SubJeff on 30/5/2010 at 14:28
Oh my God. Don't start with that spinning BS. He had to resign because he claimed £40k he shouldnt have. Even Tatchel agrees his sexuality had nothing to do with it!
Also Yorkshite Ripper's deathtoll lower than Pol Pot's. And? Or to put it another way - I'm entitled to drive to London at 70mph on the M1 but if I take smaller A roads I'd be breaking the law. It's not the end product, it's how you get there and well you know it.
Yours isn't the first sidestepping set of excuses I've heard for this man. I knew you'd defend him because he's an untouchable Lib Dem. I have no such bias (and as you know I've very pleased that the government is not 100% Tory and has Lib Dems in it) and for what it's worth I'm actually sad to see him go because I think he could have done good things for the country.
SD on 30/5/2010 at 15:27
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Oh my God. Don't start with that spinning BS. He had to resign because he claimed £40k he shouldnt have. Even Tatchel agrees his sexuality had nothing to do with it!
Oh well, clearly Peter Tatchell is the ultimate authority on these things :rolleyes:
You say he shouldn't have the money, but MPs are entitled to living expenses, and Laws was one of the cheapest MPs. He's also one of the best.
I'm defending him not because I am tribal, but because here is someone who, when the rules changed in 2006, was faced with a choice: keep claiming for the room you're renting from the person you're sleeping with and break the rules, or stop claiming and essentially announce to the world that you're gay.
Yes, he broke the rules in claiming from Pot X instead of Pot Y, but it is what I call a technical rule breach rather than outright fraud. I respect his decision to go but let's not pretend that the taxpayer is out of pocket here.
I also hope this government declares open warfare on the Twatograph now for its anti-politics reporting. One wonders why they chose now, of all times, to reveal this information instead of when they revealed all the other "expenses scandals" last year.
SubJeff on 30/5/2010 at 15:53
Quote Posted by SD
stop claiming and essentially announce to the world that you're gay.
How so?
My point about Tatchell is he is fairly militant about these things and if a hardliner like him doesn't see any issue with this guy's sexuality that's an indication that it's a red herring.
Come on SD, you're not a total idiot, he may have done this because he perceived some threat that may have outed him but it doesn't make it right.
And please point us to the other pot he could have dipped into. I'd like to read more about it.
Namdrol on 30/5/2010 at 19:51
This whole thing makes me very sad. This was a man who gave up a lucrative career to go into politics, a rich man, who came of age in his homosexuality during the hate years of Margaret Thatcher.
The years of Clause 28 and Aids.
A man who broke the rules because he was scared of coming out, for a paltry sum compared to what was his right for accommodation.
And Peter Tatchell has a very ambivalent view about closet queers, he has outed lots of people in his time. (admittedly those he considered as hypocrites)
He has absolutely no sympathy for anyone not out about their sexuality, (hypocrite or not)
But what really pisses me off about this, is the the proof once again of the power of the editorial.
The dictation of policy by the leader writers of our national newspapers.
I wish that one day a politician would have the strength and maturity to turn round and just tell them to fuck off.
SubJeff on 30/5/2010 at 20:08
I don't think the media did anything wrong here. They told us what had happened and that was that. He did break the rules and he did claim £40k that he shouldn't have. I don't like thinking in boxes, and I know that it seems that the whole affair seems to be a "computer says no" type thing since he could have just claimed for full rent elsewhere. But the thing is this way his partner was getting paid out of the public wallet and that's some nasty type of corruption right there.
I can accept it was a mistake and not his ebil scheme to fleece the taxpayer, but he needed to go and you know what? - if after the investigation and so on they want to bring him back I'm not so sure I'd mind.
Matthew on 1/6/2010 at 15:55
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
deathtoll
Is it wrong that I looked at that and thought it was misspelt?
Anyway, it seems like there's quite the backstory to this one which mitigates it somewhat in my eyes. Laws does a couple of years on the back benches as penance and comes back in the next reshuffle - I could live with that.
DDL on 1/6/2010 at 16:15
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I don't think the media did anything wrong here. They told us what had happened and that was that. He
did break the rules and he
did claim £40k that he shouldn't have. I don't like thinking in boxes, and I know that it seems that the whole affair seems to be a "computer says no" type thing since he could have just claimed for full rent elsewhere. But the thing is this way his partner was getting paid out of the public wallet and that's some nasty type of corruption right there.
I can accept it was a mistake and not his ebil scheme to fleece the taxpayer, but he needed to go and you know what? - if after the investigation and so on they want to bring him back I'm not so sure I'd mind.
I still don't get this mindset. "You claimed 40k you shouldn't have, which goes to your partner, rather than 80K you should have, that'd go to either some faceless landlord or, hey: even better, to the bank that you have to get a mortgage with. Because giving taxpayer money to banks is all the rage these days!"
Yes, I see your point, but applying the letter rather than the spirit, and doing so with such vitriol.. seems insane.
I personally can't stand the mouthbreathing OMG MAH TAX MONEYS cretins that take exactly what the papers feed them and don't question it (and in fact probably skim read anyway, or just look at the pictures), but at least they have the excuse of being incredibly poorly informed. You seem to know exactly how inoffensive this is (and FUCKING CHEAPER than the non-"you must quit your post now" version), but still seem to be taking perverse joy in this ludicrous shitstorm.:confused:
SubJeff on 2/6/2010 at 00:23
If he'd wrongly claimed the lesser amount and given it to some faceless landlord rather then his partner I'd have no problem.
DDL on 2/6/2010 at 12:06
...but he only claimed the lesser amount because he was getting incredibly cheap rent from his partner. Surely this is not hard to grasp?
I just can't fathom why people will froth indignantly at someone claiming less money than they otherwise would've, simply because that smaller sum of money is then going to someone linked to the claimant rather than someone faceless.
"I can charge you 15% tax, or 10% tax but 2% of it goes to my boyfriend."
"CHARGE ME 15% YOU SCUM!"
SubJeff on 2/6/2010 at 21:14
It doesn't matter how much money is skimming, it's still skimming.
