12 Lords a snorting

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

12 Lords a snorting

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Catfish Burgess Hill 27 Jul 15 8.06pm
Quote suicideatselhurst at 27 Jul 2015 1.45pm Quote Catfish at 27 Jul 2015 1.33pm That is the Bernie Eccelestone position isnt it? Private matter, gross intrusion, no public interest etc. Doesn't stack up. His position is that of one who is there to ensure high standards for people who are otherwise unaccountable, unelected and who have a collective history of lining their pockets for very little value that can be readily discerned. If his behaviour is deemed to be a private matter and therefore acceptable then it follows that anyone else in a public office can behave the same way. Would the Lords or MPs take that view if it was a senior police officer, teacher, civil servant etc on the front page of the Sun - of course not. Do you mean Max Mosley Cat ? Mon dieu! Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial
Alert a moderator to this post

Catfish

Burgess Hill 27 Jul 15 8.06pm

Quote suicideatselhurst at 27 Jul 2015 1.45pm

Quote Catfish at 27 Jul 2015 1.33pm

That is the Bernie Eccelestone position isnt it? Private matter, gross intrusion, no public interest etc.
Doesn't stack up. His position is that of one who is there to ensure high standards for people who are otherwise unaccountable, unelected and who have a collective history of lining their pockets for very little value that can be readily discerned.
If his behaviour is deemed to be a private matter and therefore acceptable then it follows that anyone else in a public office can behave the same way. Would the Lords or MPs take that view if it was a senior police officer, teacher, civil servant etc on the front page of the Sun - of course not.

Do you mean Max Mosley Cat ?

Mon dieu!

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 28 Jul 15 9.13am
Quote Harry Beever at 27 Jul 2015 5.33pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 4.41pm Quote Catfish at 27 Jul 2015 1.33pm That is the Bernie Eccelestone position isnt it? Private matter, gross intrusion, no public interest etc. Doesn't stack up. His position is that of one who is there to ensure high standards for people who are otherwise unaccountable, unelected and who have a collective history of lining their pockets for very little value that can be readily discerned. If his behaviour is deemed to be a private matter and therefore acceptable then it follows that anyone else in a public office can behave the same way. Would the Lords or MPs take that view if it was a senior police officer, teacher, civil servant etc on the front page of the Sun - of course not. We shouldn't give a s**t what people do or like in their spare time, if everyone is a willing participant (and capable of giving consent). Instead we've become a society that is leering through everyone curtains and clucking at anything we find offensive or different, but in reality are just too scared to do ourselves. But really its a form of moral superiority voyeurism. I think if he was a member of the general public you have a point Jamie. I think if you decide to go into a life of politics you need to accept the crap that comes with it. The reality is that you need to be whiter than white or at least lay bare your skeletons before you start your career hence all bar one of the labour leadership candidates being so eager to talk about taking drugs at university before the tabloids go digging. You or I snorting coke off a whore's tits is no big deal (though guessing it may impede your political future!) but when you have a responsibility for making the law of the land it's different. It shows recklessness and naivety even if he was set up. In your mind would it be ok for Cameron to be caught doing likewise? It's then a slippery slope to Bunga Bunga Berlusconi and look what s mess he made of things If you're doing it during working hours, at work or makes doing your job impossible etc then yes, otherwise what a man or woman chooses to do in their spare time, with other consenting adults, should be up to them. It serves no purpose for anyone to be driven out of work to feed the moral objections of the 'idiot classes' or the hypocritical mass medias bottom line. At the very least there should be criminal charges before someone ends up losing a job for something they did outside of work. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 28 Jul 15 9.13am

Quote Harry Beever at 27 Jul 2015 5.33pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 4.41pm

Quote Catfish at 27 Jul 2015 1.33pm

That is the Bernie Eccelestone position isnt it? Private matter, gross intrusion, no public interest etc.
Doesn't stack up. His position is that of one who is there to ensure high standards for people who are otherwise unaccountable, unelected and who have a collective history of lining their pockets for very little value that can be readily discerned.
If his behaviour is deemed to be a private matter and therefore acceptable then it follows that anyone else in a public office can behave the same way. Would the Lords or MPs take that view if it was a senior police officer, teacher, civil servant etc on the front page of the Sun - of course not.

We shouldn't give a s**t what people do or like in their spare time, if everyone is a willing participant (and capable of giving consent). Instead we've become a society that is leering through everyone curtains and clucking at anything we find offensive or different, but in reality are just too scared to do ourselves.

But really its a form of moral superiority voyeurism.

I think if he was a member of the general public you have a point Jamie. I think if you decide to go into a life of politics you need to accept the crap that comes with it. The reality is that you need to be whiter than white or at least lay bare your skeletons before you start your career hence all bar one of the labour leadership candidates being so eager to talk about taking drugs at university before the tabloids go digging.

You or I snorting coke off a whore's tits is no big deal (though guessing it may impede your political future!) but when you have a responsibility for making the law of the land it's different. It shows recklessness and naivety even if he was set up. In your mind would it be ok for Cameron to be caught doing likewise? It's then a slippery slope to Bunga Bunga Berlusconi and look what s mess he made of things

If you're doing it during working hours, at work or makes doing your job impossible etc then yes, otherwise what a man or woman chooses to do in their spare time, with other consenting adults, should be up to them. It serves no purpose for anyone to be driven out of work to feed the moral objections of the 'idiot classes' or the hypocritical mass medias bottom line.

At the very least there should be criminal charges before someone ends up losing a job for something they did outside of work.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 28 Jul 15 9.29am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 9.13am Quote Harry Beever at 27 Jul 2015 5.33pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 4.41pm Quote Catfish at 27 Jul 2015 1.33pm That is the Bernie Eccelestone position isnt it? Private matter, gross intrusion, no public interest etc. Doesn't stack up. His position is that of one who is there to ensure high standards for people who are otherwise unaccountable, unelected and who have a collective history of lining their pockets for very little value that can be readily discerned. If his behaviour is deemed to be a private matter and therefore acceptable then it follows that anyone else in a public office can behave the same way. Would the Lords or MPs take that view if it was a senior police officer, teacher, civil servant etc on the front page of the Sun - of course not. We shouldn't give a s**t what people do or like in their spare time, if everyone is a willing participant (and capable of giving consent). Instead we've become a society that is leering through everyone curtains and clucking at anything we find offensive or different, but in reality are just too scared to do ourselves. But really its a form of moral superiority voyeurism. I think if he was a member of the general public you have a point Jamie. I think if you decide to go into a life of politics you need to accept the crap that comes with it. The reality is that you need to be whiter than white or at least lay bare your skeletons before you start your career hence all bar one of the labour leadership candidates being so eager to talk about taking drugs at university before the tabloids go digging. You or I snorting coke off a whore's tits is no big deal (though guessing it may impede your political future!) but when you have a responsibility for making the law of the land it's different. It shows recklessness and naivety even if he was set up. In your mind would it be ok for Cameron to be caught doing likewise? It's then a slippery slope to Bunga Bunga Berlusconi and look what s mess he made of things If you're doing it during working hours, at work or makes doing your job impossible etc then yes, otherwise what a man or woman chooses to do in their spare time, with other consenting adults, should be up to them. It serves no purpose for anyone to be driven out of work to feed the moral objections of the 'idiot classes' or the hypocritical mass medias bottom line. At the very least there should be criminal charges before someone ends up losing a job for something they did outside of work. Lord Sewel was paid £84,525 of tax payers' money a year as chairman of the Lords' Privileges and Conduct Committee - the body that upholds standards of behaviour among peers. Earlier this month, he wrote a blog for the Huffington Post website in which he spoke about the House of Lords' new powers to banish peers who breach the code of conduct. "The actions of a few damage our reputation. Scandals make good headlines. The requirement that Members must always act on their personal honour has been reinforced. The House of Lords has come a long way in improving its regulation of its members and punishing the small number who misbehave." Speaks volumes about society today when some people think it ok to be a hypocrite and behave in the way he has while being funded by the tax-payer, whereas someone who makes a comment that is interpreted as racist, or politically incorrect in some way, is immediately cast into the wilderness. Where is our moral compass when we need it? mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 28 Jul 15 9.29am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 28 Jul 2015 9.13am

Quote Harry Beever at 27 Jul 2015 5.33pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 27 Jul 2015 4.41pm

Quote Catfish at 27 Jul 2015 1.33pm

But really its a form of moral superiority voyeurism.

At the very least there should be criminal charges before someone ends up losing a job for something they did outside of work.

Lord Sewel was paid £84,525 of tax payers' money a year as chairman of the Lords' Privileges and Conduct Committee - the body that upholds standards of behaviour among peers.

Earlier this month, he wrote a blog for the Huffington Post website in which he spoke about the House of Lords' new powers to banish peers who breach the code of conduct. "The actions of a few damage our reputation. Scandals make good headlines. The requirement that Members must always act on their personal honour has been reinforced. The House of Lords has come a long way in improving its regulation of its members and punishing the small number who misbehave."

Speaks volumes about society today when some people think it ok to be a hypocrite and behave in the way he has while being funded by the tax-payer, whereas someone who makes a comment that is interpreted as racist, or politically incorrect in some way, is immediately cast into the wilderness. Where is our moral compass when we need it?

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

12 Lords a snorting

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors