Still wasn't that classy how New Labour's answer to J Edgar Hoover spitefully outed LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury minister David Laws on the same show before the full Daily Telegraph expenses story yesterday.

 

Well, errr, again, I would say that this is another point where I'm with Alistair Campbell... I mean, yeah, I dont like the man, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna just turn off when he exposes ANOTHER fukkin' douchebag who's robbing the taxpayer blind, whatever the man's sexuality happens to be..... I dont care who Laws sleeps with, I damn well DO care that he's committing acts of FRAUD AND DECEPTION of a most blatant kind, and NO I dont care that he's paid it all back, fukk him, it's a principle, he's a bloody THIEF..... <_< Another c/unt who deserves to be in prison as far as I'm concerned.. He should be sacked forthwith and an immediate Bi-Election called in his constituency.... I'm pretty damn sure his constituents wouldn't have voted for him had his fraud been exposed in the first round-up of cheaters...

 

Well, errr, again, I would say that this is another point where I'm with Alistair Campbell... I mean, yeah, I dont like the man, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna just turn off when he exposes ANOTHER fukkin' douchebag who's robbing the taxpayer blind, whatever the man's sexuality happens to be..... I dont care who Laws sleeps with, I damn well DO care that he's committing acts of FRAUD AND DECEPTION of a most blatant kind, and NO I dont care that he's paid it all back, fukk him, it's a principle, he's a bloody THIEF..... <_< Another c/unt who deserves to be in prison as far as I'm concerned.. He should be sacked forthwith and an immediate Bi-Election called in his constituency.... I'm pretty damn sure his constituents wouldn't have voted for him had his fraud been exposed in the first round-up of cheaters...

 

HYPOCRITE MUCH???????

 

So you fully support Alistair Campbell outing this LibDem minister.

 

Yet what about all of these illegal former Labour Government expenses:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...r-mps-expenses/

 

You can't have it both fukkin ways.

I dont agree with that at all, I think the man's a rancid, lying c/unt to be perfectly frank... He's one of the chief reasons why Labour LOST members in their droves when he spun the Iraq war.... Although I will grudgingly give the devil his due in his defence of the BBC's right to editorial decision making.... Tory Central command acted incredibly childishly in pulling out a Cabinet minister from QT just because he was going to be on...

An yet again you are allowing your personal prejudices against someone get in the way of anything remotely resembling a coherent argument. After all, I can't stand Michael Howard but in his short time as leader he achieved far more than his immediate predecessors. Without him the Tories would probably still be in opposition today.

HYPOCRITE MUCH???????

 

So you fully support Alistair Campbell outing this LibDem minister.

 

Yet what about all of these illegal former Labour Government expenses:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...r-mps-expenses/

 

You can't have it both fukkin ways.

 

Point to me a Post I've made where I've actually defended ANY MP from ANY party making dodgy expenses claims.... <_< I rather think I've made the OPPOSITE arguments... And I actually voted for the Lib Dems, so, the sense of betrayal that I feel is actually a lot MORE acute... This is the c/unt who's partly responsible in bringing down the axe on Public services FFS..... <_< <_< I think his fukked-up financial dealings are ENTIRELY FUKKIN' RELEVANT given the fact that he's the one going around telling ME as a taxpayer that I have to tolerate cuts in MY public services for the "greater good".... Fukk this hypocritical sack of sh!te and the horse he rode in on... SACK HIM NOW!!!!!!

 

As for "outing" him... Well, HIS fault for giving cash gifts at the taxpayers expense to his lover (because this is how it looks to ME anyway...) and not even mentioning that fact that his "landlord" was in fact his bloody partner, DONT YOU THINK????? As far as I'm concerned this is just as bad as the dodgy fukkers who "transfer" property and assets into their wife's or partners names to avoid paying taxes.... <_<

 

Conflict of interests much????? Nah, fukk him.... It makes no difference to me that he's gay, just proves that the gay community has its own cheaters and fraudsters as soon as they get into power... Power corrupts mate, simple as....

Point to me a Post I've made where I've actually defended ANY MP from ANY party making dodgy expenses claims.... <_< I rather think I've made the OPPOSITE arguments... And I actually voted for the Lib Dems, so, the sense of betrayal that I feel is actually a lot MORE acute... This is the c/unt who's partly responsible in bringing down the axe on Public services FFS..... <_< <_< I think his fukked-up financial dealings are ENTIRELY FUKKIN' RELEVANT given the fact that he's the one going around telling ME as a taxpayer that I have to tolerate cuts in MY public services for the "greater good".... Fukk this hypocritical sack of sh!te and the horse he rode in on... SACK HIM NOW!!!!!!

 

As for "outing" him... Well, HIS fault for giving cash gifts at the taxpayers expense to his lover (because this is how it looks to ME anyway...) and not even mentioning that fact that his "landlord" was in fact his bloody partner, DONT YOU THINK????? As far as I'm concerned this is just as bad as the dodgy fukkers who "transfer" property and assets into their wife's or partners names to avoid paying taxes.... <_<

 

Conflict of interests much????? Nah, fukk him.... It makes no difference to me that he's gay, just proves that the gay community has its own cheaters and fraudsters as soon as they get into power... Power corrupts mate, simple as....

 

I agree with this, I couldn't give a f*** if he is gay, he could be straight, gay or blow goats for all I care what i DO care about is him STEALING my money, I would say the same if it was a tory MP, quite why Laws hasn't been referred to the police is quite beyond me :rolleyes:

An yet again you are allowing your personal prejudices against someone get in the way of anything remotely resembling a coherent argument. After all, I can't stand Michael Howard but in his short time as leader he achieved far more than his immediate predecessors. Without him the Tories would probably still be in opposition today.

 

Yeah, damn straight it IS personal... I do react badly when people LIE to me, to my face and spin it up into so much bullsh"t it's hard to know where the truth even is.... Campbell is as bad as Goebbels, he's a propogandist to make even Max Clifford blush, and he is a Grade-A hypocrite of the highest order.... And, sorry Suede, but it kind of IS a fact that post-Iraq Labour absolutely haemmoraged members.... Channel 4 did a documentary PROVING it, and had economics experts on saying that if the Labour Party had been running as a business it would've had to declare bankruptcy because of the dramatic falling membership revenues.... So, Nu Labor couldn't even balance its OWN books, no wonder the economic crisis happened..... -_-

 

And you've actually convieniently missed the points that I have made where I have supported Campbell for exposing Laws and have defended his opinions upon the craven and ConDem attack on the BBC's editorial decision making policies which seems to me to be about them saving face in the eye of a storm of a public scandal, more than any high-and-mighty principled stands.... <_< So, yeah, I freely admit that I cant stand the man, but I'm not so blinkered as to refuse to listen to him on the very rare occasion where he does have something that is actually true to say.... And Laws has himself admitted it, so, well, err, Campbell on this particular occasion wasn't a lying scumbag....

 

Just curious, on another post once you said you were a councillor... Err, Labour by any chance....?

Yeah, damn straight it IS personal... I do react badly when people LIE to me, to my face and spin it up into so much bullsh"t it's hard to know where the truth even is.... Campbell is as bad as Goebbels, he's a propogandist to make even Max Clifford blush, and he is a Grade-A hypocrite of the highest order.... And, sorry Suede, but it kind of IS a fact that post-Iraq Labour absolutely haemmoraged members.... Channel 4 did a documentary PROVING it, and had economics experts on saying that if the Labour Party had been running as a business it would've had to declare bankruptcy because of the dramatic falling membership revenues.... So, Nu Labor couldn't even balance its OWN books, no wonder the economic crisis happened..... -_-

 

And you've actually convieniently missed the points that I have made where I have supported Campbell for exposing Laws and have defended his opinions upon the craven and ConDem attack on the BBC's editorial decision making policies which seems to me to be about them saving face in the eye of a storm of a public scandal, more than any high-and-mighty principled stands.... <_ so yeah i freely admit that cant stand the man but not blinkered as to refuse listen him on very> rare occasion where he does have something that is actually true to say.... And Laws has himself admitted it, so, well, err, Campbell on this particular occasion wasn't a lying scumbag....

 

Just curious, on another post once you said you were a councillor... Err, Labour by any chance....?

No, I was a Lib Dem councillor.

 

And Campbell didn't expose Laws, the Telegraph did. All Campbell did was try to create the impression that Laws was due to appear on QT. By the time the programme was recorded on Thursday evening it is likely that he knew the story was about to break.

 

Where did I deny that Labour lost members over Iraq? All I did say was that Labour's message was generally a lot more coherent when Campbell was around. On Iraq the message was completely wrong and misleading but that doesn't make it incoherent. As for the bankruptcy issue, all three parties have had periods over the lsat 20 years or so when they would have been forced to declare bankruptcy if they operated like a normal business.

And Campbell didn't expose Laws, the Telegraph did. All Campbell did was try to create the impression that Laws was due to appear on QT. By the time the programme was recorded on Thursday evening it is likely that he knew the story was about to break.

 

So, it's a bit like the Roy Hattersley, "tub of lard" incident on HIGNFY, so what??? Doesn't alter the fact that the ConDems took a hissy fit when they learned Campbell was gonna appear on QT, so, what he did was merely a dig at them in response....... I rather think that if someone from the Govt front benches HAD gone on QT, they would have been subject to an absolute merciless savaging by Campbell, and, rather cowardly, Campbell and Clegg pulled their people out, and put John Redwood in instead.. Well, not much point in having a go at him seeing as how he's actually critical of the Coalition, innit....? Not really one of Cameron's "favourites" is he....?

 

Where did I deny that Labour lost members over Iraq? All I did say was that Labour's message was generally a lot more coherent when Campbell was around.

 

You do realise that the character from "The Thick of It", Malcolm Tucker, (brilliantly played by Peter Capaldi) is actually based on Campbell dont you....? :P :lol: Yes, coherent, maybe... But he IS a lying c/unt, so, all that means is, his lies are coherent ones... So, does that make him less or more evil....? :P

 

So, it's a bit like the Roy Hattersley, "tub of lard" incident on HIGNFY, so what??? Doesn't alter the fact that the ConDems took a hissy fit when they learned Campbell was gonna appear on QT, so, what he did was merely a dig at them in response....... I rather think that if someone from the Govt front benches HAD gone on QT, they would have been subject to an absolute merciless savaging by Campbell, and, rather cowardly, Campbell and Clegg pulled their people out, and put John Redwood in instead.. Well, not much point in having a go at him seeing as how he's actually critical of the Coalition, innit....? Not really one of Cameron's "favourites" is he....?

QT is intended to be a serious discussion programme. HIGNFY isn't. Campbell seems to have been attempting to maximise the damage to Laws' reputation by adding a - probably - false allegation to allegations with more substance. Campbell and Morgan were announced as guests at the end of last week's programme so it's not as if the government only knew on Thursday that there wouldn't be a shadow spokesman. I think the government were being extremely petty in refusing to appear with Campbell. All governments try to influence the BBC although most wait for more than a couple weeks before doing so.

 

You do realise that the character from "The Thick of It", Malcolm Tucker, (brilliantly played by Peter Capaldi) is actually based on Campbell dont you....? :P :lol: Yes, coherent, maybe... But he IS a lying c/unt, so, all that means is, his lies are coherent ones... So, does that make him less or more evil....? :P

Of course I realise that - however much Armando Iannucci may try to deny it. But so what? Tucker is a caricature displaying all the worst traits of Campbell and none of the best.

 

On plenty of subjects - Iraq is the obvious, very large, exception - Campbell made at least a half-decent job of fighting against the lies in a largely hostile press. If he'd been able to coordinate a campaign in favour of the Human Rights Act, maybe there wouldn't be so much ill-informed hostility to it now.

On the subject of David Laws...calling him a c**t etc. is completely unjustified.

It seems he had his reasons for doing what he did and although it may have not been the right way of going about them I don't think he really thought he was doing anything wrong. He's the MP in my constituency (has been for years!) and he has done SO much. I fully support him.

On the subject of David Laws...calling him a c**t etc. is completely unjustified.

It seems he had his reasons for doing what he did and although it may have not been the right way of going about them I don't think he really thought he was doing anything wrong. He's the MP in my constituency (has been for years!) and he has done SO much. I fully support him.

 

Yeah, well, I'm sure people DO have reasons for committing fraud, just as people probably have their own reasons for robbing banks, mugging old ladies, nicking cars, burgling flats, etc, etc.... No one makes excuses for bank robbers, do they..? Well, frankly, I have more respect for a bank robber than I do for a scumbag, lying, two-faced, independantly wealthy politician C/UNT who steals from the working class tax-payers..... <_< You know what astounds me about this whole expenses thing anyway..? The fact that it was NEVER MEANS TESTED..... So, on the one hand we have some poor sod loses his job due to cut-backs or the recession, tries to get on the dole, but doesn't get anything cos he's got some redundancy money due from his firm; then, on the other hand, some MP with a fortune in the bank still gets access to public funds.... Errrrr, anyone else see anything INHERENTLY WRONG with that????????

 

You're delusional if you actually believe he's doing "nothing wrong", in fact, he's admitted his guilt and paid back the money he stole.... PROOF that he's done something wrong in and of itself IMO....

 

And, I'm sorry, but at the risk of sounding politically incorrect here, would people on BJ be making excuses for him if he were a straight married bloke giving this money to his missus....? Because, I'm really getting this impression that this is exactly what's going on here.....

Of course I realise that - however much Armando Iannucci may try to deny it. But so what? Tucker is a caricature displaying all the worst traits of Campbell and none of the best.

 

On plenty of subjects - Iraq is the obvious, very large, exception - Campbell made at least a half-decent job of fighting against the lies in a largely hostile press. If he'd been able to coordinate a campaign in favour of the Human Rights Act, maybe there wouldn't be so much ill-informed hostility to it now.

 

Campbell doesn't really have any good traits... Well, not that I can see anyway... Every time I see him, he just comes across as an arrogant prick who deserves a punch..... <_< Mind you, I guess that's true of at least two-thirds of people who work in powerful positions, granted... The people who WANT power badly are generally those who should never have it....

 

Sorry, I'm with Grimly on this one... his excuse that he "didn't want to reveal his sexuality" simply doesn't wash. He's completely right that his sexuality isn't in the public interest, but it simply has nothing to do with his expense claim, because, if he had declared his "landlord" was his partner, then he would've been BANNED from claiming expenses on the property - that's the entire point, what he did was not just exploiting the system but it was explicitly against the rules.

 

The fact is he needs to be sacked from his Cabinet job - he simply cannot lecture us on making cutbacks when he's been doing this. I don't necessarily think he should be forced to stand down as an MP, because if his constituents are happy with the job he's doing as an MP then that's their business - but I do think he should be barred from claiming expenses for a year. That would establish whether he is really in the job to serve the public - he's a millionaire, so if he's really committed to the job then he'd easily be able to afford accommodation/travel out of his own pocket. In fact, I think, considering the Coalition are telling us we have to make cutbacks and that "we're all in this together", I think the millionaires in the Cabinet (and there are quite a few) shoul voluntarily give up their expenses as a goodwill gesture.

Yeah, well, I'm sure people DO have reasons for committing fraud, just as people probably have their own reasons for robbing banks, mugging old ladies, nicking cars, burgling flats, etc, etc.... No one makes excuses for bank robbers, do they..? Well, frankly, I have more respect for a bank robber than I do for a scumbag, lying, two-faced, independantly wealthy politician C/UNT who steals from the working class tax-payers..... <_< You know what astounds me about this whole expenses thing anyway..? The fact that it was NEVER MEANS TESTED..... So, on the one hand we have some poor sod loses his job due to cut-backs or the recession, tries to get on the dole, but doesn't get anything cos he's got some redundancy money due from his firm; then, on the other hand, some MP with a fortune in the bank still gets access to public funds.... Errrrr, anyone else see anything INHERENTLY WRONG with that????????

 

You're delusional if you actually believe he's doing "nothing wrong", in fact, he's admitted his guilt and paid back the money he stole.... PROOF that he's done something wrong in and of itself IMO....

 

And, I'm sorry, but at the risk of sounding politically incorrect here, would people on BJ be making excuses for him if he were a straight married bloke giving this money to his missus....? Because, I'm really getting this impression that this is exactly what's going on here.....

That's got f*** all to do with it, considering I'm straight.

The point was that they weren't even a couple, which is what the law states - he was only breaking the rules if they were a couple and seeing as they weren't as such...

 

I just think it's a shame if he gets sacked from his cabinet job after he won with such a big percentage in the constituency. I dread to think that I'd be in a tory constituency if he was sacked etc.

That's got f*** all to do with it, considering I'm straight.

The point was that they weren't even a couple, which is what the law states - he was only breaking the rules if they were a couple and seeing as they weren't as such...

 

I just think it's a shame if he gets sacked from his cabinet job after he won with such a big percentage in the constituency. I dread to think that I'd be in a tory constituency if he was sacked etc.

 

Well Scott will be over the moon.

 

Page last updated at 18:58 GMT, Saturday, 29 May 2010 19:58 UK

BBC NEWS

Liberal Democrat David Laws has resigned as Chief Secretary to the Treasury after admitting he claimed expenses to pay rent to his partner.

 

Mr Laws said he would be standing down with immediate effect in a statement given at the Treasury.

He had earlier apologised and said he would pay back the money which the Daily Telegraph said totalled £40,000.

The Yeovil MP said he wanted to keep his relationship with James Lundie private.

 

Mr Laws said he had informed both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, but it had been "his decision alone".

 

Explaining his decision, he said: "I do not see how I can carry out my crucial work on the Budget and spending review while I have to deal with the private and public implications of recent revelations."

 

Mr Laws said he had an "over-riding responsibility to those I love most and who I've exposed to scrutiny in this way," and it was time to redress that balance.

He said: "I can't escape the conclusion that what I did was somehow wrong."

 

Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander will take over the post, Downing Street has announced.

 

Responding to Mr Laws' resignation letter, Prime Minister David Cameron said he was an "honourable man", adding: "I hope that, in time, you will be able to serve again."

 

Tell me again Scott, how many fukkin Labour crooks resigned from office during the last administration for doing far less? Good to know that in 2010 homophobia in the media still rules. Calling him a c**t is as fukkin low as you can get IMHO.

^^ I've just seen that myself. :(

 

Tell me again Scott, how many fukkin Labour crooks resigned from office during the last administration for doing far less? Good to know that in 2010 homophobia in the media still rules. Calling him a c**t is as fukkin low as you can get IMHO.

Couldn't agree with this more.

Right decision, at least he has gone quickly as opposed to grubbily clinging to office like Mandelson and Blunkett

 

He should be up before the beak though on theft charges and I do hope that this will be investigated by the police, simply apologising and handing back the money isn't enough, if someone robs a bank should they get away with just apologising to the manager and giving the money back ?

The point was that they weren't even a couple, which is what the law states - he was only breaking the rules if they were a couple and seeing as they weren't as such...

 

By most people's definitions, they were a couple. They'd been seeing eachother since 1999, and Laws had actually mortgaged his house to help his partner buy this new property. That more than qualifies as a couple in the sense that most people would understand the word. Saying that they didn't have a joint bank account or that they had "separate" social lives is such a feeble excuse... my mum and step-dad only got a joint bank account a few weeks ago when they got married, but they definitely still would've called themselves a couple before then.

 

The Parliamentary Commission WILL find him to have been in breach of the rules, I guarantee you. It's very similar to what Jacqui Smith did, and she was found to have breached the rules. The only reason Smith got off lightly is because she was acting on bad advice from the Fees Office; Laws has no such excuse.