David Laws has claimed £40,000 in expenses for a room in his partner's house. His says his reason for doing this, despite the fact that MPs are not allowed to lease accommodation from a partner, was "not to maximise profit but to simply protect our privacy and my wish not to reveal my sexuality."

Paul Elgood concurs with this:
"It seems he did what he did to protect his own privacy, and the choice to remain private on matters of sexuality is equally as important as the right to express these matters publicly without fear."

But, unless I'm missing something, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr Laws and Mr Elgood seem to think that if he hadn't submitted a claim for £40,000 his homosexuality would have been revealed. But how? It would presumably take someone from the Parliamentary Expenses office to remember that of all the thousands of claims they deal with Mr Laws hadn't submitted one for rent. This hypothetical officer would then have to somehow know that Mr Laws did in fact live with another man. He would then have to assume that this meant they were lovers as opposed to the man not charging rent for any number of perfectly legitimate reasons.

And even if the above did happen it wouldn't make any difference anyway because, according to The Guardian, "Mr Laws's sexuality had been widely known in Westminster."  

Could Mr Elgood please explain how not submitting a claim for rent  - in the unlikely event of this fact being noticed - is in itself evidence of a homosexual relationship?