"I didn't mean to steal, it's because I'm gay"

[eFestivals]

So David Laws didn't mean to for his partner to profit by the £50,000 he claimed in expenses against the rules. It was all an honest mistake, to keep his private life private. His "punishment" is to be a week off work on full pay.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13371746

And of course any benefit claimant who moved in with their partner but wanted to keep that private from the DSS will now be given an extra week's payment so that punishments are equal all round.

We're all in this together, eh?

[feral chile]

So David Laws didn't mean to for his partner to profit by the £50,000 he claimed in expenses against the rules. It was all an honest mistake, to keep his private life private. His "punishment" is to be a week off work on full pay.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13371746

And of course any benefit claimant who moved in with their partner but wanted to keep that private from the DSS will now be given an extra week's payment so that punishments are equal all round.

We're all in this together, eh?

Edited May 12, 2011 by feral chile

[ukslim]

Vince Cable claimed on Question Time last night that, had he been open about his live-in gay lover, David Laws could have claimed *more* expenses. So although he misled parliament, he didn't profit by doing so.

Assuming that's accurate, I have sympathy.

The sadder thing is that we still live in a country where people don't feel able to tell the world they're gay.

[eFestivals]

The sadder thing is that we still live in a country where people don't feel able to tell the world they're gay.

While I've had that thought, I'm not really sure it's applicable in this case.

After all, Laws hasn't claimed that him being known as gay would have affected his career, nor that he feared any other consequence. He's said only that he wanted to protect his privacy.

Given that benefit claimants don't have the right of privacy he thinks he should have, he's talking worthless tosh.

Vince Cable claimed on Question Time last night that, had he been open about his live-in gay lover, David Laws could have claimed *more* expenses. So although he misled parliament, he didn't profit by doing so.

Assuming that's accurate, I have sympathy.

Fraud is fraud is fraud. What you might get by legal means is of no consequence to that. If it was a robber could claim "I stole £20k, but if I'd have got a job I'd have earnt £25k - so I'm worse off by thieving".

But what Cable said is wrong anyway. What is true is that he could have had more by exploiting the expenses regime to the greatest extent, but he'd have had far less if claiming for the circumstances he was actually in.

And all that aside, we're back to the same old thing - WHY they're allowed to make all of these claims anyway. The system (even the revised one) isn't designed to spend the least of the govts money as company ones are, but to maximise as much as they feel can be got away with how much they can put in their back pocket.

I'm still of the opinion that anyone who over-claimed by more than a few hundreds quid (an amount that can realistically regarded as 'genuine errors') should be barred form public office. How many private sector companies would allow someone to stay in their job after they'd been discovered claiming thousands of pounds in expenses which couldn't be justified (even if the rules allowed it to be claimed)? Very few I reckon.

The country has now accepted that fraud and corruption is OK from our govt. It's all downhill from here.

Edited May 13, 2011 by eFestivals

[Alcatraz]

Surely the electorate have a right to know if he is gay or not considering how he might vote on issues such as gay adoption etc ?

[feral chile]

To be frank it dosen't bother me one bit... but I would rather elect a person rather than a political robot... Your sexuality is a big part of who you are... If someone is shielding that I would wonder what else they are shielding...