Oh...
...so he only put the tip in instead of pushing it all in balls-deep then?

That's good to know.

I find it completely reprehensible that these cocksuckers (ha!) can claim £40K in questionable 'living expenses' and I can't even get £40 a week when I need help because my partner works more than 25 hours per week.

But as long as you think that it's a "non-story", that's ok.
(god_is_a_ghoti Carpe Deum., Fri 4 Jun 2010, 15:22, 1 reply)

Let's take an analogy
Say there's a big news story about a footballer being hired on a £300,000 a year contract - that's a LOT of money that he doesn't deserve, but it's _comparatively_ little in his business.

I agree David Laws shouldn't have made the claims he did, but I disagree that those claims are somehow worse than any of the MPs claiming 2nd homes within the rules currently.
( Ungersven would support SpankyHanky's patreon, Sat 5 Jun 2010, 11:44, closed)

That's a facile analogy...
...because the footballer's £300K wouldn't come from the taxpayer...

And I don't think that David Laws is any worse than any of the rest - they're all thieving bastards in my eyes - but Laws was the current scandal and I thought that it might be more relevant to parody him for the QOTW rather than someone else.

Nowhere did I imply that he was any more unethical than the rest.

Just because claiming vast amounts of money at the expense of the taxpayer is allowed under the current rules, that does not make it any less heinous.
(god_is_a_ghoti Carpe Deum., Wed 9 Jun 2010, 9:25, closed)