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

I expect to see his sexuality being used to deflect a lot of criticism here...

how was this missed when all the information in regard to expenses was not only exposed by the telegraph but released (in part mainly black) under the f.o.i act

as clever as he is and a person i have a lot of time for, he should still resign …

I have just heard the interview on this mornings Today show on radio 4 and the guest was going on about how much this was a saving to the tax payer, and even denied that this was even a partnership. They lived together, slept together, even though they kept private accounts and separate private lives, liek many cohabiting couples. The benefits agency would regard that as a partnership so how come MP's cannot recognise that, even when they tell the benefits agency the definition of a partnership!

unless he was paying him in the function of a 'rent' boy …

How did I miss such an obvious joke?

Yes but which one is the 'rent' boy? I guess that the flat share was arranged on rentboy.com

I feel sorry for Laws really, he's been "outed" by front page news, I expect he feels horrible.

Still, this practice was banned since 2006, so he should have found somewhere else if he wanted to maintain the secrecy after the rules changed (ie. not claim as a "couple").

That said, Britain has lost a Treasury Minister with a double first in Economics, if anyone is qualified to work at the Treasury...

I have absolutely no interest in his sexuality. It is a private matter. Though as far as his post is concerned. He should resign as a matter of honour. Though he should return as soon as possible, after the tribunal looks into his case he should be allowed to make a speedy return.

He's out (snigger ):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10191524.stm

I could tell whether you were commenting about 1) him being gay. 2) thrown out if the relationship 3) out of the cabinet 4) Out of ketchup 5) Or had been knocked out.

I hope that he gets back into cabinet soon as possible. He went well before the proverbial had started flying about. That is a lot better than most ministers in the past. This was badly handled by him, but at least he is paying back the money and that should put a line under the affair.

You will forgive me, the fraudulent claim for expenses is not a crime?
I am of the opinion that, had I committed the faux pas, I would be in front of the magistrates at the least.
I cannot condone intelligent, educated people taking advantage of taxpayers money in such a way.

I will accept that. If it were a benefit claimant he would he been read his rights by now, and been charged. If he wanted to keep his private life private he should not have claimed expenses. It is not as if he does not earn enough. Most people on his salary have to pay for it out of their own salary.

Criminal charges may well follow the outcome of the investigation by the Parliamentary Standards body, although whether he intended to defraud the system will be what stops a prosecution.

If he wanted to keep his private life out of the public domain he could have not claimed household expenses. He is already a millionaire so never needed to claim them in the first place. So why claim unless he was after the money?

He didn't benefit from the arrangement. In fact, originally the other guy was just his landlord, they only became involved afterwards. Although I agree that once that relationship was there he should have stopped claiming, or changed residence.