The Telegraph's inglorious war with Murdoch brought down David Laws. For its own venal reasons which have fuck all to do with public probity the former 'newspaper' determined on the demise of an excellent and honourable politician whose country, it knows, needs him badly and whose family is now being made to suffer despite the man's own years of discretion out of affection for them.
There’s something sick about this country. We’ve spent a weekend arguing about whether David Laws should go when we should have been trying desperately to persuade him to stay.
[...]
David Laws could have arranged things likewise, and claimed as much or more. I find it shocking that commentators slavering for a story that fits the headline “fleecing the taxpayer” have entirely glossed over that central fact.
Matthew Parris has it right, yet again. So has David Blackburn.
The Telegraph crew are a bunch of unutterable bastards with regard and respect for nothing and no-one. Not even for the welfare of this country, numbers of whose citizens keep them employed - for now - by buying their rotten rag, presumably in the hope that it may revert to what it once was, a paper of record written by people of integrity and honour for people of integrity and honour. Those were the days.
Next time the Telegraph's political journalists are spotted with perfumed kerchiefs and pomanders held to their noses, perhaps at a Westminster soirée, because they are obliged to inhale the foetid exhalations of people who write for the Sport and the Express, I hope someone shies a few stinking fish-heads at them. No, not at the people from the Sport and the Express. At the people from the Telegraph. And save a few for that pointless personification of perambulating vanity, the hoity-toity hypocrite and bitch par excellence, Bradshaw. If I ever meet him, he is at risk of getting my entire compost heap, fish-heads, maggots and all, all over his beautiful suit.
The Telegraph did a service with their original exposure of the expenses scandal but now they have gone too far and shown themselves to be unprincipled money grubbing scum bags with a gutter press mentality.
ReplyDeleteThey claimed they didn't intend to out him!
ReplyDeleteBunch of liars - if he hadn't been having a relationship with the landlord there would be no story to report...
"hope someone shies a few stinking fish-heads at them."
ReplyDeleteMarlin hopefully, pointy end first.
Z.
I usually agree with you, but not in this case. He made a claim against public funds on a false basis. That he could have done so on a true basis or could have declined to make a claim in order to preserve his privacy is neither here nor there. He claimed money by saying his domestic arrangements were one thing when they were another, which means the foundation for the claim he made was not present.
ReplyDeleteIt may well be that we have lost a minister of real substance. The same was said after Peter Mandelson's two forced departures from office. That is beside the point. Anyone who claims money from others should do so truthfully or not at all, to do so untruthfully negates the argument that he is honourable.
The only use I have for the Telegraph is for mulching the rhubarb patch - best place for bullshit.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't you just love self-righteous bastards and fat bigots!!
The money was stolen. That is what fiddling expenses means. If he had taken 40 grand by using a sawn off shot gun everyone would demand he would be sent to prison. Gay thief or straight thief he is a thief. Given that he is also reputed to be both rich and intelligent if he cannot tell the difference between what is theft or not then the sooner he is gone the better.
ReplyDeleteYou can criticise the Telegraph for a lot - employing Geoffrey Lean and Mary Riddell for instance - but as The Fat Bigot and the most recent Anonymous write, Laws is a thief: a talented and able thief but a thief all the same. If Laws thought he had something to hide - besides being a thief - then he should have been more discreet: not stealing public money would have been a good place to start.
ReplyDeleteLaws broke the rules, and was right to repay money pending further investigation. Further, as a key member of a new government embarking on huge spending cuts, he was probably right to resign -- though I hope he'll be back soon.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I can't agree with the opinion of many here that he is a thief. If he and his partner had lived openly together and taken on a joint mortgage, he could have claimed at least as much money from the taxpayer, and it would have been within the rules. He tried to claim money by another means, in order to preserve his privacy. Unfortunately the rules did not permit him to do so. That's all. The taxpayer has not been robbed.
Bessie
ReplyDeleteIf Laws wanted to be "legal" he could have arranged his personal affairs accordingly. He didn't. In which case what he did was illegal ie against the law. He gained a pecuniary advantage by not obeying the law: theft in the vernacular.
His motive for not arranging his affairs such that he could obtain money from the taxpayer legally is understandable but that was his choice. If he was so concerned about keeping his private life private and was reluctant to make appropriate arrangements to bring himself within the rules then the obvious route was not to claim these expenses: God knows he is rich enough to go without.