In defence of David Laws

David Laws should not have resigned as he is a valuable minister. But how about paying interest on the money he has repaid Which as a banker, he knows any loann has to be paid for by any borrower.

Sorry but I don't buy this stuff about Laws wanting to keep his relationship secret.If he'd wanted to do that he could have just paid for the room himself.He is not exactly short of a penny.

For David Laws this is a completely self-inflicted wound. It has nothing to do with his sexuality, he was paying rent to his landlord who was also his partner. There is nothing open to interpretation as he puts it in typical legalise. I am saddened that such an apparently bright man has left his job at a time when the country needs him most. If he wanted to keep his relationship secret, which I believe is something of an insult to his partner of ten years, then he should not have claimed anything or simply bought a second home in his own name in London and claimed the mortgage. The whole affair really shows a staggering lack of judgement and character from someone who really should know better. Is he really so ashamed of his sexuality? that really is something of an insult to the rest of us, that he would not want to be identified as being gay. I am 54 years old now and came out 27 years ago. It was one of the most difficult but rewarding things I have done. By the age of 27 I felt such a pressure from living a double life seperate from my family and colleagues that it forced me to act, and I thought I was a late developer.

First point. Whilst society, it is claimed, is far more open minded about gay issues or, indeed, does not give a damn - we do not know David Laws' extended family's attitudes. Just maybe there are elderly relatives who will not be comfortable with this news. That is their right, is it not?OK he is now outed - so he can both repay what he got and then indent for the true amount, if partnership it is and was in terms of spousal relationship. I have a funny feeling that that would be far more. Equipping the whole set up would have to be added in.The argument that he can 'afford' it opens too many questionable doors and those lefties shrieking this should bear in mind that many PPC's could never afford to stand if that became a precedent that they cover their own costs.The idea of a basic rate for all, as for MEP's, is by far the most sensible way to go.Do we really want to demand that sexuality and quirks become a necessary part of CV's for PPC's? It will be cctv set ups in MP's houses next. 'In the public interest' of course! As a society we have become far too salacious and the media is loving every minute of it.I am ashamed that I used to respect the BBC. Auntie has gone native it seems.I hope and pray he stays. We need him far more than he needs all of this grief.It is a shame that Cameron and Clegg have not expressed support.And we have lost him. Just making statement now.

There is a general principle: millionaires should not sponge off the state. Simple, isn't it?It just goes to show that Laws did not understand why people were so upset about the expenses scandal. It was simple: rich people should not be sponging off the state.The rest of the stuff about his privacy and his sexuality is just a diversion. He's a millionaire sponger who will cut the benefits of vulnerable people. He should be ashamed of his money grabbing behaviour.

'Living as the spouse or civil partner' of someone has a well-defined meaning in English law: the relationship must have 'a commitment to permanence and the relationship must be an emotional one of mutual lifetime commitment, openly and unequivocally displayed to the outside world'. (per Evans-Lombe J in Southern Housing Group v Nutting [2005] FLR 1066).In no sense was Mr Laws' relationship mutually agreed to be permanent or openly acknowledged. He therefore was quite correct that the rules did not apply to him. Of course, he was paying public money to a landlord whom he had a sexual relationship with, but as he would have been entitled to claim rent anyway it's hardly fraud on the taxpayer. Indeed, had he declared the relationship, Laws could have obtained public money to pay the mortgage.

Surely if protecting his privacy was his main objective the best thing to do was to *not* claim any expenses for his rooms in his partners house. Laws is a former city banker who made enough money to retire by the time he was 28, he didn't need the money!!!The most damning issue though is his claiming of abnormally high utility bills before he had to provide receipts. His bills dropped massively once rules about receipts were tightened.

Has anyone thought that the 'rent' is a lot less than the mortage He could have claimed, if He declared His relationship

'the paper points out they intended to run the story but not reveal Laws' sexuality'Hm, I call BS on this. Running the story and conspicuously avoiding the use of a pronoun to designate the other person in the case would amount to the same thing.

I completely agree with the majority of this article. It is horribly sad that David Laws hasn't felt able to share such a large part of himself with his family and friends. I also completely understand a politician's desire for a private life - and David Laws sexuality isn't and shouldn't be the issue. However, he has wrongly paid his partner �40,000 of public money, which is something that even the lax rules at the time prohibited. He is paying back the money and has apologised, which is an indication that David Laws recognises that this was wrong.A defence on the basis of the definition of the word partner - is incredibly weak and i don't think he can claim to be a particularly brilliant man if this is the best he and his supporters can come up with.But further than that, given the coalition governments desire to reduce public spending and their desire to lead by example - ministers took a pay cut and gave up their cars - his credibility has clearly been damaged. How can David Laws wield the axe and ask the public to pay more in tax whilst services they rely on are cut when he, to give him the benefit of the doubt, claimed public money in error. However, one could also argue that this might be fraud and that there should be a full criminal investigation.It also shows that the coalition's claim of a 'new politics' is empty and hollow. And it shows that the Liberal Democrats despite their claims otherwise during the general election campaign, are no better than either of the other parties.I am also concerned that the Telegraph has only revealed this now, after the election - as i am sure his expenses claims are something that his constituents would have liked to consider when making their choice on May 6th. David Laws should stand aside while this is investigated by the commissioner for standards and the police.

MPs should be paid a flat rate to cover accommodation away from home (as MEPs are). Then it wouldn't matter whether they used an hotel, or rented a flat, or bought a house on a mortgage, or stayed with a family member. None of our business. Nor would their personal relationship with their landlord be an issue.

Laws is a total hypocrite - read thishttp://www.yeovil-libdems.org.uk/news/press/1305.htmAs to the claims - he could have just told his family he was claiming - he didn't actually have to. Are you seriously suggesting his mum goes through his bank statements?? This is a total red herring - he's a cheap con-artist.

Whilst these heart-felt sentiments are true it is a sad fact that Mr Laws has deliberately flouted the rules on parliamentary expenses and sought to keep that fact secret. Did he seriously expect not to be found out? If so, his judgment must be called into question. Surely, in the circumstances, he should act honourably and resign as a Minister of the Crown? If not, then regrettably, his services must be dispensed with straightaway.It does Mr Cameron no credit to know that, whilst benefit claimants are being jailed for continuing to claim rent from the public purse whilst living with their boyfriends, one of his ministers is making the same claims in respect of his parliamentary expenses.

Fair enough. But would he please pay back the money? He is a millionaire afterall, his secret is out now and it would be the least he could do to give us the money back. It would surely make people think better of him than if he didn't.

He paid nealry �250 a week for rent in London which is quite reasonable. We need his intellect and we need 'The House' to show that his sexuality is accepted and he is measured by his competency in his job. This is not a Duck house or a Moat, it is a fair rent and I don't care what his relationship is with his landlord, but I do care what his outputs are to his constituency and his country. Pay back the money if you see fit, but get on with the job David and DO NOT RESIGN!

know what - If it is found he was cohabiting with a 'partner' then perhaps the relevant authority should pay him for half of the mortgage, and other expenses that he did not claim. WIth many MP;s (including the PM) claiming over 23000 a year on mortgage claims for their second homes that would be only fair and equitable. I am sure that this would come out to much more than he claimed.

Stop this special pleading. He has broken the expenses rules. I'm sorry he is so uptight about his sexuality. The truth is for a man in his position there is no need to be so fearful. I want all gay people to have full legal equality on every issue. Laws must accept this means his expenses claim was wrong.How demeaning to his partner and to all relationships to try and claim that a partner of ten years is not a spouse. It's just bizarre and sadly ridiculous. I am truely sorry for Laws but he is the master of his own misfortune.

I hope Mr Laws loses his job. I want him to lose his job because he had the chance to pay back the money twelve months before the election without the world knowing he was gay, he chose to ride his luck and got captured. Honesty about his sexuality is his choice and always has been. If he wanted to cover up being a gay man so much he would not have 'risked' taking taxpayers money to pay towards his gay lover/partner rented abode. If he keeps his position it will be like giving every child the excuse that your sexuality can cover every dishonest move you are going to make! NO THANK YOU, take away excuses and bring back honesty and consequences. The consequence for taking money out of line with the rules for David Laws is...?

What a great article, and completely in line with what I'm thinking (and re-living!). However, I don't think in the mainstream press will let it go. I think he's an excellent politician, and hope he can stay and do good things for the nation, and hopefully (as you say) get on and enjoy he new found (albeit enforced) freedom.

This is nothing whatsover to do with homosexuality - that is a complete smokescreen.The issue is that Mr Laws paid someone �40,000 of taxpayers money - ostensibly for rent on a room - when in fact they were co-habiting partners.

What do you think would happen if someone claimed HB and it was found the 'landlord' was their partner?

This is such a lame excuse and to be honest I think it is really low of Mr Laws to play the gay-card. I have no interest in his sexuality, that is his business.However, I think it's a bit much that Laws has the audacity to inflict swingeing cuts to public services (costing thousands of jobs) while he is, and has been, lining his secret lovers' pocket with �40k of taxpayers money he has fraudulently claimed. After all Messrs Cameron and Clegg said about 'cleaner' politics during the election, there can be no place in this government for David Laws. He should be sacked [resignation is not good enough] and the matter of the �40k fraud referred to the police.