General Chat

I think public and private morals have always been the same - fifty years ago, 100 years ago - no change

I don't care about you John. My suggestion was based on purely selfish reasons. :-\

AnnC. I would like to agree with you. On one level, you are right. We should not defend behaviour of Lloyd George and many other leading politicians of yore, they were bad examples.

But would just ask you to consider recent court cases and the evidence. Bridger and, in particular, the current one about a local pop celebrity which (if any of it is proved true) is so shocking. Alleged hacking to death of a British soldier by British nationals in broad daylight in front of children, allegedly, possibly.

What did we have to compare with those type of atrocities 50 and 100 years ago? :-( :-(

Jack the Ripper
Donald Haig - the acid bath killer
Reginald Christie - 10 Rillington Place
Lord Lucan
Neville Heath and stacks of others I can't recall at the minute

Good points, Ann. Was thinking also of Brady and Hindley as I wrote :-( :-(

I care about you, Island. With good reason, I think. :-)

should that pop star be found guilty of that horrendous offence I'll happily waive my abhorrence of the death penalty in his case

I agree with you, Ann Cardiff, about public and private morals.

The three 'Lords' caught in the latest sting ought to know better.

But what could we expect when, according to the newspapers, one of them used a loophole in the law to escape a driving penalty a few years ago - and this, reportedly after criticising another policeman for doing the same?

Do we really benefit from such people in the House of Lords?

I hope there are stricter rules for entry to the Lords in future..... but if there aren't I expect there'll be more sting operations; it serves them right.

It has nothing to do with any possible moral outrage at all.

If the allegations are correct it has everything to do with political influence, control and misuse of media. Now that is something everyone should be concerned about.

I'm sorry, supercrutch, although I did not mention moral outrage I believe it's morally repugnant to behave in the way these three have behaved recently. However, I do agree with you about the misuse of influence.

Anyone who has not got enough nous to be careful (and keep their noses clean, as my father used to tell us) ought not to hold public office, although some will always brazen it out when they're caught. It's about time their peers pressed them to resign rather than this willy-nilly apologetic stuff we usually hear about.

However, it would be an interesting exercise to see who feels sound and solid enough to begin those proceedings (and telling, I think).

still no idea who we are talking about :-S

Ditto AnnC :-(

It has been said that none/neither of them hold Cabinet positions, so unless they've been promoting 'family values', does it really matter?

(pss...someone tells us the current suggestions please)

Who are they?

What have they done?

exactly Paula - who, what, where, when and why :-S

Ann, when I first saw it on here, it said one person, then two, now three people, sounds like quite a party. ;-)

I seem to be missing something.

And how do people know names when it has not been publicised that I ahve seen? Or is it just guess work?

well according to JohnlovesHorlicks - the fount of all knowledge - the person's iniitials are DSC - how does he know this? not a clue :-S

Sorry, Ann Cardiff, I went off on a tangent about the three peers caught in a sting rather than the high-profile couple in the Commons (I think).

I haven't a clue about the initials mentioned above, I'm afraid, but as it takes two to tango then both remain unknown to me.

My apologies to everyone - I'm simply sick of the excuses trotted out by people to excuse their behaviour when caught. I think I'd like to see people in the Commons and in the Lords who have more common sense than those there now.

Does anyone think we get the government we deserve? Does Joe Bloggs get the government he deserves?

I'm off again - so I'll put a sock in it now.

To my knowledge there were two involved in this affair and the initials DSC aren't ones I recognise in relation to this at all.

In answer to Ann in Glos....There were a few clues scattered about the internet.........I follow a few political bloggers and if you know how to read what they're saying they kind of point you in the right direction.

so Miss Marple - Muffy - giss a clue

Nooooooooo i wouldn't dare...I suspect it's being hushed up because it's sub judice.

I'll send you a pm though if you like?