ChatterBank0 min ago
David Laws statement excusing himself
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
"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
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joeluke. 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.
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...
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...
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
Latest Posts
My Daftest Question To Date. Lpg
How it Works3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News12 mins ago
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.