Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
Just when the Fib/Dems and Cleggy thought it couldn't get any worse todays newspapers (11th May) are reporting that David Laws the ex-minister who paid his secret gay lovers' £40k rent using taxpayers' money faces suspension from the Commons.
The Standards and Privileges Committee has found Lib Dem MP David Laws broke up to 6 Commons' rules.The breaches could mean the committee recommends his suspension from the House and the police reopen their investigation.
I think we can safely say that it's unlikely that he will make a return to the Cabinet.
UnLawful Laws!!
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#2
The story of course from his angle is that he wasnt trying to cheat the taxpayer but was terrified about his situation being found out..ie that he was gay and was living with the man mentioned. He had just reached the top of the political tree, near as dammit, so the pressure was on to be squeeky clean and NOT gay.
Be that as it may...the deed was still done and we can all make excuses for crime but crime is crime at the end of the day. Pity to see his career in ruins in a way as he was an engaging fellow.
Also worth noting that there are several cabinet members and/or shadow cabinet members who are gay such as Ben Bradshaw of the top of my head so there shouldnt have been a problem.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#3
Being openly gay has not worried most gay politicians, it didn't do Mandelson any harm and I think if David Laws is claiming he was shy about coming out, well that doesn't wash. This is not the 1970s when Ted Heath had to keep his sexuality firmly in the closet.
It is not unusual that gay people are squeaky clean, PaulB.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
this case seems more serious than some of the others, must finish off his political career.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#5
Peter
Was Ted Heath gay..blimey I never realised that....same as Rock Hudson a bit of a shock.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#6
I thought Ted Heath was just an oul bachelor... bachelors used to exist as a real species. They couldnt touch you for it either!!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#7
Around that time, of course, Jeremy Thorpe came a cropper when he was outed and there were all sorts of criminal allegations flying about.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
there were a lot of good jokes flying around at the time too, not suitable for here though.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#9
Ah yes I remember the Jeremy Thorpe story very well. It caused a sensation at the time because JT never gave any indication that he was gay, in fact himself and his wife were a very attractive couple and very much pillars of the West Country community where his seat was..and pillars of society in general.
Having a wife then was an essential part of political life, it gave a solid veneer of respectability and banished all thoughts of shenanigans. Or what was considered shenanigans at the time!
Times have changed and no such subterfuge needed nowadays...but back then..gosh! Jeremy Thorpe was finished after that and became a very pale broken figure indeed.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#10
My take on all of this is if your gay and want to disclose it so be it
it's up to the individual.
no one else of any other sexual mode has to go round telling people so why should gays?
but laws's it appears didnt help himself by using taxpayrs money to cover a non story, thats his big mistake
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#11
Howard
Do you mean this one?
Q: What have Jeremy Thorpe and William the Conqueror got in common?
A: They're both f***ing Normans
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
keith
the issue is about fiddling money, not about anyone's sexuality.
laws seems to have tried to cloud the issue with the "gay" thing.
marek
that was one of them.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
HOWARD;
I think you will find there are two bits to this threa
LAWS'S attempt to cover up his sexuality don't know why
in amongst all of this was his claims for who lived in house.
but the law is the LAW(NO PUN INTENDED LOL)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#14
I think to be ashamed of one's sexuality is akin to denying one's existence. A very poor and lame excuse. He obviously thought he was outside the rules because he was ''protecting his family''. I'm afraid I find that unacceptable.
He lied to himself.
He lied to his family
He lied to his constituents and moreover
He lied to the H of C
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#15
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#16
Just when one thought it was all over and sorted and that Lwas may make an earlier than expected return to the front bench there hve been demands that police re-examine his fiddled expenses by Labour MP Thomas Docherty. He urged Scotland Yard to act after Mr Laws was suspended from Parliament for making false claims.
Detectives have already investigated the Lib Dem, who used taxpayers' cash to rent a room from his secret gay lover, and decided there was no criminal case to answer but Docherty said: "If anyone else had fraudulently obtained £50,000 and their defence was they had done it to protect their privacy, then they'd have had the book thrown at them
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#17
we read every day about people defrauding the benefit system for much smaller amounts, they are pilloried and proseuted.
i don't see any difference in this case.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#18
yep
let's get em own the market square and in the stocks lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
