Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

David Laws says his family and friends have accepted his sexuality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. pete the meat 3 Jun 2010, 2:05pm

    Had they any issues with his lying and thieving?

  2. Mr Memoirs 3 Jun 2010, 2:21pm

    So now James Lundie IS his partner? Last week he was ducking and diving out of calling Lundie that and instead made out through the most convoluted excuses possible that they were anything but partners. They didn’t share a bank account, had separate groups of friends and all of these explanations were to assure us taxpayers that Laws and Lundie were not ‘partners’. Dishonest bitch.

  3. It really is difficult to have any sympathy for Laws.

    Yes he’s a thief which makes him unfit for office.

    Then again he is certainly not the only thieving politician. They all seem to have had their hands in the jar for years.

    The reason I have no sympathy for him is his cowardice over his sexuality.

    I do not think that middle aged millionaire public servants living in a society like Britain have any valid reason for staying closeted.

    The only excuse they can use is cowardice, stupidity and self interest. These character traits make David Laws unsuitable to a life in public office.

    He should resign as an MP.

  4. The contrast between this man, and the two young men who publicly announced their CP, one of whom is in the Forces, has to be emphasised. Laws has the cheek to cite difficulties in coming out at the time he realised he was gay. He is 44, deduct say 20 and we get to 1986. Oh, come on!

  5. Why does everyone seem to think he has a responsibility to come out! He doesn’t… I really wish he felt he could have done and it would have made him a great role model for people wanting to enter politics despite their sexuality but at the end of the day the decision to come out is his and no one else’s! Stop forcing your views on people!
    As for his expense claims who cares if he broke the rules? I care about the amount… which was less than an average legal claim! We all learned last year that the rules are stupid and need overthrowing. Also, MP’s are not paid or respected enough for their talent and hard work! Can we really blame them?

  6. Is anyone else totally bored with this story – you would think he is the first public official to ever come out! Talk about flogging a gay horse…

  7. OK so we know he fiddled his expenses a bit … which politician hasn’t? People can argue all day over whether or not this means he is fit to serve etc … honestly i couldn’t care less.

    What REALLY p*sses me off is the way that people are judging him for not outing himself. We certanly do not know his persoanl circumstances so who are we to judge. Reading comments on all the PinkNews articles on Laws, it seems that there is a general consensus that, in this day and age, there is NO EXCUSE for staying in the closet. Complete bullsh*t in my opinion.

    Yes we live in slightly more accepting times but anyone who read the article regarding gay couples being afraid to show affection in public will realise that homosexuality is NOT broadly accepted in Britain today, or at least gays do not percieve it as such.

    His sexuality has no impact on his ability to perform his job (havn’t us gays been making just this arguement?) so why the hell should he announce it?

    Feel free to moan and bitch about his expenses fiddle, but to attack his right to privacy and living how he sees fit (i.e. in the closet) are we not acting like those who have denied us our rights to live how we choose?

  8. Let’s also remember that this man is extremely rich and doesn’t need 40k. He made the fake claims because to do otherwise he would have had to reveal the fact that he was in a partnership with lundy. I.e because he wasn’t allowed to rent he would have to get a mortgage with lundy and therefore reveal they were lovers. If you’ve read about him you’d see he was huge in business and really never needed the money, not that that makes it right. I can sympathise though

  9. Prize and cigar to MartinM for raging on every single comment page on this story – I am impressed. But not convinced.

  10. It’s sad – but I have to say I find many of the comments less than edifying. Bottom line is that it really is none of our business about when and where and how someone else ‘comes out’ – we don’t live their lives, have their families, etc., so really we aren’t qualified to sit ‘in judgement’.
    I have considerable sympathy for David Laws – I didn’t come out until I was 55, I would have liked to have done so sooner, but my elderly mother lived with me and I didn’t want to cause her unnecessary distress; I saw how upset she was when an older brother got divorced and I figured she, at her age [in her nineties] didn’t need the additional ‘bother’ of discovering she had a gay son. Maybe she ‘knew’ all along – who knows! That was MY decision, a decision I am perfectly entitled to make, and I’ll defy anyone to say otherwise.
    When I did come out, of course I was fearful about the reactions of siblings and close friends, and thankfully I didn’t have a single negative response.
    GOOD LUCK, David. I hope you and James can put this matter behind you and have a long and happy life together.

  11. His sexuality has no impact on his ability to perform his job (havn’t us gays been making just this arguement?) so why the hell should he announce it?

    Peter Tatchell explained why on The Politics Show -
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sn5zm/The_Politics_Show_London_30_05_2010/?t=7m24s

  12. So this homophobic family and friends over the years accepted without hesitation? At what stage did they stop being homophobic, which he missed until his ‘confession’?

    I guess he had to say this, havign smeared them as the reason for non disclosure.

    Hmmm

  13. Oh, for goodness sake, give it a rest. The next development will be a BIG civil partnership ceremony with a four figure sum paid by Hello magazine. For so-called ‘intensely private’ people these queens take some beating.

  14. That should be ‘six figure sum’…..

  15. No 5: Lottie: “Why does everyone seem to think he has a responsibility to come out! He doesn’t…”

    Why doesn’t have a responsibility to come out?

    Bear in mind that he actually pretended to be straight to his friends, families and colleagues.

    As an elected public servant, remaining closeted in this manner is utterly unacceptable.

    It adds fuel to the idea that being gay is shameful and disgusting, and he deserves absolute contempt for his cowardice.

    People like David Laws have no excuse for staying in the closet.

    He is a middle-aged, millionaire, in a gay friendly party in a gay friendly country, and is an elected public servant.

    He remained in the closet out of cowardice and personal convenience, not because his job or his life or his reputation was at risk (compare David Laws to those 2 Malawian men jailed for their sexuality and you can see how pathetic Laws’ behaviour was).

    I have every sympathy for a closeted 16 year old living with his homophobic parents. He genuinely has an excuse for remaining closeted because he is probably still financially reliant on his parents and his age offers him an excuse.

    My opinion on this is quite simple.

    There is nothing whatsoever shameful about being gay. There is nothing illegal about it. So someone like David Laws who chooses to be a public servant and who chooses to deceive everyone about his sexuality is an absolute ridiculous disgrace.

    The Daily Telegraph were absolutely right to reveal his homosexuality. There was just cause for doing so because of his theft.

    But ALL closeted politicians from all parties need to realise that if they are actively harming other gay people and damaging our rights then it is completely justifiable to out them.

    Labour; the Tories and the LibDems are actively denying the LGBT population equality by supporting the sexual apartheid regime of civil partnerships.

    Any closeted gay politician in any of those parties need to be told that unless they start actively supporting LGBT equality then they will be outed.

    While these parties deny us equality, the closet cases should not rely on other gay people to keep their ‘dirty secret’ for them

  16. Or to summarise. No-one has a ‘responsibility’ to come out.

    But the press have absolutely no responsibility to protect any public figure’s closet.

    And those public representatives who are harming the rights of other LGBT people should be actively ‘outed’.

    All closeted Tories should be outed unless we achieve marriage equality and the religious opt out from equality laws is removed.

  17. Merseymike 3 Jun 2010, 5:25pm

    I don’t vote LD and I don’t think he should have claimed the 40K

    But people ARE still fearful. he now realises that he really didn’t have to be, and that can only be relief for him

    Some still find it very hard to come out, and if anything it gets harder the longer one leaves it, particularly if in the public eye

    I certainly wish them all the best (and at least his voting record on gay rights is absolutely impeccable)

  18. Well, what else could his devout catholic family do; he’s been sharing Lundie’s farter for yonks ▬ and claiming it on expenses. He should enter the priesthood; he has all the qualities for it.

  19. Chameleon 3 Jun 2010, 6:20pm

    MartinM@15 “My opinion on this is quite simple.”

    It certainly is! Black and white, strident and insensitive. As Greeks@9 points out you’ve been hammering the same sh!te into your computer for days now, saying the same things over and over again, with no attempt to engage with any differing point of view, and no trace of a capacity to empathise. You can only say that everyone’s experience should be the same as your experience, and if if isn’t, then they’re total failures. Well, I think people are more complex than that, whatever their failings.

    You’re clearly very angry about something, Martin, I just don’t think it’s David Laws. I’m glad I only have to read your tedious rantings – to listen to them would be pure agony! Do yourself a favour, love, have a break from the computer. Get some fresh air. Get a life.

  20. See comment from another blog:
    ‘Ooooh right then I get it now, honesty is it? Perhaps Laws would care to explain why if his so secret love affair was so secret then why did himself and his lover and his family spend time together in his mansion in France so often..’
    The truth will out!
    Its also naff for people to say he could have got more by claiming. The fact is, he wanted to give his lover the cash.. The fact that he could have calimed more, personally, does not remove this.

  21. Jean-Paul 3 Jun 2010, 9:12pm

    @9:

    This story is not about about him but “Prize and cigar to MartinM” indeed.

    He is a most valuable commentator here and he has forced me to take my own position seriously.

    That’s what debates do.

    Not only that, but he writes excellent English.

  22. So now, what say all the people who say that he was violated by being “outed” even though he wasn’t actually outed?

    I’ve actually NEVER heard of a person who was outed who felt that they weren’t better off or that they would wish to be back in the closet.

  23. I know what he did, expenses, was wrong. However, I find it ironic that had he been honest from the start it would actually have cost the tax-payer more money as he could have put in for much larger expenses claims for living with a spouse or partner. So, in that regard, he actually saved taxpayers’ money rather than thieving it.

    Its still wrong, I know that. But I just wanted to point out that those who are calling him a thieving git are being rather harsh. He did wrong, but ironically it actually cost us less money than it would otherwise. Just saying.

  24. @ Dave 11. re: the Politics show link. All power to Peter Tatchell, and if anyone’s got a right to call David Laws (and most of the rest of humanity) a coward, then surely it’s him. But his argument is flawed: Laws hasn’t benefited from the liberation bestowed on him by others; he’s oddly decided to live like it’s 1950 despite the opportunity for freedom. Personal mind worm at work.

    I’m fascinated by this whole story; will be very very interested to see what happens to him next. Screwing up may even make him a more empathic centre-right-winger and a better MP.

  25. I for one wish Laws all the best. I cant believe there are those in the gay community who could act so hostile towards him, unless you have been very fortunate to have parents who you know will accept you and live in part of the country where you will feel no discrimination at all, which i can confidently say is a handful of us… surely you have the empathy to understand his position most of us have been there in some way or another. Laws did not cheat the union out of money for expenses, as it has already been stated he was worse off for not declaring his partner. Laws is a great man for a job and I for one was confident in the fact that it was a strong lib dem at the helm making the tough decisions rather than a tory. Many have commented on his talent and ability to do the job yet he was made to feel that he had to resign. The gay community should have his back, we shouldn’t just expect people of public office to be out and proud, they are no different from the rest of us in the insecurity and fear that coming out can bring and if anything the pressure to stay in the closet is much more intense. We only let ourselves down by criticizing him and no one should be forced out, it is each owns decision, not ours.

    Despite this, laws might find that it was a blessing and I hope he comes to be a lot more proud of being gay this is still no excuse for who ever leaked/ decided to run the story. I have no doubt that a group of sick grass roots torys where the cause of this, it was a blatant attempt to destabilize the new coalition and Laws was treated like nothing more than a pawn to achieve an ends.

    The right wing are running in their boots, if the coalition is a success Britain will move much more to the centre and all the bigots will be left in the gutter where they belong. While I would much rather have seen a coalition formed in the centre left, I accept the numbers didn’t add up after the election and will lend my support to the lib/con coalition knowing that the Libs wont let up on our rights as the LGBT community, they after all where the most supportive of our rights. While Laws didn’t come out as gay his LGBT voting record was impeccable, he was no hypocrite, people should accept that peoples private life is their own.. not everybody is Katie price.. Laws should have our respect.

  26. I geddit because he gay he should have my respect regardless of character. Zephus your some kinda homophobic do gooder you don’t see a person you see a 2 dimensional gay thing it patronising.

    I voted lid dem and got cameron so I’m pissed off and the fact that laws was willing to jepodise my future wih his cuts means he can go to hell.

  27. More drivel – it’s all been said, what a load of nonsense this coming out story is -lottie – if you’re a gay MP you don’t have to come out but if you’ve ben diddling your expenses for years on the pretence that you’re not living with your partners then guess what you can’t not come out. There is also an argument that for a lib dem person who is supposed to promte equality and LGBT rights then he should have shown a better example. We all have sympathy for people who find it difficult to come out but really most of us aren’t convinced that this coming out story relates to a person like David Laws. The coming out stories posted on these comments are so different to David Laws sitution…I agree with one comment, how naff and almost evil to blame friends and family on your reason for your fraud – sorry I diddled money becuase I was too scared to upset or offend my friends and family…

  28. I wish i could shove him back in his closet!

    REALLY im not bothered if he is gay or not !

    We all have a right to a private life ?

    I am very BOTHERED when somone has be caught manipulating a situation for his own pocket and hopeing to hide behind the fact it was becuase of his sexuality

    Im so disapointed with MR Clegg to call David Laws ” a man of Integrity” What a HUDE insult for ALL of the gay comunity

    I think if you look closer the amount fiddled it is more than we know

  29. Laws says “It was pretty stupid really” to hide his sexuality, and I have to agree with him. In this day and age, how many people are going to see a 44yo single man living with a ‘friend’ and not at least speculate that he may be gay (or, to put it in the parlance of an earlier era, ‘not the marrying kind’)?

    My sympathy for him is mitigated by his being 5 years younger than I am. OK, may be I was lucky, my family’s reasonable and not Catholic, but really, growing up gay in the late 70s and 80s can’t have been that bad.

  30. There are several comments here about Laws’s right to privacy and the difficulty people have coming out. Despite coming out myself aged 17 in 1977, and having to overcome considerable negativity, including being sent off to a psychiatrist, I have every sympathy for the difficulty people have coming out, including Mr Laws.

    My issue with him though is

    1 – he chose to stand for public office on a platform of lies out of cowardice – as a role model for modern gay men, he isa disgrace

    2 – he switched his accommodation arrangement in 2009 when the expenses scandal was getting hot, but not in 2006 when he should have when the rules changed – this change didn’t out him in 2009 and wouldn’t have in 2006 – so we see him acting slyly and then weaselly when called to account. And if he firmly believed his own account then we see him as deluded too.

    Cowardy, sly, weaselly and deluded – perhaps the model politician aftet all!

    For the rest see MartinM’s excellent posts.

  31. martin “The Daily Telegraph were absolutely right to reveal his homosexuality. There was just cause for doing so because of his theft.”. that paper is owned by tax dodgers who are in no position to preach. laws outing was not relevant false expenses claim is the problem. the telegraph has a history of homophobia don’t come here and praise it.

  32. He must feel great to suddenly have this weight lifted from his shoulders. Now he can get on with his life and be happy being the person he is!

    The only thing worse than hiding who you are is being made to feel you have to hide by society in the first place.

  33. silly billy 4 Jun 2010, 9:44am

    1. What’s the opposite of coming out? Is it “staying-in”? Because it seems that in order to “stay-in” the Neo Conservative party he felt the need to “stay-in” with regard to his personality. Most peculiar. Or maybe it is a good idea to “stay-in” when the most important aspect of your life is actually climbing up greasy poles to get to a position where you can tell a lot of people how to live their lives (whilst all the time of course pretending you are living yours differently).
    2. “Now he can get on with his life and be happy being the person he is!” Isn’t that just lovely? He can carry on being a rampant little neo-con thieving from the rest of us. Isn’t that lovely?
    3. The above just illustrates the problem that occurs when people a) are dim, and/or b) are obsessed with one aspect of their lives to such a degree that it obfuscates any analysis – or honesty – whatsoever.

  34. It was mentioned above (25) that this story was leaked as an attempt to destabilize the coalition, and that is exactly what has happened.

    I could be completely wrong; the fact remains there are no longer any gay ministers in the Cabinet, or as some would say, the demonic spirit has been exorcised from the Cabinet by the “light”.

    This is a tremendous story and until the person(s) who leaked the story to the press is found and questioned, it will forever remain divisive. Just look at what it’s done the group of commentators here.

    In the meantime, David Law will never find peace and joy over the rainbow because he ignores who stabbed in the back.

    Shakespearean drama or what.

  35. Why are people here defending someone’s ‘right’ to stay in the closet?

    If we want society to treat us equally then we must expect equal treatment at the hands of the press.

    That means that if you are an elected public figure then your homosexuality must not be treated any differently from someone’s heterosexuality.

    David Laws did not have to come out of course. But for him to start whining about how his homosexuality entitled him to a ‘privacy’ that a heterosexual person could not understand is disgraceful.

    It adds fuel to the allegations that there is something shameful and disgusting about homosexuality.

    I grew up in a country where homosexuality was illegal when I was growing up (unlike Laws’ situation). I am not a millionaire, I am not as old – and therefore presumably not as mature as Laws – and for some reason I managed to remain true to myself and to my friend and family and colleagues, and I came out.

    Why was it so difficult for Laws.

    The only reasonable answer is self-interest and cowardice.

    He is an extra-ordinarily bad role model to young gay people. I can only imagine the damage his self-serving cowardice will do to some closetted teenager struggling to accept his own situation.

    David Laws volunteered to be a public figure.

    If he wanted to remain in the closet then he should not have entered public life.

  36. Jean-Paul 4 Jun 2010, 2:25pm

    Touché.

    It was a stupid thing to do.

    David Laws admitted that himself.

    Still, who leaked the story?

  37. How strange that one of the ONLY gay people who are not calling Laws a victim of outing but rather pointing out how much better his life is now than it was before he was forced out of the closet, and one of the only people loudly saying that his staying in the closet so long was STUPID, is LAWS HIMSELF.

    I find it odd that people who have been outed, though they may initially protest, ALWAYS go on to say how thankful they are that they are out, even though they may have never come out on their own. They ALWAYS talk about how much better their lives are and they ALWAYS say that they wish they had had the courage to do it soon on their own. Yet no one else seems to listen to what they’re saying because they’re too busy going on about how how terribly victimized and destroyed the person was. Why don’t we just shut up making judgments about these “victims” and actually listen to what THEY have to say about how their lives have changed for the better and how NONE of their worst fears have come to pass. How then are we to make the argument that something that brought them to such a level of happiness, self-acceptance, peace and honesty is a BAD thing?

    I’m not necessarily advocating forced outings, but, short of a very temporary discomfort and regrets that it didn’t happen SOONER, I’m failing to see the down sides and horrible outcome myths that people keep repeating in spite of the fact that they never seem to manifest themselves.

    If one’s argument is that no one should “take away” a person’s right to be honest on their own, I would make the argument that NO ONE can take away another person’s right to be honest. That right can only be GIVEN AWAY. A person has every right to try to hold their closet door closed tight. They don’t have a right to expect the press or anyone else to help them keep it closed.

    Again, I make the point, if Laws had been straight and had broken the same laws because he was dating a black woman or a Jewish woman and he was keeping her a secret out of shame or fear of family or public disapproval, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU would call him a coward and a slime ball and I doubt that any of you would be saying that his privacy was violated. I know this to be a fact because MANY straight MP’s and celebrities have been exposed in scandals involving women (cheating on wives, financial scandals with girlfriends, physical altercations with girlfriends) and NONE of you has ever claimed that their privacy was violated when the press reports on it, even when it destroys their careers.

    That would make you a hypocrite or a person who believes that gay people should not have equal rights and responsibilities but special rights and responsibilities.

    I for one don’t want special rights and special considerations. I ONLY want to be treated equally, for better AND for worse.

  38. “Or maybe it is a good idea to “stay-in” when the most important aspect of your life is actually climbing up greasy poles to get to a position where you can tell a lot of people how to live their lives”

    So he left a job in banking for a 14k a year post as a parliamentary researcher – thus using up most of his alleged fortune – turned down a safe Tory seat courtesy of Leon Britten, finally became an MP as a *Liberal Democrat* for God’s sake, and again rejected Tory efforts to poach him – I’m sorry but I’m just not getting a picture of a man solely motivated by a lust for money and power. Yes, there’s plenty to criticise, but he’s flawed, not hopelessly corrupt. On the whole, he sounds like a good MP.

    I agree with the people who say he’s better off out, and that people nearly always are – but it should still be a choice.

  39. “I’m not necessarily advocating forced outings”

    Neither am I. If you are a private individual then it is always wrong to reveal someone’s homosexual orientation against their will.

    When it comes to public people – politicians, popstars; actors etc etc, the same rules do not apply and should not apply.

    If it is acceptable for a newspaper to print pictures of Samantha Cameron or Sarah Brown (neither of whom are elected public figures) or to discuss Beyonce and Jay Z’s marriage and relationship (when Beyonce and JayZ went to such lengths to keep it private); then there should not be a double standard when it comes to gay public figures.

    Imagine if a heterosexual male politician had been married for 10 years, but this information was deliberately hidden from the press, public and his friends, families and colleagues. If he was found out to have had a secret wife for 10 years, it would be front page news. There would be loads of questions asked – foremost among them being ‘What is he hiding and why is he hiding it?’

    If gay people genuinely believe in equality then no-one should be offended or upset if we get treated equally.

    David Laws’ unnecessary choice to remain closetted was an absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary decision.

    It’s great that he is now out.

    Any other closetted Tory politicians (and there are probably several – remember the Tory boast that they had 20 gay candidates but that 10 were closet cases) should look to the Laws affair and make the decision to come out today.

    It will be much better for themselves and for everyone. They need to realise that they have no ‘right’ to be treated differently from straight politicians and that includes discussion of their primary personal relationships.

    If it is OK to discuss a straight politician’s relationship (Lembit Opik and that Cheeky Girl for example) then it is OK to discuss David Laws and James Lundie’s relationship.

  40. “he’s flawed, not hopelessly corrupt”

    Perhaps.

    But if I was to defraud my employer out of £40,000 I would be facing a jail sentence.

  41. No 38: Greeks: “I agree with the people who say he’s better off out, and that people nearly always are – but it should still be a choice. ”

    So you think there should be a double standard in the treatment of heterosexual and homosexual public figures?

    No wonder gay people are still fighting for equality when so many gay people are opposed to equal treatment between gay and straight people.

  42. “But if I was to defraud my employer out of £40,000 I would be facing a jail sentence.”

    The oddity of this case is that he could have claimed far more public money if he’d been out. It’s an odd kind of fraud that leaves you worse off and that’s why I don’t think it’s just another expenses story.

    But I guess we’re now going round in circles, we’ve all decided what we think. Now off to earn an honest crust…

  43. Greeks – you didn’t answer my question.

    I asked you if you thought there should be a double standard in the treatment of heterosexual and homosexual public figures?

  44. He is saved, now get down the road to Vauxhall dave and dance it off. WE JUST DON’T WANT AREA OR RVT TICKETS ON EXPENSES!

    A 45 year old multimillionaire who never had a girlfriend might be gay? I know dead people who could have worked that one out.

  45. “…a double standard in the treatment of heterosexual and homosexual public figures? ”

    I’d be absolutely delighted to know less about the personal lives of, say, Jen and Brad – nor do I personally give a damn who’s having an extramarital affair. But there’s a qualitative difference between most straight scandals, where the essence is that someone has been promised monogamy and then sexually betrayed, and a ‘gay’ scandal, where the story is the orientation itself, even where there’s no betrayal. So it’s not an equal situation.

    You’re substantially less likely to be disowned by your relatives, quietly passed over, or have your demons cast out by a charismatic church if you are a serial heterosexual shagger. Yes, the risks of being out are a swiftly receeding tide – but not receeding evenly at the same rate for everyone (it’s still pretty gutsy to be in Imaan, I would think). Personally, I’d need a pretty compelling reason to out someone who asked me not to do so, whatever their job.

    This business does seem like a watershed, because Laws’ elaborate efforts to stay in the closet (tho’ half Somerset seem to have guessed) are seen by most as not just cowardly, but ridiculous. But still his own business, in my view.

  46. Patrick James 4 Jun 2010, 5:05pm

    There are two stories with David Laws.

    1. He was gay and in the closet.

    2. He had been fiddling his expenses.

    The cleverness of Laws has been to say that 1 and 2 are linked and codependent.

    But they are not.

    Being gay and in the closet does not mean that you have to help yourself to £40,000 of tax payer’s money.

    I think that Laws could have found some way to live that meant he was honest with the expenses admin people at Westminster.

    Personally I don’t think that people should be forced out of the closet unless it is absolutely necessary, but equally they should not help themselves to tax payer’s money.

  47. Chameleon 4 Jun 2010, 5:25pm

    Greeks @45 – quite. In the hetero-normative world of politics and the media, a gay politician’s sexuality is news-worthy, whereas a straight politician’s is not.

    So, Martin, the answer to your drearily naive and self-deluding question is that there IS a double standard standard in the treatment of heterosexual and homosexual public figures.

    Still, respect to Greeks for inducing you, if only for a moment, to something other than cut and past jobs from your rag-bag of vacuous slogans. Almost looked like a discussion. Well done! Though I think it’s a bit rich of you to complain he hadn’t answered your question! Pots and kettles are swimming before my eyes …

    Quite unaware that Ricky Martin had come out while I was travelling in April. But interesting to compare the reception of his revelations in these forums to the contemptible David Laws’s.

  48. Clever? He’s a genius, a child protégé, who could have been monsignor Laws by now had his devout parents had their way (no doubt). Instead he choose lay his rosary aside and fiddle with his expenses instead. What a tragedy.

  49. Chameleon 4 Jun 2010, 5:39pm

    Patrick@47 – sigh. Let’s step through it:
    - As an MP David Laws was entitled to claim the expense of maintaining a second home, given the distance of his constituency from London
    - He could legitimately have claimed the expense of a joint mortgage with a declared partner
    - ditto, renting with his partner
    - ditto, renting from a ‘friend’ with whom he wasn’t having a sexual relationship
    - ditto renting or owning a flat on his own
    - and under all these scenarios he could have claimed more than he did, and hundreds of MPs do

    Given, then, that he didn’t do any of those things, I can’t readily think of a more plausible explanantion for the manner of his claim, other than the one that he’s given. Whether one respects his motivation (attempting to keep his sexuality is another matter), but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that his expenses claim and his sexuality ARE inextricable linked.

    QED?

  50. Chameleon 4 Jun 2010, 5:43pm

    That sentence should have read:

    … (attempting to keep his sexuality secret) is another matter …

    C x

  51. Mihangel apYrs 4 Jun 2010, 8:43pm

    Chameleon et al:
    As an honorable member of the HoC, He lied to officers of the Crown in the performance of their duty

    QED

  52. Forced outings are in my view abhorrent, i can remember a time in my life when I wasn’t in the position to deal with my sexuality, i do so only when I felt ready and able to cope at the age of 20, even if I had been forced out a year earlier I don’t think i could’ve handled it. Not that i need an excuse but I was brought up in a orthodox catholic family if that goes any way to explain it… A lot changed for me in that one short year and thankfully I grew in to a much stronger person and could face the truth and I did on my own terms. some people writing comments should get down off their high horses because unless you live in some alternate bubble world where you have never had to lie about your sexuality, you don’t have a leg to stand on in any criticism. We have all heard stories of people who have committed suicide over their sexuality.
    I find it easy to empathise with Law’s situation, if he had been seen to be living with his partner but not claiming any expense for it in terms of rent then it would have looked to his colleagues that they where more than just room-mates. The truth is it was the expenses system that couldn’t provide for Law’s right to privacy, it is not the purpose of the expenses system to out people.

  53. silly billy 5 Jun 2010, 3:09pm

    “became an MP as a *Liberal Democrat* for God’s sake”

    Quite.

  54. David, get back to work as a cabinet minister, will you? You are a popular gay man and now you are out. You’ll be ok.

  55. Its quite simple. If you stand for public office and have any little “skeletons” they are sure to be found out! Mark Oaten should have been a warning to David Laws!

  56. If MPs wanted my respect, then they could work for the supposedly ‘amazing value’ & supposedly ‘fair’ yet impossible to live on minimum wage. Then I’d truly know they are doing it all for their political convictions & not just to steal every penny they can get their filthy hands on.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all