The alacrity with which the BBC has seized on the news concerning David Laws expenses claims contrasts with its relative insouciance towards the activities of some of Labour’s hierarchy. Then again, since the BBC has a clear  objective of splitting the Coalition, this is perhaps not so surprising.

Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to BBC 1 COALITION 0

  1. fred bloggs says:

    Humphries was in full flow, not accepting the £40k over 8 years was very small compared to what he could have claimed.  English law runs on the basic principle what was the persons intent.  Humphries was after a scalp at any price.


  2. Stuart says:

    Yes I was sickened by the interview at the end of Radio 4’s Today program where I heard one of the editors proclaim that the guy, amongst other things, should resign immediately – I found it very biased and negative. When will the BBC realise that it is there to report facts not its own opinions. They seem to think they matter more than the parliamentary standards committee who are dealing with it right now.


  3. John Anderson says:

    The Today prog in full witch-hunt flow this morning.  The Lib colleague stood up fairly well against the arrogant and unctious bluster by John Humphrys,  who seemed to be purporting to be “the conscience of the nation”.

    They ended with talking to Matthew Ancona who felt it is imperative for Laws to resign.  I wonder if they chose Ancona rather than other political writers who might take a different view.

    The BBC seems to be in a rush to judgment – when the facts are not even clear yet.   That is if they ever can be clear if there is ambiguity about the rules.

    Is there honour among thieves ?   I wonder if some senior and decent Labour figure could speak out on Laws’ behalf – “Stop hounding the man,  let due process take place,  then let’s decide”.

    Cos’ right now it does not look to me as if Laws set out with “intent” – mens rea – to defraud us something rotten.


  4. Martin says:

    I wonder what sort of expenses beeboids will be running up in South Africa? How much is a line of coke out there or a good firm rent boy I wonder?


  5. NRG says:

    Laws is the author of his own misfortune – a very lib dem way of crashing and burning.
    Still the comparision with the way the Beeboid marxist scum tip toed around Labour trough snufflers is incredible.


    • Backwoodsman says:

      I agree with you – pretty sickening faux outrage from humphries, having tiptoed round every issue of labour malfeasence for a dozen years.
      Where was this burning sense of righteous indignation when labour were laying waste to the public finances ?


  6. Natsman says:

    Much as I loathe the smarmy, biased left wing BBC, you can hardly blame them, can you?  When handed this tasty morsel on a plate, they’re hardly likely to ignore it.

    Personally, I think Laws should be sacked or resign immediately, however small his financial indiscretion may appear to be.

    He is in a position of importance, and is looked up to by the public for his financial acumen, and as a spokesman for how the coalition is going to proceed with their attempt to reduce the country’s debt.

    As a member of the voting public, I am horrified at the implications of this.  people in his position should be squeaky clean, particularly in view of the problems which have beset all parties recently, with their filching the public’s money to suit their own ends, and with the parlous state the last government left the country in.

    It’s bad news when yet another sleazy homosexual is outed with his own personal financial skeleton in the cupboard exposed.

    The public are going to think, “here we go again, you can’t trust ANY of them”, and they are right to think that.  This is the LAST thing the coalition needs at the moment.

    How stupid of the man to play right into the hands of the BBC (who are no doubt, rubbing their hands with glee at this unexpected gift), and the opposition who will use this to their advantage at each and every opportunity.

    Laws should go, now, if Cameron is to retain any sense of credibility.

    This shared government is only a couple of weeks old, and the old spectres are beginning to rear their ugly heads already.  No wonder nobody trusts a politician.

    I give it 12 months or less, before, regrettably, it all goes pear-shaped.


  7. sue says:

    The morals of this case are unclear. If David Laws is doing a vital job, should this override the undeniable sleaze element?

    The expenses scandal unseated many former MPs. Now we’re supposed to be in the hands of a new, cleansed government.

    And the truth is, that although a non-related landlord is allowed to profit from rent claimed by an MPs as expenses, a spouse or family member who happens to be a landlord certainly isn’t.

    He went to considerable lengths to conceal ‘his sexual orientation.’ In such a gay-friendly climate this seems odd. Am I allowed to say he even looks quite gay. Sorry.
    So if you’re claiming expenses for rent, it’s in your interest, but dishonest, to conceal that your landlord is your partner.

    This anomaly exists in ordinary property rental situations. Where a landlord happens to be a close relative of a tenant who is claiming housing benefit, even if that landlord normally accepts rent from a non-related benefit claiming tenant, it’s not allowed, or there has to be proof that it was already an established business beforehand. 
    I’m not sure if that restriction still operates, but it used to.

    It’s a bit mad, because if two landlords ‘swopped’ tenants everything would be legal. OTOH if your spouse said come and live with me and we’ll claim expenses for what we’d do anyway, it’s a cheat.
    The underlying greed in claiming all possible expenses is unsavoury, and that’s what we don’t like. I thought John Humphrys did a reasonable job, though I say it through gritted teeth.


  8. cjhartnett says:

    Going of at a tangent here I know…but how come the “mature student” accused of murdering those women up in Bradford is no longer referred to as a criminology PhD-in -the -making?
    Have the Beeb been warned off from any further mention of this,given the stranglehold that these types get to exert on police and penal policy? Got to be suspicious of such types eh?
    On second thoughts,as we see with Laws: the Beeb are “scared off “by nothing…they seem to think that they ARE the law and the conscience of the nation rolled up into one spliff!


    • Jack Bauer says:

      Have the Beeb been warned off from any further mention of this,given the stranglehold that these types (criminologists, et al) get to exert on police and penal policy?

      You mean the way paedophiles gravitate to professions that give them access to kids, sociopaths gravitate to position that allow them to set crime policy?

      That explains the ever growing laxity of our sentencing policies!

      The Fox is in charge of the hens!


  9. Martin says:

    Anyone here ever read any Lib Dem blogs? I just wonder if they are changing their views of the BBC now they are getting a good kicking off the BBC.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      No, they all think Law shouldn’t resign as he’s done nothing wrong, and are angry at the homophobic, Conservative-supporting Telegraph, which has always hated the coalition.


      • All Seeing Eye says:

        The Telegraph hasn’t been “Conservative-supporting” in the old sense since the Barclay brothers took it over.

        It is right-of-centre. There is an important difference.


  10. Erik Morales says:

    The news reporting the news, imagine that!

    Of course, I appreciate you’d prefer if the BBC kept the David Laws story quiet. Move along now, nothing to see, isnt that your tired refrain?


    • Jack Bauer says:

      Erik Morales  
      The news reporting the news, imagine that!  

      You seriously believe that? That all the BBC does is “report” the “news”? And that’s it? 

      How easily manipulated are you? I guess you don’t know.  But we do.


    • matthew rowe says:

      Nope it should be news nice and balanced news as they always do [ 😉 ].
      But you are forgetting the beeb is paying mp’s and labour spinners  to front/appear on progames, who also have bent and broken the rules! but the beeb remains silent on those as they are the right shade of red ! hypocrites to a man !.


  11. Millie Tant says:

    I don’t listen to the grandiose Humphrys so I can’t comment on that but I see the BBC website is rather more muted than outraged:

    The headline they have opted for is “Minister apologises…” rather than something along the lines of, say,”Minister’s dodgy expenses claim exposed” and the article is largely quoting what he himself has said about his financial claims and “Secret life”, ending with a quote about people’s attitude to homosexuality when he was growing up.

    An article about MPs’ expenses without any mention of duck-ponds…hm… is that a first for the BBC?

    And it doesn’t tell you that he is one of those rich and privileged toffs who went to private school, followed by Oxbridge and investment banking, Hah! Maybe it doesn’t count if you’re not a Tory.


  12. John Anderson says:

    Maybe 1 penny a week would have been sleaze.

    But if there is genuine ambiguity about the rules – the weekly amount he was paying for accommodation close in to central London sounds very economical. 

    It seems it all depends on defining “spouse” ?   But a lot of gays seem to have a very open rather than restricted view of their mutual relationships.  At one end of the continuum there is utter promiscuousness,  at the other there is a one-on-one relationship that admits no others.  If he was somewhere in the middle of the continuum,  and he certainly claims to have had his own social circle separate from the other guy,  then their relationship would not be so closed as to call them “spouses”.

    “Events, dear boy”.


  13. Natsman says:

    Looks like he’s gone. Good. That situation couldn’t have been allowed to continue, he’s brought himself and the coalition into disrepute. Either he resigned, or Cameron should have sacked him instantly. Shame, that’s all they needed in the first couple of weeks of a government which showed some promise. Clearly, you can’t trust any of ’em. I wish Huhne would go, too, before he succeeds in destroying what little power generation capacity you have left, just as you’re going to need every possible Megawatt you can squeeze out of the delapidated, underfunded generation system – the idea of windmills saving you is a joke.


  14. MarkE says:

    I first heard about this on BBC news 24 while in a hotel room waiting for Mrs MarkE to finish her shower so we could go to dinner, so I wasn’t fully concentrating.  The question I wanted to ask but didn’t hear answered was whether Laws was a Conservative or LibDem.  Only later, when I noticed they were interviewing someone from a LibDem website did I guess, and I couldn’t confirm that until the following day.

    I look forward to seeing what happens when a Conservative misbehaves; will the BBC be as reticent?

    Politics being the game it is, Laws should have waited to allow Cameron to sack him rather than resigning. 

    All those political insiders saying he was a unique talent are being as hypocritical as usual; they always tell us one NHS docter or state school teacher et cetera is as good as the next, so surely one chief secretary to the Treasury is also as good as any other?