 |
| David Cameron and George Osborne Asleep While Britain Goes Down the Pan! |
Has someone been able to come up with a reasonable explanation why it is that Liberal Democrat MP and former Chief secretary to the Treasury escaped criminal proceedings for knowingly falsely claiming over £60,000 in his parliamentary expenses and was then rewarded for his crime with a promotion from the prime minister?
Other MPs and peers from Conservative and Labour have paid the price of their expenses folly however, the weight of the law does appear to have come down much harder on Labour MPs than it has Tory and Lib Dem MP's and I am wondering why this is?
David Laws principle excuse for falsely claiming what amounts to be a kind of "housing benefit" was, he said, because "he is gay and did not want his family to discover the truth" about his sexuality.
Laws was found guilty of serious breaches of no less than six parliamentary regulations, yet was allowed to pay the money back and apologise given a 7 day suspension from parliament, and that was the princely sum of his punishment! (Other MPs have falsely claimed much less and they got a year's suspension and in fact resigned their seat). Laws didn't even have the decency to do what he knows he should have done and resign his seat as the MP for Yeovil, and Cameron and Clegg, far from sacking him (like Cameron promised he would with errant ministers and MPs) encouraged him to stay on, and later when he thought it was safe, rewarding his criminal behaviour with a promotion. So much for David Cameron's promising the electorate recall of their MP if they did not perform properly - yet another lie! It beggars belief and Cameron etal have the temerity to infer that other people on low incomes are "scroungers"!
 |
| David Laws |
Laws is a multi-millionaire ex banker, he did not need to steal £60,000 from the taxpayer. If he did not want his family to discover he was living with his partner, then why didn't he just not claim housing costs? being a multi-millionaire it wasn't as if he didn't have the money! Why with all of his money did he claim and pass it to his lover to pay his mortgage? It wasn't just rent he claimed either, it was maintenance etc to his partner's house. It has always puzzled me how his family would have known what he was and wasn't claiming on his parliamentary expenses, why would they know, does he show them his expense claims? However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, if his family did see his expenses didn't they think it was a bit odd that laws was paying for all these other things in his "landlord's" house? Wouldn't they thought it odd that a lodger would pay towards the upkeep of the house he merely rented a room in? At the end of the day, his lover was having his mortgage subsidised by the taxpayer and if he wasn't caught, Laws would have gone on claiming and the taxpayer would have part paid Law's partner's mortgage and it would have still been happening today!
If you or I falsely claimed that were renting a room in a house when if fact we were cohabiting (which is in effect what David Laws did) in order to receive housing benefit, do you think the local authority would not prosecute? If it got to court would the judge accept as mitigating circumstances you did it because you are gay?
No of course not, so why has David Laws got away with this and why at the earliest opportunity has David Cameron and Nick Clegg sacked Sarah Teather from the Government and promoted David Laws bringing him back into Government? And why is David Laws allowed to sit in on cabinet meetings?
I believe the only possible explanation for Laws being permitted to attend cabinet meetings is because Cameron and Clegg are going to give him a ministerial role in the not too distant future, and the position Laws currently holds in Government is just a stepping stone back to the cabinet and just a way of getting the public acclimatised to the fact that Laws is back on scene, despite the fact that he stole over £60,000 from the taxpayer and the public remain largely hostile to him!
What really infuriates, is that the prime minister, the deputy PM and the entire cabinet, the Tory party and the Liberal Democrat party, believe that David Laws is somehow worthy of special treatment, that he is a special case simply because he is gay? That because he is gay and chose to deceive his family, friends work colleagues as well as the public is somehow acceptable as an excuse for his dishonest illegal behaviour? If it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their sexuality, how can it be justified to plead homosexuality in mitigation of an offence?
If Laws was allowed mitigating circumstances on the grounds he did not want to "come out" as a homosexual, then why wasn't Denis MacShane allowed to mitigate on the grounds that his young daughter was horrifically killed in an accident, his mother in law died and his marriage broke up? Or should MacShane merely have said that he was "gay" and used that as mitigation? The difference between Laws and MacShane is laws stole £60,000 that's approximately £48,000 more than MacShane and MacShane did not profit personally, he even gave his interns the laptops, which probably went on to help them get further employment and the rest of the money he spent in connection with his government work in Europe. Laws simply paid off his lover's mortgage and paid for the maintenance of his central heating system etc. I've asked it before, so I'll ask it again and no doubt I'll keep asking it until this hideously hypocritical government answers: "Where is the parity in these two cases"?
The entire government is just so hypocritical. Work and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan-Smith is about to make thousands of families homeless in April 2013 by punishing them for something that is completely beyond their control. IDS is going to place a cap on their benefits which will make it impossible for a great many families to stay in their present accommodation as they will be unable to pay the Tory landlords rent. He says he wants to make work pay, however, the vast majority of people who are claiming housing benefit are actually in work, but they do not earn enough, they are in part-time or low paid work. So how is docking their money making them feel that work pays? Many may just take the view that they may as well just give up the struggle of getting to work with the high cost of fairs and fuel and other expenses, give up the effort and worry of paying their gas, electricity and water bills and rent and rates and claim it all off of the state! IDS and Cameron have a pretty stupid idea of how to "make work pay"! If Tory doning corporations refuse to pay their workers a decent living wage and continue in hiring more part-time workers instead of full-time workers because it is cheaper to hire part-timers as the employer does not have to pay out so much in national Insurance contributions (NICs), then people will be forced to leave as they will simply be unable to afford to go to work and how will this be their fault? The majority of these companies with such bad practices who treat their workers so badly, do not even pay proper corporation tax, so the taxpayer loses out in several different ways:
- Very little in corporation tax being paid by these companies so Treasury tax revenues are down
- Low waged employees pay little or no income tax, so Treasury brings in less tax revenues
- The state is forced to subsidise companies to pay low wages by topping up employees pay, pushing the benefits bill up
- These big companies also benefit from the Tory/LibDem government providing them with FREE full-time workers on work government workfare schemes.
- Free workers means less paid jobs so Treasury once again is not bringing in income tax revenue
- Hiring two part-time workers means employees pay less in NICs, again affecting the Treasury coffers.
- Then low waged people will spend less in the economy, which in turn affects us all, if Government dock their working family tax credits and housing benefits, there will be even less spent in the economy!
Meanwhile every single day this Tory controlled government does nothing about these corporations and banks etc is a raid on the wallet of the ordinary person and it is being condoned by the Tories, who are seeking to make ordinary people the scapegoats. These Tory supporting/funding corporations are making themselves and their shareholders mega rich at our cost, it's time people woke up and realised who the real scrounging crooks are!
Greed is running rife and is completely out of control right through this Tory government and Tory supporting corporations, the bubble is inflating daily and just like the credit bubble, it will soon burst. What then?
Tonight it will be revealed that the Tory cabinet Secretary, Francis [Jerry can] Maude will be exposed on Ch4 Dispatches programme as claiming for council tax; gas and electricity charges; ground rent; buildings insurance; internet connection; a TV licence; renting a TV set as well as claiming service charges. Maude's service charges alone are said to be around £5000 per year.
Tory rising star, Helen Grant is claiming £20,000 for a London flat but living in a £1.8m mansion in Surrey.
Does Mark Hoban Minister for Employment. think it is morally acceptable to harass and insult people and treat them like children, ordering them to do things he would not do himself? Does he think it is morally acceptable to call people "scroungers" while he himself claimed thousands of pounds in expenses for items such as wide screen TVs and red silk cushions and a lavatory brush which cost £18?
Does IDS think it is morally acceptable to claim for expenses for his wife, even though she never did the work? Does he think it acceptable to cap peoples benefits and make them homeless while claiming thousands in expenses himself and living rent free in a Buckinghamshire mansion complete with tennis courts and swimming pool and extensive grounds?
Does Mark Hoban Minister for Employment. think it is morally acceptable to harass and insult people and treat them like children, ordering them to do things he would not do himself? Does he think it is morally acceptable to call people "scroungers" while he himself claimed thousands of pounds in expenses for items such as wide screen TVs and red silk cushions and a lavatory brush which cost £18?
Does IDS think it is morally acceptable to claim for expenses for his wife, even though she never did the work? Does he think it acceptable to cap peoples benefits and make them homeless while claiming thousands in expenses himself and living rent free in a Buckinghamshire mansion complete with tennis courts and swimming pool and extensive grounds?
Treasury minister David Gauke will be named as pocketing £27,000, made from the sale of his second home which was funded partly by taxpayers.
David Gauke is the minister who believes it is morally wrong for cleaners etc to be paid in cash! Does he also think it is morally wrong to trouser £27,000 of taxpayers money while criticising those unfortunate enough to be in low paid work and supporting his government who are going to take away their housing benefit and make them homeless?
What about David Laws, doe she think this is morally wrong too?
Is it morally acceptable for the Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne to force people to increase their personal debt on credit cards to pay their mortgages, their energy bills, to fill up the car of pay the kids school dinner money, in order that he can say the country has come out of the double dip recession he and his "mate" Dave caused?
Is it morally acceptable for this government to force people with little or nothing to take out these legal loan shark payday loans, like Wonga who has connections to the Conservative party?
Is it morally acceptable to force people to sell their gold and other possessions in order to buy food for their families because they can no longer manage, because this government are driving down workers pay and conditions in the work place?
Is it morally acceptable that ordinary people who did not cause the problems in this country's economy or the global economy should be forced to pay for those who did? Tory bankers like David Laws, Michael Fallon, Francis Maude etc etc?
"We're All In It Together"?
If you say so Dave!
 |
| Do you see David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg, David Laws, Iain Duncan-Smith, Chris Grayling, Mark Hoban, Helen Grant, Francis Maude, David Gauke, Or any of the Tory Tyranny in this picture? No - Thought Not! |
12 comments:
One of Labour's heroines is Stella Creasy, who's been campaigning against legal and illegal loan sharks.
No surprises that Tory donor Adrian Beecroft is involved with payday loan sharks Wonga. Guys like him actively benefit from recessions and the misery of the many.
The moral bankruptcy of the Tories is just mind boggling. To add insult to injury is the way they promote the idea that poverty is a moral failing on their part of the person who's impoverished, rather than as a result of their crappy policies!
I agree that it's pretty disgusting how McShane has been hung out to dry, because he's Labour, and yet Laws has got away with a much more serious offence.
Laws is a total creep and a liar. It was him who deliberately misrepresented Liam Byrne's admitted rather stupid joke note about there being 'no money left'.
Of course there's money left. It's just the extremely rich now have so much more of it, siphoning it off into their off-shore bank accounts.
over the coming years you will see this country align itself with china and the politics of all political party's will be one of a mixture of BNP/FASCIST/COMMUNISM/EXTREME CONSERVATIONISM with not a labour policy in sight so we will all have to be very careful and that includes me
Adolf Hitler seemed an unlikely leader yet was once loved by millions. How was this possible, and what role did Hitler's alleged 'charisma' play in his success?
on bbc 2 very subliminal
makes you think having watched the first episode last week
david cameron and co and boris there very charismatic makes you think what's really on their mind for some
Nicky it was exactly the same with Goldman Sachs and the Tory involvement, GS actually made money out of their own clients misery using their details - shocking and nothing seems to have been done about it!
Did you see that lot mainly Tories on Dispatched tonight?
At least MacShane used his money for the good, unlike Laws. He is despicable.
Mark my words he'll be back into the cabinet before long, such arrogance!
Nick, I don't think there is much difference between IDS and Hitler!
indeed Gracie it's hard to believe. On the outside IDS looks quite normal but the reality is his thinking putting undue stress on the sick and disabled to return to work leaving them at best in a very bad mental state of mind and at worst their death and for their grieving families untold misery ahead
It's also hard to believe that out of 650 or so mp's not one of them has resigned in protest or one of the governments lawyers hasn't spoken to David Cameron about how many people are dying through the welfare reform process and that has got to stop and soon before it gets out of hand
What i would like to know Gracie more then anything else is where will it end and how many have to die in the process ?
Yesterday IDS was on BBC Question Time, they spent virtually the whole programme talking about women bishops and Gaza. Why have IDS on the programme and hardly touch on what he is doing? Totally ridiculous, if it were not for Owen Jones on the panel IDS would have got away with it entirely.What the hell is that programme for? At the end of the day it's just another Labour bashing, Tory mouthpiece!
IDS got away very lucky that the program run out of time but hopefully next time another member of the panel will be able to get all of the deaths across for IDS to answer
One of the public in the audience should have got this question in much quicker
(why have hundreds of benefit claimants died shortly after they have been told there fit for work)
it's a very straight forward simple question ? and an answer should be forthcoming as we the public IE the sick and disabled are very frightened as to what's going on behind closed doors and in private
In fact in my book it's the most serious question ever to be asked in politics the deaths of the most vulnerable.
VERY ALARMING and it's about time that question was asked by every mp/police force across the land
if i was a mp there would have been no deaths whatsoever with this welfare reform process so it DOES matter that only mp's who have a high regard for others safety be allowed to be in the house of commons
any policy that the government make irrespective of it's nature should have the safety of the public first and four most in mind and if mp's don't have the ability to do this then they can always go and work abroad in countries like Syria etc where the standard of politics doesn't matter much to the disgust of it's people
It is a very straight forward question pity Iain Duncan-Smith decided not to answer it, but he did not like Owen Jones naming people. I note not one paper picked up that IDS was heckled and what about. Instead of ignoring her and due to the brevity of the question David Dimbleby should have got a mike to that lady so she could speak properly, she was desperate and had sat quiet all night and knew her chance was slipping away. Very badly run programme and typical BBC right wing bias!
Post a Comment