Chris Wilson Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Is there more to come from all this? Just *HOW* inappropriate is his relationship with his "special advisor", best man and travelling companion? What is it with these ministers, they earn buckets full, have a great lifestyle, but yet the trough of more is always too tempting for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TubbyTwo Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 same old story, what do men with power want? more power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Is there more to come from all this? Just *HOW* inappropriate is his relationship with his "special advisor", best man and travelling companion? What is it with these ministers, they earn buckets full, have a great lifestyle, but yet the trough of more is always too tempting for them. It's that drive that gets them into the job in the first place. Selfish thoughtlessness always seems key to getting into these positions. Unfortunately once they get there the same drive, thoughtlessness and selfishness still remains. In fact it probably amplifies, with more power comes more desire for power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdistc Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 In my opinion, this is reflective of the same reasons that imprisonment doesn't work to rehabilitate people - simply put, society doesn't remove the right "carrot" for these people. If there was a genuinely negative outcome for their behaviour (i.e. having to work for the council doing community service for the same length as a prison sentence, having their nice houses taken away or something considered significantly unpleasant to the individual responsible), people would be amotivated to act in an unacceptable way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I never liked him when he was on Pop Idol either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I never liked him when he was on Pop Idol either. Yeah. It was never decided if he was a real Doctor, or a real fox for that matter. It's a disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Yeah. It was never decided if he was a real Doctor, or a real fox for that matter. It's a disgrace. Just set the dogs on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supranature Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Yeah. It was never decided if he was a real Doctor, or a real fox for that matter. It's a disgrace. :d Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 The greed never ends Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Good ol' Conservatives. Bringing back Tory sleaze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havard Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Have I missed this? *Goes off to Google* H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 It may be Muller, but its still just yoghurt. What an incredible waste of time and money. Its not even a proper rainbow for gawds sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 In my opinion, this is reflective of the same reasons that imprisonment doesn't work to rehabilitate people - simply put, society doesn't remove the right "carrot" for these people. If there was a genuinely negative outcome for their behaviour (i.e. having to work for the council doing community service for the same length as a prison sentence, having their nice houses taken away or something considered significantly unpleasant to the individual responsible), people would be amotivated to act in an unacceptable way. I vote for you Andrew! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 It said in today's paper that people have said that he is a back street gardner...I missed these accusations but always presumed that as he was a politician he was anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 It said in today's paper that people have said that he is a back street gardner...I missed these accusations but always presumed that as he was a politician he was anyway. All politicians are gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 I surmise that he probably is homosexual and that yesterday's hinted rumours may well soon develop into direct allegations. Whilst having no issues with "out of the closet" homosexuals, those in denial in positions of influence are a liability and a menace. For example, should a Defence Minister be a closet homosexual, that would leave him open to blackmail, and would also make a total mockery of any security screening that a minister in such a sensitive government position should have been subject to. The country itself could then be at risk. There's already been one minister in the closet gay community using the reason he didn't want his mummy to know he was a homosexual as his defence in using tax payer's money to pay his homosexual "partner's" rent. That is relatively benign to what a Minister of Defence could be pressurised into saying or doing because he may feel unable to admit his tendencies to the public at large, for whatever reason. *IF* he is a closet homo then I think heads should roll, both his, and those that have apparently made a total *ugger of the vetting process. With the law on the side of rights for homosexuals, even, God damn it, mooted rights to marriage rather than a civil ceremony, then there's no excuse for hiding tax payer funded governments ministers sexuality behind excuses like "I didn't want mother to know what I was..." excuses for dubious finacial goings on. Time will tell, is he or isn't he? If he is, what does that say about his wife? Did she know and marry for the furtherment of his career, and possibly her own financial betterment, or was she duped? It's better than a soap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The best ever excuse for a gay affair of a politician was the MP in Chichester (I forget his name) - who said that he'd had a gay affair because he was going bald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 All politicians are gay? Ok I admit that was a bad generalisation on my part, and I apoligise. However there does seem to be a high proportion of gay MP's. Maybe no more than in other walks of life and it is just unfortunate that MPs are constantly in the limelight and being scrutinised by the press. But my observation is that there does seem to be numerous gay MPs and as far back as I can remember I can always recall hearing in the news of such scandal and shock. Just trying to think back and I think the first time I heard such an exposure was probably Jeremy Thorpe, maybe he was the first, but I doubt that. Bit off topic, but didnt he shoot a dog belonging to his lover or something? Think I was about ten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 Norman Scott, the dog was a Great Dane. Jeremy wore a hat..... I believe the expression "Brown Hatter" was brought into parlance through the Rt. Hon. Jeremy Thorpe MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Norman Scott, that was it! You're on fire today Mr W. Wasn't it a shock when Peter Mandelson came out, I would have never have guessed. What is interesting (or not) is that all the PMs I can recall, have not been gay. I wonder why that is? Anyhow, this is all off topic, or is it if the good Dr now says he is homosexual in the next few days? I think the point you make about leaving himself open for blackmail and the fact that the vetting procedure has not shown he is gay, or if it has for some reason it was decided not to disclose this at the time of his appointment is a very relevant point. We are not talking about Minister for Soap Operas and Gay Rights (forgive me on that one please) here, we are taking about the Defence Minister, whilst our forces are still engaged in active combat. Edit: Just discussing this with my mate at work and he said "this would never of happened if Paddy Pants down was still around" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 Here's an interesting bit of trivia. If Sarkozy and his wife Carla have a baby, (due anytime now), it will be the first legitimate child to a standing French president in, err, I forget, a LONG LONG time. Put that in your pub quiz and smoke it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 None of this stacks up at the moment. If I was in the closet, I wouldn't bring my secret lover to high-profile meetings. The lack of a decent explanation is the factor doing the most damage. Dr Fox, as part of the government, has been elected by the people to make political decisions. The people rightly want to know what the mysterious non-elected person is doing there, and what his role is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 None of this stacks up at the moment. If I was in the closet, I wouldn't bring my secret lover to high-profile meetings. The lack of a decent explanation is the factor doing the most damage. Dr Fox, as part of the government, has been elected by the people to make political decisions. The people rightly want to know what the mysterious non-elected person is doing there, and what his role is. Now I don't know but can only stab in the dark here.... but surely the defence minister can have a team around him that he chooses (subject to security clearance) to carry out his job, but in this case, is he employed by the ministry in an official capacity and therefore on the payroll, or is he a friend/mate/partner/companian of the Dr in a non official capacity, therefore why does his buisness card suggest otherwise and is he being paid and by whom? And if the later, how have the security people allowed this guy to be in on and privvy to such high level stuff? Its an amazing story and am looking forward to the next chapter. Bets anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo2810 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The people rightly want to know what the mysterious non-elected person is doing there, and what his role is. Lunchtime entertainment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Lunchtime entertainment? No, that was Edwina Curry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.