Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
MP banned for only 7 days
So David Laws has only been banned for 7 days from Parliament for claiming thousands of pounds of extra expenses.
He claimed £40,000 to pay rent to his gay partner (not allowed under the rules). He was also found to have wrongly claimed some £2,000 for building work and £2,248 for telephone bills.
A report ruled the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury was "guilty of a series of SERIOUS breaches of the rules, over a CONSIDERABLE TIME".
Most of us would be sacked from our job for this sort of thing.
He gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
He claimed £40,000 to pay rent to his gay partner (not allowed under the rules). He was also found to have wrongly claimed some £2,000 for building work and £2,248 for telephone bills.
A report ruled the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury was "guilty of a series of SERIOUS breaches of the rules, over a CONSIDERABLE TIME".
Most of us would be sacked from our job for this sort of thing.
He gets nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by VHG. 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.
Give me strength.Next you will tell us how you have a gay friend a black friend a Pakistani friend and you once dated a Chinese girl.You can dress it up however you want it was gay bashing. You can wrap a sh!t in ribbons but its still a sh!t.Im finished on this thread even the original poster failed to point out all the facts. It was said he would have paid 30 grand more if he hadn't broken the rules so it wasnt for financial gain.But have a few more gay jokes and make yourself feel better. Numb skulls.
@Graham-W
"Just about says it all, really. "
Well, it would if it were true, but it's not. That list comes from an ancient e-mail hoax, and originally referred to the US Congress. It wasn't accurate about Congress and it ain't true about parliament.
See it on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com...cs/crime/congress.asp
"Just about says it all, really. "
Well, it would if it were true, but it's not. That list comes from an ancient e-mail hoax, and originally referred to the US Congress. It wasn't accurate about Congress and it ain't true about parliament.
See it on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com...cs/crime/congress.asp
-- answer removed --
This from the independent ;
"In his report to the committee, Standards Commissioner John Lyon found that "any reasonable person properly seized of the facts" would agree Mr Laws had been in breach of rules against using expenses to rent from a partner, which were introduced in July 2006.
However, he went further and concluded that from April 2005 the MP was wrong to designate his home in his Somerset constituency as his main home, because he was spending more time with Mr Lundie in London.
Mr Lyon also said the MP had misled the Commons authorities since 2001 by filing documents which gave a "false impression" of his relationship with Mr Lundie.
Mr Laws was found to have paid his partner up to £370 per month above the market rent, and used expenses to contribute £2,000 to building works at the second London property they shared.
The report also revealed that Mr Laws admitted regularly putting in expenses claims just below the £250 threshold which would have meant receipts were required."
So IPSAs report concludes that he was paying above the market rate. ie a financial gain. He submitted unreceipted repair and redecoration expense claims.He regularly submitted claims below that £250 threshold which would have meant having to submit receipts. I dont care how many millions you have - the prospect of living at the taxpayers expense will always be a temptation to the greedy. No way should this guy be allowed back into cabinet
"In his report to the committee, Standards Commissioner John Lyon found that "any reasonable person properly seized of the facts" would agree Mr Laws had been in breach of rules against using expenses to rent from a partner, which were introduced in July 2006.
However, he went further and concluded that from April 2005 the MP was wrong to designate his home in his Somerset constituency as his main home, because he was spending more time with Mr Lundie in London.
Mr Lyon also said the MP had misled the Commons authorities since 2001 by filing documents which gave a "false impression" of his relationship with Mr Lundie.
Mr Laws was found to have paid his partner up to £370 per month above the market rent, and used expenses to contribute £2,000 to building works at the second London property they shared.
The report also revealed that Mr Laws admitted regularly putting in expenses claims just below the £250 threshold which would have meant receipts were required."
So IPSAs report concludes that he was paying above the market rate. ie a financial gain. He submitted unreceipted repair and redecoration expense claims.He regularly submitted claims below that £250 threshold which would have meant having to submit receipts. I dont care how many millions you have - the prospect of living at the taxpayers expense will always be a temptation to the greedy. No way should this guy be allowed back into cabinet
Yes, LazyGun, as I said earlier I cannot see how his actions (particularly claiming even more than the market rate especially when his actual outgoing was probably closer to £0) can be construed as for anything other than financial gain.
How anybody can suggest that he was somehow victimised because of his sexuality is quite beyond me. I don’t care two hoots what he gets up to with Mr Lundie or which of them puts what where. What I do care about is the fact that a fiddling conniving spiv raids the public purse by making false claims and is promptly evicted from the Cabinet. Then the same spiv, who is “so talented, gifted and valuable to the government” that the country simply cannot do without his services is immediately considered for readmission to the higher echelons.
Personally I’d prefer it if the nation tried to muddle along as best it can without Mr Laws’ help. He could then slink bank to the world of investment banking where his undoubted talents for making money in dubious circumstances may be more widely appreciated.
How anybody can suggest that he was somehow victimised because of his sexuality is quite beyond me. I don’t care two hoots what he gets up to with Mr Lundie or which of them puts what where. What I do care about is the fact that a fiddling conniving spiv raids the public purse by making false claims and is promptly evicted from the Cabinet. Then the same spiv, who is “so talented, gifted and valuable to the government” that the country simply cannot do without his services is immediately considered for readmission to the higher echelons.
Personally I’d prefer it if the nation tried to muddle along as best it can without Mr Laws’ help. He could then slink bank to the world of investment banking where his undoubted talents for making money in dubious circumstances may be more widely appreciated.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
