http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm

£40 f'in grand.................he should be in prison.

"Mark Opolo" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm

£40 f'in grand.................he should be in prison.

"Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses -
for example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social
lives"

Um, so do lots of married couples. Hardly convincing is it!

tim

In message , tim....
writes

"Mark Opolo" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm

£40 f'in grand.................he should be in prison.

"Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses -
for example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social
lives"

Um, so do lots of married couples. Hardly convincing is it!

tim

I can't wait for the next editions of Private Eye, News Quiz, HIGNFY
etc...
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:23:14 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:


"Mark Opolo" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm

£40 f'in grand.................he should be in prison.

"Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses -
for example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social
lives"

Um, so do lots of married couples. Hardly convincing is it!

tim


Cabinet and Liberal Democrat colleagues have been quick to describe
him as an "honourable man"

It just shows what low moral values most politicians have.

Was Laws really making decisions that could affect us all? Many
politicians are openly gay. If he wanted to keep it a secret it's not
very wise to live with another gay man. Even more silly to claim
expenses that broke the rules.

"Peter Saxton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:23:14 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:


"Mark Opolo" wrote in message
.. .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8712383.stm

£40 f'in grand.................he should be in prison.

"Although we were living together we did not treat each other as spouses -
for example we do not share bank accounts and indeed have separate social
lives"

Um, so do lots of married couples. Hardly convincing is it!

tim


Cabinet and Liberal Democrat colleagues have been quick to describe
him as an "honourable man"

It just shows what low moral values most politicians have.

Was Laws really making decisions that could affect us all?

No. He was just the messenger. Others are making the critical decisions.
(and that's not a political comment. It would be true whoever was doing his
job).

tim

On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:30:54 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:

Was Laws really making decisions that could affect us all?

No. He was just the messenger. Others are making the critical decisions.
(and that's not a political comment. It would be true whoever was doing his
job).


We elect these clowns for their judgment, and the fact he didn't even
think of checking whether this was allowable was a misjudgment of
colossal proportions.
If he was ashamed of his perversion it'd have been far less publicised
if he'd done things properly through the claims office or whatever
it's called.

I just hate it when people like David Laws get away with such things, however, if a common man does it, he gets heavily scrutinized. I hope they take sever action against him, this is just not right.