I do have sympathy for Laws that he felt he couldn't come out as gay - that shows we as a society still have more work to do on teaching schoolchildren to understand and tolerate homosexuality.

 

But his sexuality just doesn't have anything to do with his expenses claims, and I think it's shameful that he's trying to use it to score pity points. Like others have said, if a couple are living together and both claim housing benefits, arguing that "well, if we were living apart we'd be both claiming it, so we're not really cheating the taxpayer out of money" - that couple would be prosecuted. Whether or not he could've claimed if he'd been the joint owner of the property along with his partner is neither here nor there.

 

Also, while, like I said, I really CAN understand why he felt he couldn't come out as gay, what exactly did he have to fear by telling the Fees Office that he was living with a man? Did he think some of the civil servants there would go round sniggering about the fact he was gay with MPs? Did he have a premonition that the Telegraph would one day start leaking MPs' expenses?

 

The fact is, his job is specifically concerned with bringing down the deficit, so it was simply untenable for him to carry on. If he'd been in a role such as Defence Secretary or Scottish Secretary, then maybe, MAYBE, he would still be in his job - but, if you're preaching to the public to make cutbacks, then it goes without saying that you need to be squeaky-clean on what your claiming from the public purse. And I stand by that he shouldn't've been claiming expenses in the first place - when this "national interest" government formed and started telling us we all needed to "do our bit" to help the public finances, he and the other excessively wealthy Cabinet members should've done their bit and voluntarily given up their expenses. Or do they think Theresa May getting to buy leopard-print shoes is a higher priority than people in the public sector keeping their jobs?

At least some people can come up with a rational argument not peppered with expletives.

 

The fact that some people still find it difficult to come out is one of the issues I've tried to address but Scott doesn't seem to accept that. The fact is that it still can be difficult and the longer you leave it, the harder it can be. When I was a councillor I didn't think my sexuality was relevant so I didn't mention it. If I'd been asked whether I was gay, I would have said yes. After all, when I was asked by someone wearing a church sweat shirt whether I was a church-goer, I was perfectly open about the fact that I wasn't. In one of my anti-CCTV speeches I mentioned the possibility of detecting gay men committing technical offences such as kissing in public (illegal at the time, the mid 90s). The Tories prepared a leaflet saying I was more interested in the rights of homosexuals than in cutting crime. They left a copy of the leaflet in the photocopier for us to find. We guessed that they were hoping we'd respond. We didn't and the leaflet was never circulated but it's obvious what they were up to. When I moved to Bournemouth, the Tories circulated a leaflet saying I'd done a runner to the south coast, probably Brighton. Not exactly subtle, eh?

 

You are right to say that the nature of his job made his position more awkward. There were bound to be problems arising from the fact that both Treasury ministers are very wealthy. But in Laws' case he cannot really have expected to be a Cabinet minister when he embarked on a career in politics with the Lib Dems. But he still gave up a very well-paid job to do something far less lucrative. I hope some people can at least give him some credit for that.

At least some people can come up with a rational argument not peppered with expletives.

 

The fact that some people still find it difficult to come out is one of the issues I've tried to address but Scott doesn't seem to accept that. The fact is that it still can be difficult and the longer you leave it, the harder it can be. When I was a councillor I didn't think my sexuality was relevant so I didn't mention it. If I'd been asked whether I was gay, I would have said yes. After all, when I was asked by someone wearing a church sweat shirt whether I was a church-goer, I was perfectly open about the fact that I wasn't. In one of my anti-CCTV speeches I mentioned the possibility of detecting gay men committing technical offences such as kissing in public (illegal at the time, the mid 90s). The Tories prepared a leaflet saying I was more interested in the rights of homosexuals than in cutting crime. They left a copy of the leaflet in the photocopier for us to find. We guessed that they were hoping we'd respond. We didn't and the leaflet was never circulated but it's obvious what they were up to. When I moved to Bournemouth, the Tories circulated a leaflet saying I'd done a runner to the south coast, probably Brighton. Not exactly subtle, eh?

 

You are right to say that the nature of his job made his position more awkward. There were bound to be problems arising from the fact that both Treasury ministers are very wealthy. But in Laws' case he cannot really have expected to be a Cabinet minister when he embarked on a career in politics with the Lib Dems. But he still gave up a very well-paid job to do something far less lucrative. I hope some people can at least give him some credit for that.

 

 

Your case is hardly the same thing as what Laws is guilty of Suede, I dont think you can even compare the two....

 

And, while you come away with a reasonable attempt at addressing Danny's points, you still dont even come close to answering the most fundamental questions which BOTH of us have asked.....

 

And Danny is also totally right to point out that there is a clear attempt to score "pity points" by constantly harping on about the man's sexuality, which is simply not relevant.... The facts are these - this is a legitimate story BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD, not because of who he's sleeping with.... If you take away the fact that he's been claiming money for something he shouldn't be and is committing borderline fraud, what story do you have...? "Two Consenting, Unattached Adults Have Affair"... Blimey!!! Hold the front page on that one, it's a scorcher....... Like it or not it's a STORY when it becomes about an alleged fraud, not about a love affair.....

Your case is hardly the same thing as what Laws is guilty of Suede, I dont think you can even compare the two....

 

And, while you come away with a reasonable attempt at addressing Danny's points, you still dont even come close to answering the most fundamental questions which BOTH of us have asked.....

 

And Danny is also totally right to point out that there is a clear attempt to score "pity points" by constantly harping on about the man's sexuality, which is simply not relevant.... The facts are these - this is a legitimate story BECAUSE OF THE FRAUD, not because of who he's sleeping with.... If you take away the fact that he's been claiming money for something he shouldn't be and is committing borderline fraud, what story do you have...? "Two Consenting, Unattached Adults Have Affair"... Blimey!!! Hold the front page on that one, it's a scorcher....... Like it or not it's a STORY when it becomes about an alleged fraud, not about a love affair.....

And you haven't addressed the fact that he could, quite legitimately, have claimed a lot more money and used it to line his own pocket. And, as ever, you've completely missed the point when I talked about my own experience. If the Tories were prepared to stoop that low with a mere councillor, what might they have done against a more senior politician? That's obviously what Laws was afraid of. You may live in some utopian world where homophobia doesn't exist. I, on the other hand, live in Britain.

And you haven't addressed the fact that he could, quite legitimately, have claimed a lot more money and used it to line his own pocket. And, as ever, you've completely missed the point when I talked about my own experience. If the Tories were prepared to stoop that low with a mere councillor, what might they have done against a more senior politician? That's obviously what Laws was afraid of. You may live in some utopian world where homophobia doesn't exist. I, on the other hand, live in Britain.

 

Err, I may have missed something, but, aren't the Tories and Lib Dems sort of working together now...??? :lol: :lol: So, why would they be going around nobbling their own Coalition partners... You just cant see that he's responsible for his own downfall by even claiming the expenses in the manner he did in the first place can you.....? He had NO NEED to claim the expenses, no FINANCIAL imperitive, he wasn't exactly a pauper coming from the sort of background he was in the Finance sector, the whole Expenses system was set up to aid MPs from poorer financial backgrounds surely, not to 'top-up' the wages of those already well-off (the whole problem with it not being means tested IMO).... So, I have actually addressed your point, but just to be more explicit, so there's no confusion.... Whether or not he could "legitimately" claim more is irrelevant to me, he had no moral or ethical right to claim them anyway (different to legal rights, yes, but I think ethics should be just as important to an MP, as it goes to credibility, especially when they want US to comply with the laws of the land that THEY create..), as he wasn't exactly skint and could easily have lived off his wages as an MP, and if the expenses system had been means tested in the first place (in much the same way welfare benefits are), he would likely have had no right to claim them in those circumstances....

 

Frankly, I'd rather MPs be paid 100k a year, but with NO expenses, and they have to pay their own way, their own rents, bills, mortgages, etc (so, yeah, just like us "ordinary" folks do in other words)... So, a pretty easy way to avoid any future problems, dont you think....? We give them a decent wage, but they've no recourse to claim any "extras" or "perks"... If they dont like it, tough....

 

Yes, there is homophobia in Britain sure, so, do you think that an MP who uses public funds in a rather dubious manner to pay "rent" to his partner, whereas all he had to really do was stop claiming and not really tell anyone why (would he really have to give a reason for NOT claiming expenses...? That seems a little odd and unlikely... I thought when you claimed expenses you kind of had to prove you NEEDED to, with receipts, copies of bills, etc, not prove you DIDN'T need to.... -_- ) is gonna make things better or worse for the gay community as a whole...?

To all here...

 

I'm sorry for sometimes coming across as harsh and uncompromising, but the simple fact of the matter is, that I seriously object to being made a mug out of, it's the one thinkg that can really get me angry.... And, for my mind, this is exactly what most of these MPs involved in this whole Expenses thing have been doing for too long....

 

Of course, we all know that it's Capitalism that's to blame..... :P

Frankly, I'd rather MPs be paid 100k a year, but with NO expenses, and they have to pay their own way, their own rents, bills, mortgages, etc (so, yeah, just like us "ordinary" folks do in other words)... So, a pretty easy way to avoid any future problems, dont you think....? We give them a decent wage, but they've no recourse to claim any "extras" or "perks"... If they dont like it, tough....

But a flat rate doesn't recognise how different the job of an MP is depending on the area they represent. A simple look at the map should be enough. An MP for a constituency like Orkney and Shetland will clearly incur hefty travel expenses both to get around the constituency and to travel to and from Westminster. Similarly, they will need some sort of base in the constituency and one in London. A central London MP can't claim for a second home (and rightly so before you start thinking I'm saying they should be able to :lol: ). They can claim for travel although obviously they claim a good deal less than most. If it was up to me, London MPs wouldn't be able to claim travel either except, perhaps, the odd late-night cab fare.

 

Under your proposal only wealthy individuals would be able to represent certain parts of the country. I would have thought you were one of the last people to think that's a good idea.

But a flat rate doesn't recognise how different the job of an MP is depending on the area they represent. A simple look at the map should be enough. An MP for a constituency like Orkney and Shetland will clearly incur hefty travel expenses both to get around the constituency and to travel to and from Westminster. Similarly, they will need some sort of base in the constituency and one in London. A central London MP can't claim for a second home (and rightly so before you start thinking I'm saying they should be able to :lol: ). They can claim for travel although obviously they claim a good deal less than most. If it was up to me, London MPs wouldn't be able to claim travel either except, perhaps, the odd late-night cab fare.

 

Under your proposal only wealthy individuals would be able to represent certain parts of the country. I would have thought you were one of the last people to think that's a good idea.

 

Errr, so you dont believe that anyone could survive or live reaasonably comfortably on a 100k wage... Oh, come on mate.... That's just rubbish.... The poor in this land are getting by on a hell of a lot less.... 90% less in a lot of cases....

 

If accommodation in London is the problem, well, as I have suggested in the past, perhaps a sort of MPs accommodation (similar to that of Student accommodation, although probably a bit less scraggy.... :lol: ) can be set up for when they're down here... Of course, they're not gonna want that are they..? Cant "flip" that, or claim it off dodgy expenses can you....?

 

I'd seriously like to hear what your solutions are Suede, because it seems to me you spend a lot of time making excuses for inexcusable behaviour on the part of MPs, and rubbish any kind of suggestion that people have to try and sort this... And it DOES need sorting.. We're appearently having to live in more austere times now, well, I am expected to tolerate cuts to my public services, I reckon MPs need to put up with some discomfort too..... If they cant handle that, well, too bad, it was their bad decison-making processes that got us into this mess in the first place, they have to "feel the pain" as well, IMO....

Errr, so you dont believe that anyone could survive or live reaasonably comfortably on a 100k wage... Oh, come on mate.... That's just rubbish.... The poor in this land are getting by on a hell of a lot less.... 90% less in a lot of cases....

 

If accommodation in London is the problem, well, as I have suggested in the past, perhaps a sort of MPs accommodation (similar to that of Student accommodation, although probably a bit less scraggy.... :lol: ) can be set up for when they're down here... Of course, they're not gonna want that are they..? Cant "flip" that, or claim it off dodgy expenses can you....?

The MP for Orkney and Shetland claimed £30,000 for travel (probably not unreasonable if you look at a map) and £19,000 for second home and other costs. If you actually read what I said, you'd find that my point was that it would be wrong for an MP for a constituency like that effectively to be paid a lot less than an MP for a central London constituency. And don't forget, there's still the cost of stationery, postage, telephone calls, constituency office space, not to mention staff costs.

And don't forget, there's still the cost of stationery, postage, telephone calls, constituency office space, not to mention staff costs.

 

Well, the hiring, etc, of staff should be done by another authority, perhaps the Party itself.. Same goes for finding office space... We've had too many situations in the past where these sorts of things have also been abused... MPs "hiring" their wives for example.....

 

30k on travel seems a little steep to me... Clearly not flying by Easyjet is he....?

Well, the hiring, etc, of staff should be done by another authority, perhaps the Party itself.. Same goes for finding office space... We've had too many situations in the past where these sorts of things have also been abused... MPs "hiring" their wives for example.....

 

30k on travel seems a little steep to me... Clearly not flying by Easyjet is he....?

I'll answer your point about employing spouses (or should that be spice?) when I'm less tired.

 

Does he use EasyJet? No idea. Equally I have no idea whether they fly from Lerwick. Even if it they do and they fly at a suitable time, if he's on a different island from Lerwick airport, he's still got the cost of getting there. And it's not just the cost of travelling to and from Westminster. He also needs to travel between the various islands to hold constituency surgeries. The Tories' idea of making all constituencies the same size - including adding tens of thousands of voters to Orkney and Shetland - is barmy. It must be difficult enough even now for voters in Orkney and Shetland to get to see their MP. If they are asked to share him with a whole load more voters it will be even more difficult. If you wanted to see your MP about something would you accept being told that he would next be on your island in three months' time?

 

One little anecdote to demonstrate how remote the constituency is. One of the former MPs is Jo Grimond, Liberal leader when the party was at its lowest ebb. When he got his call up papers in WWII he was instructed to report to his nearest mainland station. He sent a reply saying "My nearest mainland station is in Norway which is currently under Nazi occupation. Awaiting further instructions."

 

Edit: Quick update. I've just checked. Easyjet don't use Lerwick. Neither do Ryanair.