I agree with you, under the rules as they are, he ballsed it up. Personally, I think that in times of crisis it would be nice to be able to keep people who ballsed things up a few years ago, providing they are the right man for the job now.
But my main point is not about Laws, it's more about your statement:
"The trouble is that in relationship-politics there is a very grey area between a couple of dates, a quickie, a one-night stand, staying for the weekend, having a couple of draws for your clothes and full-blown shacked-up. It gets even more complicated if Laws had ended up bonking Mrs Hiscox, the landlady."
Just throw out the rule. Let people "pay themselves" (in fact, they are "half" paying themselves, because they are two people as a single economic unit).
In this particular case (or in the "is it a duck" case), I think that Laws was paying Lundie, and that Lundie was spending the money. Yes, they were partners, but no, Laws was not benefiting from the cash; Lundie was. Did Laws benefit economically indirectly? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the whole greyness of the area makes it a farce, I feel.
Re: Hard cases - bad law
Date: 2010-06-02 10:00 am (UTC)But my main point is not about Laws, it's more about your statement:
"The trouble is that in relationship-politics there is a very grey area between a couple of dates, a quickie, a one-night stand, staying for the weekend, having a couple of draws for your clothes and full-blown shacked-up. It gets even more complicated if Laws had ended up bonking Mrs Hiscox, the landlady."
Just throw out the rule. Let people "pay themselves" (in fact, they are "half" paying themselves, because they are two people as a single economic unit).
In this particular case (or in the "is it a duck" case), I think that Laws was paying Lundie, and that Lundie was spending the money. Yes, they were partners, but no, Laws was not benefiting from the cash; Lundie was. Did Laws benefit economically indirectly? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the whole greyness of the area makes it a farce, I feel.