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

[joeluke]

(he faints as JTH agrees with him for once!)

[jackthehat]

I don't intend to make a habit of it, believe me...........

[joeluke]

hey, once is a result believe me lol

[annie0000]

I'm sorry, but if you want to hide your sexuality to the point where you are prepared to defraud to that extent, then you don't chose a career as an MP or anything so much in the public eye. People keep saying how bright he was - really????

[LoftyLottie]

His sexualilty has nothing whatsoever with the issue. It is blatant fraud, nothing more, nothing less.

[joggerjayne]

Good point, Annie.

Best way to keep a low profile? ... get a job in public office.

Duuuhh !!!!!

[joeluke]

LL, but it is the reason why he didn't come clean last year when the expenses scandal broke

[annie0000]

How could any person with a modicum of intelligence believe that they can keep some aspects of their private live private when you are an MP?

[joggerjayne]

It may be the reason why he didn't come clean.

It's not the reason why he nicked the money in the first place.

At any time before that, when the rules changed, he could have stopped claiming in breach of the rules ... and he would have been fine.

But ... he kept claiming, in breach of the rules, and then the poo hit the fan.

Only then did his sexuality become a sticking point.

[LoftyLottie]

Rubbish Joe Luke. Do you honestly believe that!!

[joeluke]

Read his statement, he carried on fraudulently claiming these expenses to protect his sexuality

http://www.telegraph....tatement-in-full.html

[LoftyLottie]

Joe Luke, Do you believe everything you read. I read newspapers too and listen to the news. He used his sexuality to excuse himself. (a weak excuse at that).

[joeluke]

LL, of course I don't believe everything in the papers

Official statements I do

Quote ......"My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality.

[jackthehat]

<My motivation throughout has not been to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality. >

I believe it.
I also believe that had we not had the rightful expose last year over MP's expenses, this would have led to a serious amount of tutting from the electorate and not much more.

He did wrong (not criminally wrong, mind) in continuing to claim, but I think he felt any alteration in his given circumstances may attract a scrutiny to which he was not prepared to subject himself and his family...........

[jno]

I believe it too, jack. As I've said on other threads, he apparently could have claimed MORE money - quite legitimately - if he and his partner had taken out an ordinary mortgage. So he clearly wasn't doing it to maximise profit. He was taking less than he was due.

He broke the house rules and has paid for it. He did not leave us out of pocket. If for any reason this came up before a criminal court, I think he'd be justly acquitted.

[joeluke]

but if benefit claimants who KNOWINGLY defraud the system are taken to court and prosecuted then why not MP's?.......same principle

[Sqad]

David Laws was a cheat...he knew that in 2006 the rules had changed concerning claiming expenses for a "partners" residence.

Homophobia? He also cheated on that aspect...I would like to know if my prospective MP was a homosexual, family man, sportsman, had interest in the Arts, it may not affect my vote, but I feel that I had the right to know.

[MarkRae]

What about his star sign? Or his shoe size?

[Sqad]

Mark...quite ??

[jackthehat]

joeluke - There have been laws passed which make it illegal for people on benefits to use 'loopholes' like this to claim.
Quite simply, there are NO laws to deal with this type of situation. If there are NO laws, there cannot be any sort of prosecution.

Whether, morally, there ought to be laws laid down about this, is a point worth considering but until then, DL has transgressed the 'rules' but NOT done anything criminal.