is a legal framework for doing so, yes that would be a good idea (the point as to whether there 'was'a misappropriation is moot, at the moment) but, I say again, there is NOT such a framework at the moment.
(cont)
<Laws should have been sacked as a Minister and it should have been constitutionally possible for someone in Laws situation to be both sacked as an MP and prosecuted for misappropriation of Taxpayers money - just as benefits cheats would be > There is a legal framework to deal with benefit cheats, there is nonesuch for MP's and their ill-advised expenses claims.
<definitely immoral as is evidenced by his quick departure as Minister and now MP> well I should think that you are satisifed with his ministerial step-down, although I should hold off on ordering the food for his resignation as an MP just yet.
<But it certainly should have been and should be in the future.> As I've already commented it is NOT at the moment............
<We can and should drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way to abuse taxpayers money - esp to the tune of £40k.> Once there is a legal framework for doing so, yes that would be a good idea (the point as to whether there 'was'a misappropriation is moot, at the moment) but, I say again, there is NOT such a framework at the moment.
(cont)
(Cont)
<But it absolutely shouldn’t - MPs should pay the same price as ordinary folk for financial cheating and abuse of taxpayers money> But it DOES..........
<Jack, still don’t understand your defence of Laws and your lenient viewpoint on the penalties that he, as an expenses cheat, should face> That is beacuse you have got yourself all riled up with *ought* to be rather than understanding 'what is' !!!
I am sorry that you fail to understand Old Dutch.
I don't feel that I can be any clearer.....other contributors to this thread seem to hold similar views to mine. That you have an axe to grind about DL is obvious and I have nothing further to add.
He has already been punished to the limit the law allows in this situation. Perhaps you would prefer that he was publically tarred and feathered on the banks of the Thames ?
You began this thread by juxtaposing the case of the sacked worker with that of DL and that was how I originally approached it.
<But it absolutely shouldn’t - MPs should pay the same price as ordinary folk for financial cheating and abuse of taxpayers money> But it DOES..........
<Jack, still don’t understand your defence of Laws and your lenient viewpoint on the penalties that he, as an expenses cheat, should face> That is beacuse you have got yourself all riled up with *ought* to be rather than understanding 'what is' !!!
I am sorry that you fail to understand Old Dutch.
I don't feel that I can be any clearer.....other contributors to this thread seem to hold similar views to mine. That you have an axe to grind about DL is obvious and I have nothing further to add.
He has already been punished to the limit the law allows in this situation. Perhaps you would prefer that he was publically tarred and feathered on the banks of the Thames ?
You began this thread by juxtaposing the case of the sacked worker with that of DL and that was how I originally approached it.
Jack
//// it has caused embarassment to the coalition rather than damage Although, I do believe he would have performed his Treasury role well.//// Laws was acclaimed the best man for the job and whilst his departure has caused embarrassement - the taxpayer , the coalition and the national interest has also suffered loss because of his gross misappropriation
<Laws should have been sacked as a Minister and it should have been constitutionally possible for someone in Laws situation to be both sacked as an MP and prosecuted for misappropriation of Taxpayers money - just as benefits cheats would be > /////There is a legal framework to deal with benefit cheats, there is nonesuch for MP's and their ill-advised expenses claims///// The point is - there should already be a legal framework to outlaw MP ill advised expense claims and it should have been long ago.
<definitely immoral as is evidenced by his quick departure as Minister and now MP> ////well I should think that you are satisifed with his ministerial step-down, although I should hold off on ordering the
food for his resignation as an MP just yet.//// Sacking would have been better to strike a blow for the “new politics” I am thoroughly fed up with the unacceptable abuses of the “old politics”
<But it certainly should have been and should be in the future.> ///As I've already commented it is NOT at the moment............ /// yes I know - but as I keep saying it certainly should have been and should be in the future
Continued…..
//// it has caused embarassment to the coalition rather than damage Although, I do believe he would have performed his Treasury role well.//// Laws was acclaimed the best man for the job and whilst his departure has caused embarrassement - the taxpayer , the coalition and the national interest has also suffered loss because of his gross misappropriation
<Laws should have been sacked as a Minister and it should have been constitutionally possible for someone in Laws situation to be both sacked as an MP and prosecuted for misappropriation of Taxpayers money - just as benefits cheats would be > /////There is a legal framework to deal with benefit cheats, there is nonesuch for MP's and their ill-advised expenses claims///// The point is - there should already be a legal framework to outlaw MP ill advised expense claims and it should have been long ago.
<definitely immoral as is evidenced by his quick departure as Minister and now MP> ////well I should think that you are satisifed with his ministerial step-down, although I should hold off on ordering the
food for his resignation as an MP just yet.//// Sacking would have been better to strike a blow for the “new politics” I am thoroughly fed up with the unacceptable abuses of the “old politics”
<But it certainly should have been and should be in the future.> ///As I've already commented it is NOT at the moment............ /// yes I know - but as I keep saying it certainly should have been and should be in the future
Continued…..
Continued…..
<We can and should drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way to abuse taxpayers money - esp to the tune of £40k.> ////Once there is a legal framework for doing so, yes that would be a good idea /// I agree with this .
////(the point as to whether there 'was' a misappropriation is moot, at the moment) //// Disagree here - if it was moot then Laws should have stood his ground and stayed in situ until the issue is resolved.
///but, I say again, there is NOT such a framework at the moment. //// Yes I know, but there should have been long ago - that in itself is has been one of the key ingredients enabling and encouraging abuses
<But it absolutely shouldn’t - MPs should pay the same price as ordinary folk for financial cheating and abuse of taxpayers money> But it DOES......…/////It obviously doesn’t - as so many MP s have got away far too lightly because they fixed the rules in such a way to allow so very much abuse without any or commensurate penalty - the handful they are prosecuting, are claiming parliamentary privilege as a defence. Unbelievable - but its typical of how many of our remote political class think about themselves.
Continued.....
<We can and should drag, to the courts, everyone who has made a decision to act in a way to abuse taxpayers money - esp to the tune of £40k.> ////Once there is a legal framework for doing so, yes that would be a good idea /// I agree with this .
////(the point as to whether there 'was' a misappropriation is moot, at the moment) //// Disagree here - if it was moot then Laws should have stood his ground and stayed in situ until the issue is resolved.
///but, I say again, there is NOT such a framework at the moment. //// Yes I know, but there should have been long ago - that in itself is has been one of the key ingredients enabling and encouraging abuses
<But it absolutely shouldn’t - MPs should pay the same price as ordinary folk for financial cheating and abuse of taxpayers money> But it DOES......…/////It obviously doesn’t - as so many MP s have got away far too lightly because they fixed the rules in such a way to allow so very much abuse without any or commensurate penalty - the handful they are prosecuting, are claiming parliamentary privilege as a defence. Unbelievable - but its typical of how many of our remote political class think about themselves.
Continued.....
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.