Donate SIGN UP


1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

He must have known that his fees were too high.  But no, he tried to claim them back.

Being a dishonest politician is one thing, but he was stupid to think he could get away with it.

This was in the news ages ago.

News of him quiting was in the news before he quit?

Have they no shame?!

children are expensive

They are jno, as is football !

In no particular order, he should be fired for -

Misuse of government equipment

Claiming the money on expenses 

Lying about misuse of government equipment 

Lying about falsely claimed expenses 

Teaching  his children that Lying five times is OK.

ANDY, as the report of the investigation is yet to be published, you are speculating and you have listed only four, alleged "lies", not five.

No report is required. All of AH's points can be gleaned from the man's own actions and statements. Except the last one perhaps. Not sure where that came from.

douglas9401, if there's "Nothing To See Here" why have you bothered posting it?

Maggiebee-because some will want to join in the conversation...  just as you have done.

So you would have a look Maggiebee🤣


Corby - My late-night maths might be a little bit  off, but my conclusions, as advised, are drawn from the actions of the minister, as reported. 

I'm not sure why an 'investigation' is required. 

"Resisting calls to resign, Mr Matheson admitted that the issue "could have been dealt with better" but said his initial denial that anyone else had used the device was a "genuine attempt" to try to shield his family"


So it wasn't a case of him not realising his sons had used the ipad, it was a deliberate lie to cover it up.  No doubt he has been told the outcome of the investigation and has jumped before he was pushed.

"my conclusions, as advised, are drawn from the actions of the minister, as reported. 

my conclusions, as advised, are drawn from the actions of the minister, as reported. 

I'm not sure why an 'investigation' is required."

Is everything you read or hear in the media correct?

If allegations are disputed, how would the facts be established without being investigated?


Corby - By no means is everything in the media correct, nor did I infer that it is.

The ex-minister does not appear to dispute the facts as reported - if he had, he would still be the minister, protesting is innocence, and suing any media outlet maligning his reputation. 

None of that has happened. 

He has paid back the money he falsely claimed, and resigned.

I see no need for an investigation, but I am sure the reasons will be made clear.

I would suggest, with high confidence, that any investigation is not going to find that the minister has been maligned in any way, or that his resignation was not necessary or appropriate. 

The electorate are a bit funny about their representatives cheating them, and lying about it, they're just old-fashioned that way.

1 to 17 of 17rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Nothing To See Here

Answer Question >>