31 2 mins 11 yrs

When the headlines flashed up the news about David Laws, his ‘partner/spouse/mattress/bodily-fluids repository’ (delete where necessary) and his ‘expenses’. there was a strange sound all across the land. It was the sound of muffled shrieks of laughter. Those shrieks came from the three hundred odd ex-M.P.s who had been ‘stood down’ from their perks, politics and parasitical existences by the sharp wind of publicity. But the noise which was not noticed, mainly because it was well-concealed by the walls of No 10, Downing Street, was the sound of David Cameron going ballistic as he was told by ‘Our Nick’ that the second most senior of the Lib-Dems within the ConDom Cabinet had lied when asked the question “Is there anything in your past or present life which will bring big black headlines onto the Telegraph front page?”

The plain stupidity of this man, whom one of his ‘closest friends’ called ‘brilliantly able’ is now on display for all to see, as he has referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards bunch to see if anyone will back him in his present job.

The old, old reply that, ‘he thought it was within the rules’ just won’t wash this time, mainly because he is supposed to be one of those saintly guys who went into politics because he ‘wished to serve’. Serve himself more likely! This bloke is supposed to be INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY,  so how does he square that with charging the taxpayer tens of thousands for the privilege of letting him sit in Parliament?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

31 thoughts on “the wrong answer

  1. Mike,

    "David Laws, his ‘partner/spouse/mattress/bodily-fluids repository"

    Please don’t pussyfoot about the issue. Do make your true homophobic feelings known. We’re grown-ups. We won’t think the less of you.

  2. Rabbi, given your muslim sympathies, would you object if Laws’ case were subjected to sharia law? What would be the outcome?

  3. Allan,

    Whatever gave you the idea I have "muslim sympathies"? I’m an atheist for god’s sake.

    And do stick to the subject, there’s a good chap.

  4. In days of yore, when honesty and integrity had some small, but recognisabe foothold among civilised folk, it was taken for granted that it wasn’t just the ‘letter of the law’ that was to be followed, but also the ‘spirit of the law!’, it was a kind of ‘back-stop’ to stop the smart Alec’s and the would-be shysters that always abound.

    This was backed up by judgemental decisions that accepted that tenet. It was accepted that no ‘man made’ law could cover every every instance and that the final arbiter should be a Judge. If that wasn’t the case, why is there any need to a Judge in the first place?

  5. Ernest,

    Those "days of yore" you allude to, did they occur before or after the British witch-trials of 1177 to 1717?

  6. Even if he stumbled into this situation inadvertently, the highly public expenses scandal would have alerted him to the fact he was on shaky legal, moral and political ground and should have done something about it then. That he did not indicates a deliberate decision to continue to milk the system and possible bend or break the rules.

  7. It’s quite simple, Rabbi. Whenever an item appears which illustrates the evil inherent to islam, you jump to its defence by launching diversionary attacks against Christianity. You raised "homophobic feelings" so I’m just linking real gay-hatred with one of your preferred doctrines and asking how the two are reconcilable, that’s all.

  8. Laws has resigned from the government. That ought to make the homophobes defenders of standards in public life truly happy.

  9. Mike,
    I’m sure you’ll say : DV and ATW has openened your eyes
    But I say: you were a much better bloke 3 yrs ago

  10. Peter, do you believe that Laws should not have lost his job because he is gay?

  11. Peter,

    He resigned because of his embarrassment, at being found out, and given that he couldn’t see that he had done any wrong ove his expenses, it could well be that he was embarrassed by his sexual orientation being made public…

  12. Allan

    Laws was right to resign.

    Ernest

    Laws has admitted in his resignation statement that what he did was wrong, which is also why he has repaid the money.

  13. Allan,

    "It’s quite simple, Rabbi. Whenever an item appears which illustrates the evil inherent to islam, you jump to its defence by launching diversionary attacks against Christianity."

    Er, no, it’s not quite that simple. Whenever an item appears which illustrates the general ATW islamophobic/racist/homophobic/obamaphobic (have I omitted one or two?) mindset, then I will challenge it.

    I treat ALL religions with the contempt they deserve.

  14. Did I have a comment on this thread deleted, or not posted yet, or have i had too much merlot?

  15. . Whenever an item appears which illustrates the general ATW islamophobic/racist/homophobic/obamaphobic (have I omitted one or two?) mindset, then I will challenge it.
    Well done for doing it. I tried doing it for a while, but gave up as a lost cause.
    I find this a useful place – and the Daily Mail comments as well – because it reminds me that people exist who hold these reactionary views. And it reminds me why I am proud to have re-joined an organisation that exists to fight against them and their kind.

  16. RS,

    No comment from yourself has been censored by me. As to your consumption of Merlot, all I would say is that perhaps you should try Cabernet Sauvignon, as it has less effect on memory, especially DRAM.

    jo,

    If I have in any way offended you, and you in particular, I feel that my work has been done, and done well!

  17. Mike,

    "If I have in any way offended you [Jo], and you in particular, I feel that my work has been done, and done well!"

    In fact you offended all those who have a sense of decency. Well done. Posts such as yours probably prevented David Vance from being elected. It is a truism that a chap is known by the company he keeps.

    Jaz,

    "I tried doing it for a while, but gave up as a lost cause."

    It’s never a lost cause. To quote that old Irish fart Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

  18. On the post of Saturday, May 29th, 09.25 – ‘Religion of peace which is in no way a pathology’ and which highlights islam’s murderous doctrine, there is posted:

    <<Ah, nostalgia! It seems only yesterday that Christians and Jews were doing it for themselves.

    Could one consider Judaism to be a pathology?

    Saturday, May 29, 2010 at 01:21PM | Rabbi Burns>>

    I wrote of Rabbi Burns –
    <<It’s quite simple, Rabbi. Whenever an item appears which illustrates the evil inherent to islam, you jump to its defence by launching diversionary attacks against Christianity.>>

    Islam is evil because its founder, as seen by the deeds and text attributable to him, was evil. Christianity is not evil because Christ was not evil – but Chrisitianity has become perverted by the bad inherent in man as is evidenced by the sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church is not evil. The Catholic Church would not have David Laws put to death because he is gay, but islam would have him murdered as happens in muslim countries. Rabbi does not mention this because he is a defender of islam.

  19. Rabbi
    I agree with that – but I rejoined the Labour party instead and through that fight against the views so freely expressed here. Fortunately such views are literally dying out so history is – as it always is – on the right side. But I find ATW a useful reminder of pretty much everything I oppose – and every now and then (and it really is every now and then) one of the usual suspects says something surprising, or interesting that throws up a new way of looking at something.
    Funny that when Teresa May made her comment about the "Nasty party" she was decried – and then you get comments like that at 09:08AM by Mike Cunningham.
    Seems she was right.

  20. Christianity is not evil because Christ was not evil

    According to most Christians, Christ and the God of the old testament are one and the same.

    Please open your bible to 2 Kings, 2:23-24.

    23: And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
    24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

    One of many instances of pointless mass murder and genocide in the Bible. Christ didn’t comment unfavorably on any of it and according to the Bible it will be just like that with knobs on when he returns.

    Luckily he is running late.

  21. Allan,

    "Christianity is not evil because Christ was not evil"

    Who told you that? Evidence, please.

    "Rabbi does not mention this because he is a defender of islam."

    Presumably you’re referring to a different "Rabbi" and not the one who commented above: "I treat ALL religions with the contempt they deserve."

    Jaz,

    Know what you mean but I don’t know about Ms May:

    THE home secretary, Theresa May, is facing a stiff test of the Conservative party’s claims to oppose radical Islam after her officials chose to allow a misogynist Muslim preacher into Britain.

    Zakir Naik, an Indian televangelist described as a “hate-monger” by moderate Muslims and one Tory MP, says western women make themselves “more susceptible to rape” by wearing revealing clothing.

  22. "…Christ was not evil…" I made up my own mind just as I made up my own mind that muhamad was evil. Once again, Rabbi, all your barbs are against Christianity. Why not say something about muhamad such as acknowledging that he was a paedophile. The rape and mass murder can be dealt with on other threads.
    As for Frank’s theology, I don’t consider Christ to be the son of God: I’m agnostic. I consider Christ to have wisdom and decency.

  23. Allan,

    "Once again, Rabbi, all your barbs are against Christianity."

    I know. Even this one: "It seems only yesterday that Christians and Jews were doing it for themselves."

    "Why not say something about muhamad such as acknowledging that he was a paedophile."

    He was? And your evidence is… ?

  24. Rabbi, he consumated a marriage with a 9-year-old girl: that is fact. Muhamad was a paedophile.

  25. Allan,

    "Rabbi, he consumated a marriage with a 9-year-old girl: that is fact."

    You’ve seen the marriage cert then have you? Or are you relying on oral tales written down two centuries after Mo’s death?

  26. Rabbi, he consumated a marriage with a 9-year-old girl: that is fact. Muhamad was a paedophile.

    Wasn’t Mary supposed to be 12 to 14 when she married Joseph, and he was in his 90s. Would that make Joseph a paedophile as well.

  27. "Wasn’t Mary supposed to be 14 or 15 when she married Joseph, and he was in his 90s. Would that make Joseph a paedophile as well."

    Well we Christians would argue that he never consumated that marriage but yeah, Mary would have been in her early teens and Joseph was a much older man. You can’t, in my opinion, judge historical unions by modern standards or many, many people, including the majority of Kings of England etc, would be declared paedophiles.

  28. You can’t, in my opinion, judge historical unions by modern standards or many, many people, including the majority of Kings of England etc, would be declared paedophiles.

    True.. true..

  29. Seamus,

    "You can’t, in my opinion, judge historical unions by modern standards"

    Mary and Joseph were hardly historical figures. Those aren’t even the proper names of the mythical figures you allude to.

    My point was that it’s well-nigh impossible to decide what’s true and false in ancient stories handed down by dubious commentators.

Comments are closed.