So here are four points her defenders need to answer:-
- The nanny’s latest statement (being distributed by CCHQ) matches almost word for word Spelman’s carefully drafted statement. Coincidence? All her own words? In Court that would be called “coaching the witness”, for obvious reasons judges don’t like it.
- If Spelman was doing nothing wrong, why did she stop the arrangement? If she later thought it wrong, why did she not pay back the money? Either it was proper and there was no need to stop the arrangement, or it was improper and she should have paid back the money.
- A lot of low income single mothers are jailed for fiddling benefits. A year’s salary for a nanny is a significant sum – circa £20,000 – more than a single mother gets on benefits. Why should this benefits fiddle at the taxpayer’s expense be treated differently? Why should a struggling single mother fiddling benefits go to jail, but a powerful, wealthy married mother doing the same be praised for her integrity?
- What kind of “constituency secretary” doesn’t type a single letter?
Answers in the comments please.