Reader comments · David Laws resigns over expose of expenses paid to secret lover · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


David Laws resigns over expose of expenses paid to secret lover

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It is a shame, it must be said. Here was a man who looked like he could have actually achieved something for the UK having negotiated a lot of the deals within the coalition.

    Had he declared his boyfriend as an official partner, then he would have been entitled to claim much more money than the £40K he actually did. Inadvertently, he has managed to save the taxpayer a fair sum of cash, which at least makes up partially for the lying. However, by claiming that his boyfriend was only his landlord, he broke the rules. Rules is rules, didn’t someone tell him that last October? As a former city banker and with enough nouse to understand parliamentary procedures correctly, he ought to have avoided this situation with ease. And he could have even done things by the book whilst keeping his sexuality hidden – simply move out of the accommodation and change landlord. Is that difficult? That would hardly have aroused any suspicion, MPs do it all the time.

    What really riles me is that he is an MP for a party that has actively carved out its reputation based on its support for civil rights, particularly gay rights. What he has done flies in tha face of those values and I did not intentionally vote for a party that had candidates contradicting such fundamental criteria. I feel I have been misled somewhat. How ironic that it should be the Lib Dems in this situation, whilst the Tories have a handful of openly gay MPs. Nick Clegg must be livid that the anti-sleaze campaign he fought has been undone by this two-fold affair.

    I must ask though, if you are so sensitive about your sexuality being discovered, what on Earth would possess you to go into public life where ever last detail of your existence is open to investigation and scrutiny? What planet did he think he was living on? Did he feel he had some immunity to it? Single man in his 40s, no previous straight relationships to report, no children…..prurient press canon fodder. That isn’t even naivety, that’s stupidity personified.

    I have no time whatsoever for ‘I’m not gay but my boyfriend is’ types, it’s beyond hypocrisy. It’s as if he is condescending to the rest of us by refusing to admit that he is the same as us. You know, that we do those ghastly things with members of our own sex. One of the SU Sabbatical Officers at my university (who is now out, amazingly) did everything to hide he was gay bar the painted on t-shirts and using gaydar. At the same time, he was snuggling up to the LGBT Society to ensure they gave him their votes and to show us all ‘how much he cared’. The false sincerity drove me to nearly nutting him one, how dare he be so arrogant, hypocritical and condescending. Perhaps, in view of the Malawians who have fortunately now been pardoned, Mr Laws will reflect on what oppression and freedom really are – he is 16 years older than me, not 60, we aren’t talking about a completely different time that he has come from. Plus, he has been an elected MP for 9 years, within the period where Labour changed everything that would make his life easier. Plus, he is a millionaire, he wasn;t dependent on anyone else to put food on his table. He could have been honest from the very start in line with his party’s views. His choice and he has to take the responsibility for that. I think he is just one of those paranoid types that reckons the world is out to get him and now that it’s not, he would rather live as a cowering victim rather than man-up and do the right thing.

    Anyway, he’s got a bit more time on his hands now, he’s just resigned!

  2. I’m disappointed in David, for allowing himself to be compromised.

    I’m disappointed for the country, which would be better with him as Chief Secretary to the Treasury than wihtout.

    Most of all, I’m very disappointed that he felt he had to allow himself to be compromised by secrecy. The saddest thing about homophobia is that for a variety of reasons it’s most often self-inflicted.

  3. It was cowardice to cave into the peanut gallery and their baying. He should’ve stayed on as the best man for the job. Instead he’s allowed his vital position to fall into the hands of someone completely unsuited for the role and put the country in jeopardy.

    Another Scot whom nobody’s heard of and whose only credentials is his degree in PPE – in other words, a typical waste-of-space politician exactly like the dross we just got rid of.

    Laws was experienced and respected as a professional even if the public might whinge about this non-story
    Parliament has wussed out again. A decent minister (what a rarity) falls prey to PR and tabloid politics. What a disgrace.

    This story was a 60s-style “outing” masquerading as an expenses scandal. Laws cost the taxpayer less than he would’ve done had he been “open”, it is not fair to compare him to the MPs of the expenses scandal. The Telegraph screws up our World Cup bid and now this. I suppose its too rubbish a paper to sell copies actually reporting news so it has to blow non-stories out of proportion.

  4. The fact that Cameron lauded him and stated that he would like him to return to government in the future should be a good sign that he will be back. Though only if he’s prepared to man-up and be honest about his sexuality – he was, for about 5 seconds, the most prominent openly gay figure in that coalition. Shame he couldn’t have capitalised on it by being honest from the start. It would have provided a different and much needed role model as a healthy alternative to the usual.

  5. In the article it states that Laws designated his main home as being in his Yeovil constituency and claimed rent on a flat not owned by his partner when expenses rules were change.

    This is factually incorrect. He continued to claim rent on the home owned by his partner after 2006 even though the rules forebode this. He even gave his partner money towards the purchase of the second home, money he got from re-mortgaging his constituency home. He only chose to leave the home he shared with his partner in sept ’09. Around the same time as the telegraph ran with its expenses expose.

  6. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the lying, cheating, hypocrite?

    I hope the CPS go after him.

  7. Mihangel apYrs 29 May 2010, 11:33pm

    LibDems: the most gay-supportive party

    Tories: Alan Duncan and ?Nick Brown

    Labour: Meddleson, Bryant, etc, etc

    so why did he want to hide it so deeply? Yes, it’s no-one’s business really, but it’s not a career destroyer!

    Bad judgement – do we need such pepole?

  8. Patrick James 30 May 2010, 12:23am

    It is very sad that today many LGBT people do feel the need to be secretive about their sexuality and relationships.

    David Laws was very hypocritical however. He was very ready to start cutting other people’s incomes whilst he, a millionaire, had been helping himself to a huge sum of taxpayer’s money.

    For the Con-Dem coalition it is a disaster, however the Tory press will be doing all they can to limit the damage. The treatment for Laws in the Conservative press will be very different from that had he been a Labour minister. For Laws the words “tragedy” and “sad loss” will be used a lot. Had he been a Labour minister the Tory press would have been screaming “hypocrite”.

    No doubt his resignation will have been cleared first with Rupert Murdoch, and more importantly Murdoch will have had to give the green light for his replacement.

  9. I suppose a millionaire doesn’t remain a millionaire by spending his own money.

    … really a pathetic episode…

  10. Jess Conrad 30 May 2010, 6:21am

    GREAT PITY, David Laws is a very good and able Politician…Afraid to come out though for some reason!

  11. hmmmmm let me see at least Mr Laws has behaved with a certain degree of integrity, whilst I don’t agree with his stupidity and naivity surrounding the case he has at least held true to the motto “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword”.It was an honourable and right thing for him to resign , how many antique fireplaces and porn movies did we pay for during the last administartion only to be told “I did nothing wrong and won’t resign , I have the PM’s full backing”. Lets hope this brings a little more gentlemenly behaviour and culpability back to politics (I wish but don’t hold my breath)

  12. Most of what this guy says has been a load of twaddle – then only sensible comment from the guys lips are “I hope that others will now learn that it is time for people to be honest about their sexuality. Keeping secrets is much tougher than telling other people who you really are.”

    PN – His resignation means the cabinet returns to not having a single out gay politician. – he wasn’t actually OUT he was OUTED!

    What a scum ball! He’s younger than me and I didn’t grow up in an “age” when it was difficult to be gay – how ridiuclous.

  13. His just another MP caught with his finger in the till. Reading his resignation letter he states ‘Secondly, while my recent problems were caused by my desire to keep my sexuality secret’ excuse me how the hell has a high profile public servant did he think being gay/ or more likely having a boyfriend was going to stay secret.

    I don’t feel sorry for him he went because he broke the rules and got caught.

  14. Peter & Michael 30 May 2010, 7:58am

    Why is it such a ‘big thing’ to hide one’s sexuality these days. We have everything in our quest for equality. It would be true to lie about being gay in the years before 2009, but c’mon get a life!! There will always be homophobes, just don’t give into them.

  15. Mr Laws has behaved with a certain degree of integrity

    Hardly. You could maybe have argued that he had some modest amount of integrity if, last year – when heads were rolling and MPs were being deselected – he had held his hand up … rather than condemning other MPs and openly boasting that he wasn’t a cheat. It was his choice to stay quiet and hope that his dishonesty would go undetected.

    Integrity is the last word I would use to describe David Laws resignation.

  16. seems like the lid dems are the really nasty party.
    laws – money grabbing coward
    Hughes – closet homophobe
    clegg – 2 faced back stabbing cnut
    opik – wtf

  17. Jess Conrad 30 May 2010, 8:46am

    Dean…Dose this mean you do’nt like LDs?

  18. Give the guy a break:

    What a nasty, hypocritical, sh**ty little country this is.

    There’ll always be an England………….

  19. It is very sad David Laws felt the need to keep his sexuality quiet however I respect his decision. Mind you with todays media it was a bit naive to think you can be in government and it not come out. Of course getting caught with this hand in the till didn’t help the situation.

    There is one positive thing to come from this though, as tough as it is for Mr. Laws, it is nice after 13 years we have returned to accountable politics. Not one where a disgraced MP drags on as if nothings happened, something Labour insisted on.

  20. Mihangel apYrs 30 May 2010, 9:49am

    someone used the phrase “stupidity and naivity” to describe his actions. This is a man lauded as being a financial genius, millionare by 25, able to retire on his city gains, etc, etc: ie just the sort of person who isn;t naive or stupid.

    He claimed expences he didn’t need for staying in his watchmacallit’s pad, rather than forgo the money or be more open about his relationship. Remember how Jackie Smith was castigated for her room in her sister’s house? At least she was honest about her claims, if disingenuous.

    He had poor judgement, he had to go

  21. These bloody gays that are dragged out of the closet when they are caught masturbating in public loos, cheating on their wives or defrauding the public purse are no friends of ours. If everything Laws has said about his situation is truly then he’s an utter moron and doesn’t deserve to be an MP anyway.

  22. Note the remark here, “More embarrassingly, he said, he was trying to keep secret that he was gay”:


    Do they really mean to say that it is more embarrassing that David Laws is gay?

  24. The third lib dem MP to have to be outed , ashamed of their sexuality and this from a supposedly gay friendly party. Apart from not declaring his expenses corrently and the fact that his partner of 9 yrs is a political lobbyist and that both he and his partner should be declaring their interest for the last 9 yrs as a couple I find the fact that we have to out lib dem mps a bit disturbing.We voted for them becuase they were the gay freindly party – his attitude goes completely against these ethics. Simon Hughes, Mark Oaten and now David Laws – why do they have to perputate the idea that to be successful in any line of job you have to pretend to be straight, these people are no friends of the gay community and do us more harm… the feeling I get from this whole episode is of sleeze, a feeling that bein gay is something to be ashamed of – Mark Oaten lib dem “describes the agony of rediscovering a gay streak in himself when he was married with two children.” How ridiculous, how do you rediscover a gay streak in yourself, David laws who is ony 44 says he was brought up in an age when being gay was difficult … he’s a grown up man now , he speaks as though he is Quentin Crisp…. If find this whole episode disgraceful on so many grounds…

  25. He is using his sexuality to cover the fact he defrauded the tax payer of £40,000 if this was Housing Benefit rather than MP’s expenses he’d be in court the same should apply, the man is thief, no excuses being a closet case is not a defence.

  26. Jess I voted lid dem for the first time I never though there would be a clegg cameron coalition. so clegg and co can go to hell.

  27. One thing that may explain his reluctance to declare his sexuality is that he had a Catholic education – maybe he has a heavy residue of guilt from his indoctrination in that nasty cult ….

  28. Homophobia is still right up there in this country… On the BBC news this morning the news reader said as to how the room belonged to his “male” partner. I have never heard them refer to someones “female” partner……….He should not have resigned!!!

  29. Anthoyn Bermon 30 May 2010, 1:53pm

    I have no sympathy for David Laws at all. He scammed £40,000 and should be held accountable. His excuse about wanting to keep his sexuality secret doesn’t make sense. Claiming expenses to live with your boyfriend is hardly the best way to keep it secret, is it? His sexuality is a smoke screen for this fraud, and I call it fraud whether it was in the rules or not. No other job allows you to claim for food, travel, accommodation etc. so MPs need to get a grip. I can’t believe that so many of them got away with it during the big expenses scandel. By the way, he only spent 18 days in government so why is everyone going on about him doing great work and so forth? Finally, in reply to the person in comment no. 3, Scotland is part of the UK, so it’s perfectly reasonable for a Scot to be a minister in the UK government.

  30. Regardless of what a thief he is, and how pathetic it is that he didn’t have the guts to be an out man. Another question is, who outed him? A pro gay MP, or someone like Philippa Stroud? It’s very convenient for this government to have got rid of the only gay man in the cabinet, even if he was closeted.

  31. No. 14, Peter & Michael, you said…. “we have everything in our quest for equality”. NOt yet! There’s the marriage ban that needs to be lifted for those who want that right. Once we get that overturned, then yes, we will have everything. If Clegg had garnered more votes than Cameron, then that would probably become a reality. As the situation now stands, not going to happen. Cameron would NEVER concede anything like that to Clegg for continued support. Clegg won’t raise the issue any more, mark my words. He’s power hungry more than anything else.

  32. I feel for him but I think he has done the right thing. His partner clearly is his partner on any normal definition. Had he stayed, his professional and private life would have been made hell. The saddest thing is that,even today, a person in public life does not feel able to speak openly about who they are for fear of the repercussions. Parodoxically, he would have suffered less had he felt able to be more open.

  33. His resignation means the cabinet returns to not having a single out gay politician. – he wasn’t actually OUT he was OUTED!

    He wasn’t outed. He made the choice to out himself, in a pitiful attempt to excuse his actions, in his statement he gave to the Daily Telegraph after they had given him advance warning that they were running the story (in which they very carefully avoided mentioning the sex of his “secret partner”).

  34. pete the meat 30 May 2010, 5:05pm

    I’m amazed by the amount of comments on this site expressing pity for Laws, he’s a liar and a thief. He has zero integrity and used flimsy bullsh!t excuses to try and worm his way out of it. To those who say he shouldn’t have caved to pressure and resigned, is your judgement clouded simply because he’s gay? If he were straight would you be as sympathetic to his thieving?

  35. PaulSW – for heavens sake he was outed just like the other 2 recent lib dems Stephen Hughes and Mark Oaten – not a very admirable thing, a grown man of 44 yrs dening his sexuality, he’s not a baby or teenager – as for his excuse that they were such private individuals it seems that the village of westminster knew and pinknews – are his friends and family so unperceptive that they didn’t know as well , did no-one ever meet his partner in he 9 yrs they were together, did they not have holidays together, dinner parties , did no-one ever question who this young man was that was his landlord, it’s amazing that his friend and family are given no credit in working out the facts themselves – I agree with some of the comments above his sexuality is irrelevant, he conned the taxpayer out of 40,000, he didn’t declare his partner was a political lobbyist and he didn’t declare that he had a partner and all the other declarations that MPs and ther Spouses/partners have to declare jointly under members’ interests, he conned his consitituents at Yeovil – As for the lib dems credibilty as a gay friendly party then how can they be when ome of them feel so desperate to hide their sexuality at such incredible costs…It’s all rather disappointing…

  36. This is a new twist of the ‘Gay Panic’ defence used by Straights…

  37. Ted,

    Grow up. He wasn’t outed. I am gay was simply his lame excuse for being a thieving b*stard. Coming out was 100% his choice, so kindly stop trying to rewrite events.

  38. A greedy coward.

  39. This is a truly depressing story on so many levels. Even if he hadn’t claimed reimbursement for expenses, he was in conflict with financial disclosure laws, an important consideration for someone dealing with a nation’s finances at such a high level. The clear message is that if you want a stable relationship – important for any political figure – you can’t stay in the closet.

    It’s not easy being an out politician; ask Scott Brison, 43-year old Canadian MP and former cabinet minister, who came out in 2002 and has been re-elected several times. His Christmas card photo for constituents and friends – standing with his husband and their dog with the ocean in the background – made national news in Canada and was picked up on many gay-oriented websites, due to the homophobic comments made on newspaper websites. This too will change; I have to believe that Mr. Brison is in a better place than Mr. Laws….

  40. Isn’t it strange how this story loosens the lips of the homophobes, and the hate spills out?
    I was very surprised by the owner of Dalegarth House Country Hotel Portinscale, Cumbria felt moved tonight to have a rant about these people (David Laws) who are: “not normal” stealing money. It’s obviously a gay problem (to him) so it’s best if none of us here bother him with any of our business, in future.

  41. It’s clear he wanted to have his cake and eat it.

    I fail to see how the excuse of “sorry, but im gay and i wanted to keep my private life private” holds any water.
    Why would he have to pay rent to his boyfriend? It makes no sense. If he really wanted to sanitise his private life he wouldn’t link his work and living circumstance financially.

    The whole thing stinks.

  42. Sister Mary Clarence 30 May 2010, 11:43pm

    The usual charity and empathy that characterises this site I see.

    As I understand it, had he declared his partner as just that he could have declared a hell of a lot more money (the wrongs and rights of that are a discussion for another day).

    He did however misrepresent the facts in relation to his accommodation.

    Overall his misrepresentation resulted in a net loss to himself (and a gain to us the tax-payers).

    Whether he choices to come out as gay is really an issue for him and no one else. It is still a personal choice and we have little or no idea about the personal circumstances that led to his decision not to come out before.

    I do not mean to in anyway suggest that I think what he did was right however unlike most of the expenses scandals lately, the tx-payer wqas quids in with this one.

    To his credit also and unlike several Labour MPs claiming the courts have no jurisdiction of their infidelities he has done the honourable thing and stepped down.

  43. Lots of people in the comments above have suggested that David Laws has defrauded the tax payer, should be prosecuted by the CPS, etc. So I wondered if I’d missed something, and went back to review the news. This is what I’ve read (please tell me if the accuracy of any of these items are contested):
    – David Laws said “I’ve been involved in a relationship with James Lundie since around 2001 — about two years after first moving in with him”. So he didn’t move-in with his lover, he fell in love with his Landlord. To me this is important, because it demonstrates that this wasn’t an attempt to commercialise a non-commercial relationship (you know, husband puts property in wife’s name for “tax purposes”, etc). If David Laws hadn’t been renting this room, it would have been rented to somebody else.
    – So in that first property, it’s easy to establish that David Laws wasn’t making money (he was claiming back his rent), James Lundie wasn’t making money at the tax-payer’s expense (if he hadn’t rented the room to David Laws, he’d have rented to someone else), the tax payer wasn’t disadvantaged (David’s constituency home was in Yeovil, a very long way from London, he genuinely required a flat in London… if it hadn’t been here it would have been somewhere else), and anyway, at the time (up to 2006) this arrangement wasn’t against the rules in any case.

    – In 2006 the rules changed, banning claims for arrangements that were “one of a couple … who although not married to each-other or civil partners are living together and treat each-other as spouses”. David Laws didn’t see his relationship in this way. The rules were changed to avoid the “wife’s name for tax reasons” fiddle; but David saw himself as having no financial connection and a different social life. In other words, the long-term relationship meant they often slept together.

    – In 2007 James bought a new property at a cool half a million pounds, and rented a “second bedroom” to David Laws. It’s not as clear this time whether the second bedroom would otherwise have been rented out commercially if David Laws were removed from the scenario, but it does seem perfectly likely.

    – The rent of £950 or so per month doesn’t seem disproportionate in a property that cost over £500,000. But I looked at the BBC’s publication of the 2007 2nd-home expense claims for comparison. David Laws claimed £19,251. That’s a bit below average, it ranks 414th out of the 596 MPs with a constituency outside London. In other words, if David Laws had lived in the house next door with a different landlord, he’d likely be paying a very similar rent, and making a very similar claim.

    So where has the tax-payer been defrauded? Where has the tax-payer lost out? What’s the charge on which you’d all like him convicted before he’s stood against the wall to face the firing squad?

    And my second query, I guess, is… what is the dividing line where a relationship becomes “living as spouses”?
    – Was it where David moved-in (bearing in mind the relationship didn’t start for 2 years)? that would apply to everybody who takes a room in somebody’s house.
    – Was it the first time they shared a bed?
    – The second time maybe? The third?
    – Was it the first time they went out for a meal together?
    – I remember that the DSS used to have (probably still have) some tests of co-habitation. They included whether the claimant supplied his own loo-role, used the same salt-and-pepper. Are these the tests that David should have to pass? (And if they are, is this the evidence the Daily Telegraph collected?)

    If David Laws had answered the Daily Telegraph’s allegation “I am not living together as spouse with my Landlord”, what is the evidence The Daily Telegraph could put forward to suggest otherwise?

  44. silly billy 31 May 2010, 3:45am

    I told my Mum that I was gay 30 years ago. It was really difficult. My Mum’s husband, and my Dad, was a Roman Catholic. I knew it would break their hearts. It did.
    I blew the whistle on a charity six years ago. I knew I would lose my job for being honest. I haven’t really worked properly since even though I would like to.
    Some of us take time in our lives to be honest and to deal with the consequences.
    This man appears to have been totally fraudulent. Fair enough, but he has been in the position of accusing others of being in “partnerships” and stopping any benefits they may have been entitled to.
    Why are some of you being so very charitable towards an extremely rich man who put himself in a position of telling all of the rest of us what to do, all the while denying he was gay?


  45. Mihangel apYrs 31 May 2010, 9:22am

    SMC, Tsuchan:

    unfortunately his behaviour sugggests a lack of judgement and an uncharacteristic naivety that is unhelpful in a senior govt finance officer. It’s not as though he needed the money, once the rules changed, if he was unsure if they were applicable, he could have stopped claiming, or sought clarification, or moved out. Had he decided not to move out because of the relationship, then his uncertainty would have cleared.

    Where there is a suspicion of financial impropriety the public do not forgive, and the media never forgot: he became liability

  46. Look, the guy lived as a partner for the last 11 yrs with a political lobbyist, it’s his duty to declare all personal interest and that also mean decalaring the fact that his partner is a political lbbyist – both he and his partners for the last yeas of so should have been declaring their interest – regardless of the expense issue you can NOT keep a spouse or partner secret – he had not rights as a MP to do this as the telepharaph point out today
    ” ……The MP was also facing questions over whether he should have declared an interest when hosting an event in the Palace of Westminster for Edelman, a lobbying firm that employed Mr Lundie.
    The official list of functions sponsored by MPs shows that Mr Laws hosted a dinner for Edelman with 14 guests on Sept 7, 2004. ”

    This guy completely bended the rules, he was outed in that he has now been forced to become publically gay in front of his voters… I doubt very much if his family or close friends were unaware of the fact he was gay if the village of westminister knew , pinknews knew and there where “whispers” in the pinknews editorial team…

  47. this is what laws said about budget cuts “There will be many more tough decisions, but we believe that the British people understand that these choices can no longer be ducked.

    it easy making tough desicions if they don’t affect him bu the one he should have done he ducked. he’s not a nice guy don’t defend him just cause he’s gay

  48. Living with a guy since 2001 and not even their families knew about it? Pathetic! Embarrassing! Absurd! It doesnt take long to realise why closeted homosexuals are their own worst enemy and how such people have put back our social revolution for decades. Thank god I live an open life and you dont need to wear a rainbow flag to live it! Just be honest to others and dont tell lies when the questions are asked!

  49. theotherone 31 May 2010, 1:36pm

    This is the first causality in the Right Wing Press’ attempt to destabilise the Government to allow the Tory Right to take over the Party.

    I hope they’re unsuccessful.

  50. What a cowardly, thieving scumbag. Good riddance to bad rubbish I’d say.

    Glad he’s resigned and I hope he has the decency to resign from politics.

    I don’t know which is more contemptible. The fact that he is such a thief (despite being a millionaire) or the fact that he was a closet case (when there was no valid reason other than cowardice for being so).

  51. theotherone 31 May 2010, 2:37pm

    martinM: what right do you have to dictate other people’s lifes? If he didn’t want to come out that was hi choice not yours.

    Interestingly this story is a year old and it didn’t do any damage the first time but then this time it’s got some added spice does it not? Blatant Homophobia regardless of the Morality of the man himself.

  52. thetoblerone 31 May 2010, 4:18pm

    Multi-millionaire caught pocketing money he shouldn’t and sad wee people try to excuse him saying it is all a conspiracy by the right-wing press to bring down a, ahem, right wing government!!!

  53. Sister Mary Clarence 31 May 2010, 6:08pm

    I can’t help wondering how much of the bile being emitted here is as a result of him not being Labour politician. There were a lot of people had a hell of a lot less to say when some of those robbing Labour sh1ts got caught with their hand in the till, or in some cases actually stole the bloody till as well.

    There are from what has been pointed out likely some issues with declaration of interests here too, and it does all point to overall poor judgment in relation to his personal affairs but we’re not talking Peter and Iris Robinson here, or Peter Mandelson afterall.

    I still give him credit for resigning. It shows some of the integrity that as been lacking of many others

  54. Mihangel apYrs 31 May 2010, 7:46pm

    I think SMC, a reason people are so vituperative about him is because we expect so much better from our friends. We know nulabour was mired in sleaze (along with many tories!), we knew that they were often authoritarian, we knew that they would negotiate to our detriment for political advantage. We thought the libdems were suppoertive of us, and that there politicians would be open about something not to be ashamed of, so we feel betrayed. Throw into the mix the fact that this is also about a relationship a man appeared to be ashamed of, then we feel personally slighted, as though our own relationships would be denigrated by David Law is circumstance demanded.

    We have little regard for our enemies’ opinions; from a supposed friend it hurts more

  55. David and his partner made a £193,000 profit on a house whose mortgage was being subsidised by £40,000 of public money they had no right to claim. Some would call this stealing, I do. To pretend that this is really an issue of homophobia – wanting to keep the relationship secret, being a very private person etc – is a complete smokescreen. If David wanted to keep his gay relationship secret then keep it secret. The real political issue here is that an elected representative and Government minister has committed fraud on the taxpayer.

  56. theotherone 1 Jun 2010, 11:38am

    No James where the Homophobia exists is in the reporting of the issue.

    Be careful running with this story – it’s a mask for an attempt by the Right Wing Press to force an election and a take over of the Party.

  57. Mihangel apYrs (46) said:
    “unfortunately his behaviour suggests a lack of judgement and an uncharacteristic naivety that is unhelpful in a senior govt finance officer”

    and in (56):
    “I think SMC, a reason people are so vituperative about him is because we expect so much better from our friends”

    I understand both the points of view you write – I’d probably even agree. I just can’t understand or credit posts like:

    MartinM (51) who said “What a cowardly, thieving scumbag. Good riddance to bad rubbish I’d say.”

    …because they either don’t know what theft is; or can’t understand or won’t understand the situation. That makes me sad, because I think people owe themselves better use of judgement and intellect.

  58. Not just a thief a dumb one too – could have put his hand up with all the other duck island merchants and got away with it. I think this is about money and his sexuality a red -herring (as a 50 yr old lesbian I’ve seen a few) – playing the ‘sexuality-tragedy’ card in the same way as some have played the race card- escaping personal responsibility and culpability. If he had stolen this money from the benefits system I wonder if we would see the same levels of sympathy? My friend’s cousin stole £1000 – she got 5 years in jail – by the same money stolen/jail term ratio I look forward to seeing DL outta jail in 200,000 years – not going to be happening tho is it – white man with power gay or not.

  59. theotherone 1 Jun 2010, 6:21pm

    I offer him no sympathy wwodo, I offer my contempt to those who added some spice to the story to get him to resign.

  60. Mihangel apYrs 1 Jun 2010, 7:58pm

    reflecting back on teh last few days, I was (and am) still angry that he failed himself and his partner so badly, and feel too judgmental that he didn’t have the guts to do what many people of my age (56) andolder did, come out and deal with it.

    But in the end I feel sorry for him, that he made such a bad decision, that he is now writing in the spotlight trying to justify his choices. It is said that he made no money that he wouldn’t have made if he’d fessed up. He could also have just stopped claiming and said that it felt wrong taking money to give to a friend whose house the totally occupied (not just a room). But he bottled it, and is now paying a very high price

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.