web analytics


By ATWadmin On May 29th, 2010

Gosh. It’s so sad I’m in bits over the Laws business. The millionaire had to loot our pockets to keep his private life private, he says.

Such nobility, such sacrifice!

Aye, if only we could do likewise. Keep our private lives private, I mean, not steal from others under the violence of law.

Please excuse me, but at least as much as not telling on our sexuality, our privacies include the freedom to enjoy our possessions free from the grasping hand of government, eh Laws?

Here’s an idea, old man; give up your seat and rejoin civil society.


  1. "David Laws: "I cannot escape the conclusion that what I have done was in some way wrong"

    Some way??

  2. Oh dear.

    Laws has resigned from government and repaid the money. But it seems that is not enough. Maybe a public flogging?

    Rightworld has predictably moved into full vindictive gloat mode, which is much more in the comfort zone, but deeply unattractive.

  3. Oh me.

    If a bank robber is caught, you don’t just make him give back the money, you punish him. Otherwise, why not rob banks?

    It’s not gloating, it’s justice.

  4. By all means call me homophobic BUT. If an MP claimed £40,000 to hide the fact that he was keeping a mistress from his wife and the world at large, he would be torn to bits publicly – the red tops would have a field day. BUT. Because it is a ‘gay issue’ there is some form of sympathy for this THIEF. When will the CPS step in and prosecute? (Don’t hold your breath).

  5. Jimmy,

    "By all means call me homophobic BUT"

    Surely you mean "a homophobic BUTT".

  6. Thank you Rabid Bums – up to usual banal level.

  7. Jimmy,

    Glad I could make you smile. Humour is necessary in our hate-filled world.

  8. Peter: "Laws has resigned from government and repaid the money. But it seems that is not enough. Maybe a public flogging?"

    As Charles points out, the man dishonestly obtained £40000, which amounts to a couple of years living expenses for more than a few people I know, now he has admitted he had no right to the money, so effectively admitting he stole it.

    Because he is a millionaire and can pay it back, in my book makes the matter worse, WTF did he feel the need to steal from the tax payer in the first place.

    Why should he stay an MP?
    Why shouldn’t he be prosecuted for embezzlement?

  9. APL

    Would ou be in favour of prosecuting every tax dodger for embezzlement?

  10. Peter, tax dodgers are fined by HMRC. So why should Laws not be pursued as a fraudster?

  11. Peter: "Would ou be in favour of prosecuting every tax dodger for embezzlement?"

    Peter, you are such a clever fellow. There is a difference between:

    (1) Arranging your affairs in a legal manner to minimize your tax liability.
    (2) Using illegal or dishonest means to reduce the amount of tax you pay to the inland revenue.
    (3) Dipping you hand into the public finances and drawing out £40,000 ‘because you can’.

    And of course (3) stands as an offense that has nothing directly all to do with either (1) or (2).

    Your term ‘tax dodger’ has such loaded connotations that I will not answer within the terms you choose to frame your question.

    However in example:
    (1) I would say there is no need to prosecute.
    (2) There is a requirement to prosecute, indeed the Inland Revenue is obliged to do so.
    (3) There should be a prosecution not for tax avoidance* but for embezzlement.

    Now I have tried to answer your question, would you answer mine?

    With regard to prosecuting every tax dodge and in light of your perfectly legal right outlined in (1) above, do you choose to pay more tax than you are legally obliged to?

    If so, how much more do you voluntarily pay?

    As a percent of your legal maximum obligation do you choose to pay? I am not interested in finding out how much you earn just if you are volunteering to pay more tax than you need?

  12. APL – you have hit the nail on the proverbial nut.

    Do not allow people to confuse taxation with THEFT!