Should thieves be allowed to be Ministers of the Crown.

[Dandyman]

Following the latest bit of re-arranging the deck chairs on HMS ConDem David Laws has been re-appointed to the Cabinet.

MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim - Telegraph


Cabinet reshuffle: David Laws returns to Government two years after resigning in disgrace over his expenses - Telegraph


The question for the good people of NSC is do you think someone who nicks 40 grand of public money to give to his boyfriend is fit to be a cabinet minister ?

 

[Daffy Duck]

Nothing new there. They've all been at it for years.

 

[Silk]

Following the latest bit of re-arranging the deck chairs on HMS ConDem David Laws has been re-appointed to the Cabinet.

MPs' Expenses: Treasury chief David Laws, his secret lover and a £40,000 claim - Telegraph


Cabinet reshuffle: David Laws returns to Government two years after resigning in disgrace over his expenses - Telegraph


The question for the good people of NSC is do you think someone who nicks 40 grand of public money to give to his boyfriend is fit to be a cabinet minister ?

Simple answer: no. But different rules apply to them. Also, not a single one of them is fit to be a cabinet minister anyway. Not one.

 

[catfish]

We've been governed by crooks for time immemorial. But the answer is no for what it's worth.

 

[Saint Lennard]

If a civil servant who works for any of these were to wrongly claim 40p theyd be on there way out with no chance of a return. One rule for the top and one for the rest.

 

[n1 gull]

I put yes, just because if you didn't allowed crooks in there would be no Government

 

[martyn20]

The reason he did it was to hide his sexuality so people would not make comments about him and his boyfriend as you did here, you can see why he did it although it wss totally wrong!

 

[martyn20]

The reason he did it was to hide his sexuality so people would not make comments about him and his boyfriend as you did here, you can see why he did it although it wss totally wrong!

I meant to quote the op there

 

[Dandyman]

The reason he did it was to hide his sexuality so people would not make comments about him and his boyfriend as you did here, you can see why he did it although it wss totally wrong!

The comment would also apply if he had given the money to a girlfriend. The issue is that he did something that an ordinary citizen would be sent to Jail for, not his sexuality.

 

[Ernest]

If it had been £40k in benefits he would be in jail

 

[martyn20]

The comment would also apply if he had given the money to a girlfriend. The issue is that he did something that an ordinary citizen would be sent to Jail for, not his sexuality.

If it was a girlfriend I doubt he would be trying to keep it a secret, he hadn't even told his parents and had no wish to fill them in. He made a very misguided attempt to keep his life a secret. He is the kind of thinker this country needs right now but he should not be allowed back until after election.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

If a civil servant who works for any of these were to wrongly claim 40p theyd be on there way out with no chance of a return. One rule for the top and one for the rest.

Bollocks would they. They'd get a minor slap on the wrists and told not to do it again. I'd say it actually works in the opposite way. Those in top office will have far harsher application of the rules placed upon them than those at lower levels.

 

[Dandyman]

If it had been £40k in benefits he would be in jail

True.

 

[Dandyman]

This is what happens to other people...

Plymouth single mother of four jailed for 44k benefit fraud | This is Plymouth

 

[martyn20]

The guys that actually broke the law did go to jail, the others stole a lot of money but technically it was in rules and they did not break the law. They should have jailed the idiots who wrote the woolly rules on expenses, these muppets just took advantage

 

[Dandyman]

The guys that actually broke the law did go to jail, the others stole a lot of money but technically it was in rules and they did not break the law. They should have jailed the idiots who wrote the woolly rules on expenses, these muppets just took advantage

Quality excuse making - in any moral universe Laws is a thieving scumbag.

 

[happypig]

The wish to be a politician should preclude anyone from holding any form of office.

 

[Glawstergull]

Her Majesty's Governmrnt allows Republicans so why not thieves.

 

[abc]

I've been mulling this one over for a bit. The problem is that the more we all attack and slag off our politicians the less likely it is that someone with genuine ability and morals is going to be interested in being one. I personally don't care which party they represent, whether they shag their secretary or their dachshund or even bend the rules (though I would draw the line with breaking the law). We need the very best people to run the country and the very best people are simpy not interested. Why would they be given the disdain and intolerance we show all politicians. Perhaps we get what we deserve?

 

[dingodan]

He's in the old boys club, went to Cambridge so he gets a pass.

Daddy was a banker, he'll be well looked after, even if he is a crook.

Welcome to British politics.