You appear to be forgetting that as a millionaire, David Laws didn't actually need to claim this expense, but did so anyway. I'm really not bothered by Laws sexuality, I'm bothered by the fact that he sought to deceive, friends, family and colleagues about it and then sought to gain financially from this deception. Yes he could have claimed more by being open, he chose not to do so and to break the rules in his claims. Should he resign/be sacked? I don't know, can he be trusted? No, he can't and this is a weakness that the opposition will exploit.
I could not care one jot about Laws' sexual proclivity - what I care about is that he obeys 'the rules', which he did not hence; he had to go.
And neither should he be re-appointed!
Once our politicians realise that it is one strike and they are out, the sooner the political class will be able to say they have cleaned up their act.
You appear to be forgetting that as a millionaire, David Laws didn't actually need to claim this expense, but did so anyway.
ReplyDeleteI'm really not bothered by Laws sexuality, I'm bothered by the fact that he sought to deceive, friends, family and colleagues about it and then sought to gain financially from this deception. Yes he could have claimed more by being open, he chose not to do so and to break the rules in his claims. Should he resign/be sacked? I don't know, can he be trusted? No, he can't and this is a weakness that the opposition will exploit.
Sorry Mr. P but you are way off base on this one.
ReplyDeleteI could not care one jot about Laws' sexual proclivity - what I care about is that he obeys 'the rules', which he did not hence; he had to go.
And neither should he be re-appointed!
Once our politicians realise that it is one strike and they are out, the sooner the political class will be able to say they have cleaned up their act.