LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksPerhaps if you put down your pitchfork and burning brand for a second, so as to use your brain, it might actually make sense...Originally Posted by santa claus
Perhaps if you put down your pitchfork and burning brand for a second, so as to use your brain, it might actually make sense...
If Wisdom is the coordination of "knowledge and experience" and its deliberate use to improve well being then how come "Ignorance is bliss"
does anyone think that there is some kind of attempt to use this as an excuse to bring sharia law to the uk?
i mean, cut off the hands of the thieving gits in government if they are caught with hands in the biscuit tin. just take the good parts of sharia law and leave the boring bits. so basically just chop the hands or balls off MP's when they inevitably get caught doing something they shouldn't. normally people who can't claim expenses or enter parliament aren't covered by the law, they are covered by normal rules. but as MP's are obviously special if they can claim expenses for duck moats and stuff, they should surely in turn have special laws to deal with them if they get caught
and with all the bloody channels on freeview they could have a channel to broadcast what surely must be 100s of potential televised castrations. much more exciting than the parliamentary channel or bid up tv
I don't know about Santa, but I haven't failed to realise anything of the kind. I don't care whether his relationship was physical of not - merely whether it falls into the definition in the rules of "partner". And even David Laws has admitted, or at least has been quoted as having admitted, that it did. It's not about his sexuality, it's about his expenses. Again.
He has a "partner" to whom he has, for a period of years after the rules changed, been paying rent, and charging it to the taxpayer. The rules say he's not allowed to. We've just had an expenses scandal for MPs expenses that turned the UK Parliamentary system into a planet-wide joke for months, but through all of that he kept his head down and hoped nobody would notice. Some people in the coalition seem to be calling him "honourable" because he referred himself to the Standards Committee, but he could have done that last year when the expenses scandal was in full flow if he wanted to clear the air. But no. He waits until the Telegraph out him, and I mean "out" his expenses, not his sexuality. Referring himself now is rather like the thief that, on being charged by the police for one burglary asks for others to be "taken into account" ... it's not because that burglar has suddenly caught a serious dose of honesty, it's because it's vested self-interest to do so.
nichomach (01-06-2010),santa claus (31-05-2010)
As far as I can gather, he decided in his own little world that because he was gay, the rules didn't apply to him.
Interesting concept from all angles really.
No sorry. There are more interesting posts following deserving more attention.
I didn't say illiterate mugs so don't be offended.
What is it that I'm supposed to be sidestepping? Your beef appears to be with the media. I don't know why they published now, who the source was or what their motives are but the story is fact and therefore legitimate. My guesses for the answers:
Why did they publish now? - Because it is news;
How long had they known about the story? - Don't know, don't care;
Why didn't they publish straight away? - They may have for all we know;
Who was the source? - Don't know, don't care; and
What were their motives? - Don't know; perhaps they feel a Cabinet Minister shouldn't keep this kind of thing secret.
Ok, tried that, it doesn't. Your post still reads bloated and pious.
For the sake of equality, I think tits will have to be added to the chop 'em off list too
Yep, know what you mean. The taxpayer bends over backwards to allow its leaders to turn over a new leaf and it gets secretly rogered, again.
Santa the fact you answered some of the questions "don't care" really speaks volumes. Not just in the instance of the questions to which you were answering but to your attitude on this subject as a whole - to ignore what are important and differentiating issues with respect to Laws' position and personal circumstances, and how that, you know, these might have influenced his decision making (for worse I would agree). You and Saracen are looking at the situation with cold hard logic and completely failing to see how his sexuality and how society still perceives it (in some circles) would change his decision making.
This is not my point. I'm not saying it's okay becuase he's gay - my point is about how his personal circumstnaces would have altered his decision making. Something you still haven't acknowledged would happen. He was gay, due to it's implications, and the fact the relationship was questionable (as in - not a normal partnership, more likely open ended casual sex, it was debatable whether it came under the banner of partnership as defined in the rules). Laws obviously decided
a) it probably didn't (wrong to assume by him) and
b) this way he didn't have to expose his sexuality which compounded his answer for a)
He made an error in judgement in coming to this decision, it wasn't clear cut, but he made the wrong choice. He also stopped claiming around the time of the expensives scandal (mid 2009), probably as a precaution as he realised it was a "grey" area that needed addressing.
Let's not forget he's not profited personally from this, he's been subject to a stretching of the interpretation of the rules (one he should've made sure he was fully in clear with before claiming). If these hadn't been a casual relationship he would've been absolutely fine with claiming these rental costs.
You have to acknowledge the full circumstances to understand why this has happened. He's not tried to swindle the tax payer for personal gain, he's just made a bad decision somewhere down the line and somebody has decided to expose him for their own ends.
Honestly, you're like a spokesperson for the bleeding heart club. You say that "he's just made a bad decision somewhere down the line and somebody has decided to expose him for their own ends" making it sound like he's an innocent being exploited by the ravening wolves. That's a laugh.
It comes down to this: can a cabinet minister with this kind of judgement continue in office? The answer is no and it's no good berating my 'hardcore' attitude when Laws himself knows he is wrong and has stepped aside.
That he is homosexual (or bisexual or Klingon) is not relevant; he just isn't suitable to head the Treasury. He's had the double whammy of being outed and losing his job because he tried to keep his head down; it is terrible judgement of the kind this government professes to want to rid itself.
Both the PM and the Deputy PM have talked of cleaning up government but hadn't planned on one of their most senior mates getting caught with his trousers down (so to speak) and their early statements show that what they say and what they do are 2 different things. So much for "change" and "fairness for all".
I bet you also feel sorry for Sarah Ferguson who tried to get herself a half a million payoff and did it when she was not "in her right place". ROAR!
Santa - no he shouldn't continue in office. But he did resign without hesitation as soon as he saw the storm and referred himself. More than can be said for many other politicians.
...and I do fully agree given the express promises of the new government he had to go. The public wouldn't have had it any other way.
However it's a great shame given the countries current financial circumstance we've kicked out someone who would appear to have the balls and intelligence to make the hard choices. In the long run we might not have done ourselves any favours by getting rid, alas we will never know as we won't see what job he could have done compared to his replacement.
I'm glad this country still operates on short term knee jerk reactions instead of looking at the bigger picture.
Ferguson however is another case all together and deserves everything she gets
Well he hasn't been given an opportunity to defend his position yet - he resigned once the Daily Telegraph raised questions about his probity.Erm, yes? My comments/reaction would be exactly the same if this was an elected Labour representative. By raising this issue for discussion, I am not ignoring the screw ups of others, I'm airing a legitimate topic concerning a (now former) senior minister in the current government. Laws can't be excused because 'we all make mistakes'. He has shown his judgement to be suspect; not a quality I admire in the Head of the Treasury.
David Laws forced himself out. Even he knows his position is indefensible.
Apology accepted
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rom-grace.html
It is an interesting case - if not only because it shows that the rules on parliamentary expenses are unclear. Paraphrasing the article above
He rented a flat off someone legitimately as Landlord tenant. The landlord leter became a lover. The rules then chamged to say that you couldn't rent from a family member or someone with whom ypou had a relationship - and it is at that point that david Laws fell fould of the changed rules.
So one of the questions raised is the definition of a 'lover' or a relationship. If he had had a one night stand with his landlord (of whatever sex) - would that disbar him from claiming rent? There was no civil partnership arrangement in place.
It is the unenviable task of the Parliamentary Standards Committee to decide on those issues - which once again have to balance common sense with the public perception of honesty.
Whilke the expenses scandal did reveal outrageous misusage of public funds by some MPs - duck houses, moats and pornography channels spring to mind - some cases were probably as much as by omission rather than commission - which is why so few were subject to criminal charges.
Laws is possibly guilty of hypocrasy in that he was vehement in his condemnation of the abuses revealed by expenses scandal - which is one of the reasons why this is such a big story, and Cameron/Clegg are somewhat premature in suggesting he returns to the Goverment before the PSC reports.
But to give him credit, Laws resigned as soon as the story broke - an honourable action noticeably lacking by other transgressing ministers in other administrations in recent years.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Starting with the last point, I have never said or suggested he did this for personal gain ... but his "partner" sure as hell gained from Laws expense claims.
And I find the fact that he stopped claiming to be incriminating, since it strongly suggests he either knew or suspected it was against the rules. Did he come forward then? Nope, he kept quiet. He stood for election again, and then accepted a Cabinet position.
And it's not that I haven't "acknowledged" that his sexuality would have affected his decision making - it's that it was utterly wrong of him to allow it to do so. The rules do not say that you can't claim under these circumstances unless you find it embarrassing to have it come out that you're gay. They simply say you can't claim. And he did.
He's a public person, and far worse, an elected official. He is expected to abide by certain standards of behaviour, and didn't. In most private companies, if you diddled your expenses to the tune of thousands, or tens of thousands, you'd be damn lucky to get the chance to just resign, and even then, resign part of your job and keep the rest. And if you were, say, a policeman, and you did this, you'd be lucky to not be facing fraud charges.
To my mind, what Laws did is far worse than many MPs expenses claims. He decided to put his embarrassment, to put keeping his sexuality secret from either us, of his friends or more likely family, above keeping to parliamentary rules, and not abusing taxpayer funds.
This is why I say it's not about his sexuality. That is entirely irrelevant, as far as his suitabiulity for being a lawmaker is concerned. Being an MP is supposed to mean you are "honourable", as many of these hypocrites keep calling themselves, yet Laws has proven by his actions that he puts his personal privacy and avoidance of embarrassment above his responsibility as an MP to not only obey the rules, but to be seen to be doing so. Why should we obey the rules these jokers pass if they don't even bother to obey the rules they set for themselves?
Nobody forced Laws, or any other MP, to put themselves forward for election. They chose to do so. Nobody forced him to keep his sexuality secret, he chose to. And nobody forced him to claim "rent" for living with his lover. He chose to.
And then he chose to put that secrecy above owning up and repaying ..... until her got caught. Then, having got caught, he (like most MPs) seems to think paying it back and resigning his Cabinet post means everything is okay. Try shoplifting and, when caught and handed over to the police, asking if you can give it back and say sorry and that'll be that, especially if you shoplifted tens of thousands of pounds of stuff.
If you stand for public office, you should be held, and hold yourself, to the highest standards if integrity, yet far too many MPs have been operating on the basis of getting away with what they can get away with, and it's fine just so long as they don't get caught, and if the do get caught, they pay some money back and everything is okay. Well, it bloody well isn't.
As I have said several times, this is not about him being gay. It's about him diddling his expenses and then not coming forward because he wants to protect his personal privacy. It is not acceptable for a public representative to put his personal privacy above defrauding the taxpayer, and the fact that other senior politicians, including Cameron and Clegg seem to think that it's okay and he just has to keep his head down for a while just goes to show that for all their protestations about cleaning up politics, their mindset hasn't changed an iota. Small wonder people still don't trust politicians, and NuConLib was, we're repeatedly told, about "putting public interest ahead of party". Surely it should be put ahead of personal interest too? If some MPs can't stand the heat of standing near the Parliamentary oven, get the hell out of our Democratic kitchen, and let us have the representatives we deserve, that will act honourably and honestly, even if it's embarrassing!
Guys, my view is exactly that expressed so eloquently above by Saracen so please understand I'm not ignoring your comments - I just think what Saracen says is bang on the money.
For the record, yes, it is disappointing that we've lost someone with the financial skill to tackle the ongoing crisis but we did not kick Mr Laws out. But anyway, why can't Vince Cable have the Treasury job? Or the new government could approach Alastair Darling on a consultancy basis and really put Country before party politics...
Consult darling? The man responsible for the last budget. We might as well let gordo back in, I have visions of him with his plan, an amex card with no limit.
What I find mildly irritating is someone like Laws, who has the decency to throw his hands up and admit what he did is wrong will not get as far in politics as say someone who expensed a pergola or porn, or did some blatant expensing on a property they weren't even living in. No they stayed in the cabinet and now the shadow cabinet....
But also you have to ask yourself did he think he would never get found out?! Why didn't he offer to pay the money back whilst the issue was still new?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Because it woud have publically exposed his sexuality...
FAQ:
Should he have claimed? In retrospect, No
Was he motivated by financial gain? No
Was his judgement compromised by personal circumstance? Yes
Did he "break the rules"? Technically - debatable. Morally - most likely.
Did he cease claiming as soon as the expenses fiasco broke out last summer? Yes
He also quit his position, referred himself and offered to pay back the money straight way.
Why didn't he say something sooner? Because he didn't want his sexuality to be public knowledge
So in short, he thought he could get away with it.
Basically committing a crime because you don't want the world to know your lover is your landlord.... Not really a defence imho.
Or is it that been openly gay might harm your chances politically, in which case its perfectly OK to intentionally mislead the electorate, so long as its over something you consider morally justifiable. I dislike that a lot.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Animus - Yes.
However I suspect that wasn't his intention this was pre-expenses scandal and as such there was probably a general concensous among MPs that this was normal and accpetable practise. Now given Laws' claim was not a clear cut case, at the very least highlights ambiguaty in interpreting the law, he made a poor judgement call (in retrospect).
We're not talking about him making this decision when MPs expenses were under the microscope, this is all in the past, and his decision was made in the general claiming climate pre-scandal. This I feel is something that hasn't been considered by many.
I guess I'm just willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, still this is my final word on the subject. It's been a good debate so good to get different point sof view and the reasoning for them
What seems to have been missed in many of these discussions is that Laws had put an undisclosed lump sum of money into the new property . He had extended the mortgage on his main house, and put the cash towards part financing the shared house, and then claimed for the rent. Thats not sleeping with your land lord, its either a business agreement, or a relationship. If it was a business agreement he was paying himeslf rent. This was after the rule changes to ban paying familly or spouse for rent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
