dune Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 The concensus view was that his homosexuality isn't an issue. However, it seems that his parents are devout Catholics and he was looking to protect them by keeping his sexuality from them. I bet Anne Widdecombe has munched a few doughnuts in her time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 The concensus view was that his homosexuality isn't an issue. However, it seems that his parents are devout Catholics and he was looking to protect them by keeping his sexuality from them. The shame his parents must be feeling. What a way for their Catholicism to come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 He'll probably be invited back at some stage and be another of those politicians like Mandelson who have blotted their copybook ethically or morally, but who seem to have some teflon coating that allows them to thrive regardless. Aside from the rights and wrongs of it all, at the very least he showed very poor judgement, which isn't a quality that one wishes to see in those at Cabinet level. Furthermore, if he was prepared to flout the rules on this expenses matter because he did not wish to have his sexuality revealed, then presumably he could have been open to blackmail to hush it up. Where is the dividing line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 30 May, 2010 You're right Wes. I think the saddest thing of all is that people still fear being outed. I think, generally, that here in the UK we are tolerant and understanding. It's sad that competent people still think they'll be discriminated against because of their sexuality. Ironically, MPs who have come out havent' really suffered discrimination (I'm thinking of Ben Bradshaw and the Tory MP Alan ??? - can't remember his surname ATM) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 (edited) It's nothing to do with syphoning... the guy was originally his Landlord, just because they fell in love it doesn't suddenly become malicious. Again, I point out this whole arrangement worked out cheaper than any of possible arrangement would have been. We are in dangerous waters right now, ruining many political careers of decent, hard-working intelligent politicians. The loss is as much ours as theirs. So breaking the rules is acceptable if the person is capable. He is paying back the money so he must have felt he had done wrong Should now be ejected from the House of Commons in a referendum as promised by Mr Clegg. Edited 30 May, 2010 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 I bet Nick Clegg's regretting his holier than thou attitude during the general election campaign. The LIb/Dems despite trying to make out their somehow different, are as sleazy and greedy as every other party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 I've just had a thought. Wasn't it supposed to be Laws appearing on QT, perhaps he had a whiff of this story,and the Campbell thing was a smokescreen. I know that the press will have asked him for an explanation before going to print, it's just whether he would have known on Thurs evening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 You're right Wes. I think the saddest thing of all is that people still fear being outed. I think, generally, that here in the UK we are tolerant and understanding. It's sad that competent people still think they'll be discriminated against because of their sexuality. Ironically, MPs who have come out havent' really suffered discrimination (I'm thinking of Ben Bradshaw and the Tory MP Alan ??? - can't remember his surname ATM) Duncan? I think he's the MP for some posh rural constituency in the e mids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 May, 2010 Author Share Posted 30 May, 2010 Duncan? I think he's the MP for some posh rural constituency in the e mids. That's the one - thanks Dune. Just been reading his biog on Wiki - makes for interesting reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 So breaking the rules is acceptable if the person is capable. He is paying back the money so he must have felt he had done wrong Should now be ejected from the House of Commons in a referendum as promised by Mr Clegg. No, media forces people to pay back the money. Many MPs over paid back because of media pressure and have since had refunds. I'd like to make a point on the general expenses issue, not David Laws for just a second. The way the media and some people are sending our politicians is ridiculous. Soon, all politicians will be the wealthy, those born with the silver spoon if we continue this way. Back to David Laws, he was not squandering 40,000 or whatever, he needed a second home and £40,000 was a good deal for the tax payer to be fair. However, yes... he did break the rules from 2006 onwards when they were changed and so should face the consequences. On the other side however, I think as he, nor the other man(his Landlord before and during the relationship) profited from it(and I know you'll probs say the other man(Mr. Lundie?) did, but he was a landlord so it wasn't any money on top of what he was paying before the relationship) discretion should be used to understand the other factors and circumstances. And for this reason, I look forward to Mr. Laws return to front bench politics very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 30 May, 2010 Share Posted 30 May, 2010 (edited) The shame his parents must be feeling. What a way for their Catholicism to come out. As a Roman Candle I do find that funny :smt038 Edited 30 May, 2010 by EastleighSoulBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 I bet Nick Clegg's regretting his holier than thou attitude during the general election campaign. The LIb/Dems despite trying to make out their somehow different, are as sleazy and greedy as every other party. Funny now it seems the bloke taking over from Laws has some of the same. Clegg should have followed 'if you live in glass houses' etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 Urggggh, now the Torygraph is laying into Danny Alexander. If we aren't careful, we'll soon have the ****ing cleaner in charge of the country, but hey... at least they have a 100% perfect record, never mind the fact they are totally unqualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 Urggggh, now the Torygraph is laying into Danny Alexander. If we aren't careful, we'll soon have the ****ing cleaner in charge of the country, but hey... at least they have a 100% perfect record, never mind the fact they are totally unqualified. The rules are the rules. It just proves that many did not abide by them anyway, hence the Telgraph's new war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 No, media forces people to pay back the money. Many MPs over paid back because of media pressure and have since had refunds. I'd like to make a point on the general expenses issue, not David Laws for just a second. The way the media and some people are sending our politicians is ridiculous. Soon, all politicians will be the wealthy, those born with the silver spoon if we continue this way. Back to David Laws, he was not squandering 40,000 or whatever, he needed a second home and £40,000 was a good deal for the tax payer to be fair. However, yes... he did break the rules from 2006 onwards when they were changed and so should face the consequences. On the other side however, I think as he, nor the other man(his Landlord before and during the relationship) profited from it(and I know you'll probs say the other man(Mr. Lundie?) did, but he was a landlord so it wasn't any money on top of what he was paying before the relationship) discretion should be used to understand the other factors and circumstances. And for this reason, I look forward to Mr. Laws return to front bench politics very soon. Andy, you have stuck up for Laws long and hard when it is obvious to others that he has to take a back seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 Andy, you have stuck up for Laws long and hard when it is obvious to others that he has to take a back seat. Oh yes, he has to stand down(for now). My main point is that the whole situation is over exaggerated. Also what I'm saying is that the ideas that have been chucked around that this was somehow for his own personal pocket are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 Oh yes, he has to stand down(for now). My main point is that the whole situation is over exaggerated. Also what I'm saying is that the ideas that have been chucked around that this was somehow for his own personal pocket are wrong. I think you have not read the concensus. Nobody is saying it was for personal gain. You keep hammering this point and we all agree. Either way, he broke rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 I think you have not read the concensus. Nobody is saying it was for personal gain. You keep hammering this point and we all agree. Either way, he broke rules. I'm more talking about the dune's of this world. The leading politicians largely agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 I'm more talking about the dune's of this world. The leading politicians largely agree with me. There is no point trying to convince Dune. We all know his starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 31 May, 2010 Share Posted 31 May, 2010 I'm more talking about the dune's of this world. The leading politicians largely agree with me. Well, that must be a comfort for you. The fact that most of them are just as prone to break the rules too, is probably their motivation towards their agreement. As for the general voting public, they're far more inclined to think that here is another politician responsible for the formation of the laws of the land and yet incapable himself of abiding by the rules of their own exclusive club that is funded by our taxpayers' money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now