Talented, deceitful or just plain greedy?

[Russethouse]

 I don't condone what David Laws did by any means, what I find worrying is that he apparently  has friends/family who he felt would not accept his sexuality - I thought we had passed all that by. In addition from all accounts he would have been a real assett to the coalition and with Vince Cable looking as if he has a death wish re the government we need all the brains we can get.

Unlike Paul I don't assume he was trying to make idiots of us by cheating - he may well have been, but personally I suspect he felt he was between a rock and a hard place and made the wrong choice.

[NickP]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

 I don't condone what David Laws did by any means, what I find worrying is that he apparently  has friends/family who he felt would not accept his sexuality -[/quote]

RH stop making excuses for him, he was treating us the general public and tax payers as mugs, the excuse of his sexuality is nonsense. Lots of people are gay but they don't fiddle their expenses because of that. Expense fiddling is greed end of. By the way Motorhead I also watched Question Time and you are right; they never came back to the question about a benefit cheat.

[mint]

Can someone explain to me in simple fashion why he felt he had to claim at all?

Surely, if he didn't want anyone finding out about his same sex lover and he was already a multi-millionaire, all he needed to do was to just not claim.

I understand that there ARE some MPs who don't claim anything....sorry can't name them as they tend to keep in the background and just get on with the job.[:D]

In asnwer to RH, yes, perhaps it's sad that he has family and friends who cannot accept his sexuality but, IMHO, it's even sadder that he has taxpayers in his constituency who cannot accept his deceitful claiming of tens of thousands of pounds which he then apparently passed on to his lover fraudalently[6] 

[Russethouse]

The trouble is Paul, neither you or I know - why would a man as wealthy as he is bother if there were not some other reason ? Frankly the idea you have seems to be 'he's an MP he took more money than he should, there can only be one reason' seems pretty narrow minded....stupid and wrong and deserving of punishment, I agree.

As for the benefit cheat question, old hat - I was away in France, so I missed QT, was it a repeat ? The same question was asked when the whole MPs expenses issue first came up.

Sweet, My guess is that his reason for claiming was to make his lover look like his landlord - frankly the whole thing is idiotic, now the newspapers are asking why his suspension has been delayed.

 

[NickP]

Who's Paul?

[JSKS]

The guy's a politician. He should be expected to act honestly.

In the matter of this claim he was deceitful. He lied. Whether he claimed more or less than he should have had he done it properly is irrelevant to the basic need to have MPs act with at least a modicum of integrity.

And it doesn't really matter whether he is only one of many prepared to be dishonest. Deceit is deceit. If you can't catch all the thieves does that mean you should let them carry on with impunity?

[PaulT]

[quote user="Rabbie"]I assume that all the posters condemning him have never done anything wrong[/quote]

Yes, I frequently overclaim £40,000 on my expenses - not. For a start I would not get away with overclaiming £4 even if I wanted to try.

As for him falling on his sword when it was found out making him a Saint I think not. Now, if he had come out with 'I have overclaimed £40,000 before it was found out then that would have been a little more noble.

All these people who fall on their swords never do until they are caught. So what do they do if they are not caught....just carry on.

Paul

[Russethouse]

 If you look up David Laws on Wiki, there is a bit that deals with this issue which mentions that (as I read it) the rules about paying a partner changed in 2006, by which time this arrangement had been in place two years -

What he did was stupid and dishonest, but I didn't see any of the complainers here say too much about the individuals who went to jail for their expense fiddles : David Chaytor & Eric Illsley

[mint]

RH, it's a scandal, whatever gloss anyone wishes to put on it.

There have been a few threads on MP expenses on the Forum.

We might not have mentioned individual MPs by name; after all, there were too many to name and shame, seeing as the vast majority of MPs had some "irregularity" with their claims [:'(]

DL is specifically mentioned here because a) it's a current topic and b) it could have implications for the Lib Dems and the coalition government.

As far as I'm concerned, it's that clichéd saying that comes to mind:

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.....

Certainly, in another, private setting, if you are caught stealing from your own firm, it's the sack, possible prosecution and off to the nick with you!

[Russethouse]

Which begs the question, why wasn't he prosecuted when others were ? I can't help feeling there is something more to this.

 Mr Laws has already been replaced in the coalition I suspect its too late for it to be effected now.

Mr Huhne though is a different matter, but that's another thread.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="JK"]The guy's a politician. He should be expected to act honestly. [/quote] Where are you coming from? Expecting a politician to act honestly? [;-)] [quote user="Pault"]

Yes, I frequently overclaim £40,000 on my expenses - not. For a start I would not get away with overclaiming £4 even if I wanted to try.

As for him falling on his sword when it was found out making him a Saint I think not. Now, if he had come out with 'I have overclaimed £40,000 before it was found out then that would have been a little more noble.

All these people who fall on their swords never do until they are caught. So what do they do if they are not caught....just carry on.

Paul[/quote]You don't seem to get the point that he was entitled to more than the amount he claimed incorrectly for. He wasn't doing this to line his pocket unlike the MPs who have been convicted of Fraud.

You say you have never overclaimed on expenses but have you ever taken something from the stationery supplies for your own use? I know I have taken office pens home for my own use.

David Laws did wrong. He has been punished. That should be an end of it.

 

[mint]

Au contraire, Rabbie, does the punishment fit the crime?

If, as RH has pointed out, others have ended up in prison for the self-same crime, why hasn't this fellow been prosecuted?

I suspect the coalition cannot afford to lose yet another Lib Dem!

And, BTW, Paul, it's not 40 grand; I believe he has repaid 56 grand and that's only the part we know about!

And I also agree with Paul, it's not the actual amount, it 's the PRINCIPLE, silly!

You might have taken a few office pens home but you are not an elected public official who represents your constituents at the highest level, are you?

And, to expand on the subject a bit, I wouldn't want to have in my home those cheapo, nasty office pens......[;-)][geek]

[Rabbie]

Au contraire, Rabbie, does the punishment fit the crime? IMO yes. I think they got it right

If, as RH has pointed out, others have ended up in prison for the self-same crime, why hasn't this fellow been prosecuted?. Probably because it was not the self same crime despite your honest opinion about it.

I suspect the coalition cannot afford to lose yet another Lib Dem! Since he resigned from the coalition goverment over 11 months ago  I think you may be making an unwarranted assuption. 

And, BTW, Paul, it's not 40 grand; I believe he has repaid 56 grand and that's only the part we know about! It has been fully investigated by the MPsStandards coimmittee so I think we can be sure that is the whole amount.

And I also agree with Paul, it's not the actual amount, it 's the PRINCIPLE, silly! Who are you calling silly? I don't want to get into a namecalling  fight . so lets keep this debate at an adult level

You might have taken a few office pens home but you are not an elected public official who represents your constituents at the highest level, are you? You know that for a fact do you?

And, to expand on the subject a bit, I wouldn't want to have in my home those cheapo, nasty office pens...... Cheap crack - almost as cheap as the pens[:D]

[PaulT]

Rabbie

I have formed the view that for you if you get caught and pay it back then it is OK.

He may have been entitled to more if he had claimed it but that is irrelevant. He claimed something to which he was not entitled and got caught.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="PaulT"]

Rabbie

I have formed the view that for you if you get caught and pay it back then it is OK.

He may have been entitled to more if he had claimed it but that is irrelevant. He claimed something to which he was not entitled and got caught.

[/quote]Paul, I fear I have not expressed my views as clearly as I would have liked. I have never said "if you get caught and pay it back then it is OK." . I did say he did wrong and had received IMO the correct punishment. There are degrees of guilt in any crime and a "one size fits all" approach is not correct IMO. The motivation behind a crime/wrongdoing is IMO relevant and should be taken into account in dealing with the crime.

This may be one of those occasions we should agree to differ on this and not let this descend into cheap jibes at one another.  So far we all have, I hope, avoided this and if I have unwittingly been guilty of this I apologise. that was certainly not my intention.

 

[NickP]

At the end of the day this man sits in parliament an helps decide on rules and laws which he expects us to follow, unfortunately for him that puts him in a position of having to be absolutely squeaky clean. So to answer the original question, for me this man is deceitful and greedy

[breizh]

I am starting to think the French have got the right idea. Sometimes the Anglo-Saxon "holier than thou" attitude can start to grate.

The media are banned by law from discussing the financial affairs of Deps and Minsters. This story would just not have "happened" in France. Ignorance is bliss? It certainly helps maintain the image of the political class. Sometimes Enchaine Canard takes the gamble.

The maximum penalty in France for this sort of transgression is EUR 30,000.00, no prison, no sacking. Anything over that and you're into profit!!

[mint]

[quote user="Rabbie"]

Au contraire, Rabbie, does the punishment fit the crime? IMO yes. I think they got it right

If, as RH has pointed out, others have ended up in prison for the self-same crime, why hasn't this fellow been prosecuted?. Probably because it was not the self same crime despite your honest opinion about it.

I suspect the coalition cannot afford to lose yet another Lib Dem! Since he resigned from the coalition goverment over 11 months ago  I think you may be making an unwarranted assuption. 

And, BTW, Paul, it's not 40 grand; I believe he has repaid 56 grand and that's only the part we know about! It has been fully investigated by the MPsStandards coimmittee so I think we can be sure that is the whole amount.

And I also agree with Paul, it's not the actual amount, it 's the PRINCIPLE, silly! Who are you calling silly? I don't want to get into a namecalling  fight . so lets keep this debate at an adult level

You might have taken a few office pens home but you are not an elected public official who represents your constituents at the highest level, are you? You know that for a fact do you?

And, to expand on the subject a bit, I wouldn't want to have in my home those cheapo, nasty office pens...... Cheap crack - almost as cheap as the pens[:D]

[/quote]

Ah, now for my reply:

Please explain to me, re your second point, why is his crime, falsely claiming and boosting falsely his actual rent figures different from those others' financial misdemeanours?

Point No.3, yes, he resigned from the cabinet but not his parliamentary seat?  I think the voters should have a say as to whether they want him to continue as their Right Honourable member.

Point No. 4, I did say it wasn't the actual amount but the principle

Point No. 5; you clearly didn't get my joke on "silly"!  No, it doesn't refer to you specifically.  It's my take on what President Clinton used to say:  "It's the economy, silly" or even KISS for Keep It Simple, Silly.  Must remind myself not to tell jokes that others might misinterpret.

Point No. 6; you were the one to bring up the subject of office pens and anyway, did you notice the use of the word "MIGHT"?  Might means something like you "could have but I don't know for sure".  In normal use, MIGHT in fact nearly always implies doubt so, if you have taken offence at this, then you have not understood me.

Cheapo office pens are actually a joke against myself!  Why do I say that?  It's because some Forum members deliberately perpetuate the myth that I live in a chateau and is totally OTT and lah-di-dah and that my pretensions are something to be poked fun at.

OK, hope that's explained that...........phew....such hard work as I am still typing minus one injured and not yet healed finger! 

[Rabbie]

S17, I have PMed you.

[mint]

Rabbie, reply sent [:)]