 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
»
|
Ship of Fools
»
» Oblivion
»
Selflessness, integrity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership ... (Page 2)
|
|
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Selflessness, integrity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership ...
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... we obsess about party disunity, new taxes and asylum seekers.
We do that when Labour are in power. When it's the Tories, it's drugs and kinky sex.
[fixed kinky code]
Life is better with the Conservatives.
[ 28. July 2015, 21:32: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by beatmenace:
He should have smelled the rat when being encouraged to give an opinion on Boris/Dave/Yvette/Jeremy etc. I wouldn't have thought that what you think of Jeremy Corbyn would be a typical topic of conversation for an afternoon with two prostitutes - unless there's a hidden camera / audio bug around somewhere!
I imagine rats are not so easy to smell when your nose is full of cocaine?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The view generally taken in Australia is that politician's private lives should be off limits unless there's a demonstrated connection with capacity to perform the job.
Snorting cocaine doesn't affect one's capacity to make decisions? Well - it affects your capacity to smell rats, for sure.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The potential sanction for committing a crime is being convicted of a crime.
Then returning to the House of Lords to make decisions which affect all of us. The place id full of them.
Boogie, you just went from imagining that cocaine affects your ability to "smell rats" (as if all sober people are perfectly astute) to asserting it, to then somehow leaping to a notion that there's a general decision-making deficit.
This is exactly the kind of reaction that makes me despair. When politicians engage in this kind of stereotyping of lower-class people, they get told off, so why is it okay to engage in this kind of stereotyping of a politician? Where's your evidence that cocaine affects your long-term decision making abilities? Where's your evidence that he was ever high while in sitting in the House and voting?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Where's your evidence that cocaine affects your long-term decision making abilities? Where's your evidence that he was ever high while in sitting in the House and voting?
I have no evidence whatever - except for a dear friend whose cocaine habit caused him to make many terrible decisions, culminating in him losing lovely house, wife and children. He's rebuilding his life now, but he lost 15 years of it.
I really don't want cocaine users in government, thank you very much - I don't think that's a big ask, to be fair.
[ 29. July 2015, 06:50: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
When private behaviour affects - or may possibly affect - public delivery then it is in the public interest (or concern) to publicise it.
Elements of the story involving Sewel are the stuff of the post card humour so beloved of past generations of the English. I suspect many still enjoy the prurience of someone else being caught with their trousers down, so to speak. Better still if its someone in parliament - only the Windsors seem immune from this kind of expose.
Surprisingly to many, some aspects of the story involve things which may be unwise but which aren't illegal (e.g Prostitution).
Experts are presumably able to define where drug use will affect capacity, aside from the illegality of possession. (If indeed drugs were involved: it would be ironic if Sewel were pilloried for stuffing talcum powder up his nose).
Most people can work out when behaviour is unadviseable - ie there's always the possibility of a sting if you are famous. Presumably someone knew of Sewel's habits or predilictions and set it up: in other words the issue was known and it was simply a matter of providing the evidence.
If it was all that well known then the risks to reputation let alone to security are enormous, especially when the public utterances don't match the public behaviour.
Yes I know we all do it from time to time. (Not cocaine or buying in sex, but act hypocritically) Not one of us is immune but we are not all in the public eye: some things go with the territory of being a public servant on a high wage/expenses.
One thing that does is the fact that, if Sewel were a primary school teacher in the UK today - and the same things were proven against him in that role - then he would be dismissed on a charge of gross misconduct. Many employment contracts include reference to private behaviour bringing disrepute to the employer and will result in significant disciplinary action.
Why should this public servant be immune? Why should he be able to walk away, title intact without repaying expenses and allowances?
[ 29. July 2015, 07:40: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
... Why should this public servant be immune? Why should he be able to walk away, title intact without repaying expenses and allowances?
Other people who resign or are sacked don't have to repay the wages they've already earned or the expenses they've already incurred. You're saying a politician should be in the same position as anyone else. Why therefore are you demanding he should be in a worse position?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If this wasn't a set up, I'd be very surprised.
There is also evidence in support of the saying that "there's no fool like an old fool".
And I guess the evidence also lends support to the late Robin Williams' thesis that men have two brains ...
His other quote was "you have a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to run one at a time. "
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Experts are presumably able to define where drug use will affect capacity, aside from the illegality of possession.
Presumably. Hands up who thinks there are experts in charge of the British tabloid press, or would actually be consulted before running a story?
I'm aware of at least one much lower profile case in Australia of a court/tribunal ruling that the sacking of an employee was not lawful, because they based it on some weekend drug/alcohol use and there was no evidence that he had turned up for work intoxicated or was otherwise impaired.
You've referred to contracts in some positions that regulate off-duty behaviour. This is true. I also think such contracts are dubious in the extreme, but I believe they're legal.
[ 29. July 2015, 13:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I really don't want cocaine users in government, thank you very much - I don't think that's a big ask, to be fair.
Any other sins that rule a person out of public office?
Also, is using cocaine once a sufficient disqualification, or is it necessary to prove it's an ongoing habit?
[ 29. July 2015, 13:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I really don't want cocaine users in government, thank you very much - I don't think that's a big ask, to be fair.
Any other sins that rule a person out of public office?
Also, is using cocaine once a sufficient disqualification, or is it necessary to prove it's an ongoing habit?
I don't know how Lord Sewel got hold of the stuff, but if he brought the cocaine along to his meeting with the prostitute he is guilty of possession of a Class A drug, which is a serious criminal offence. I know 'law makers shouldn't be law breakers' is a rather trite phrase but it seems appropriate here.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I really don't want cocaine users in government, thank you very much - I don't think that's a big ask, to be fair.
Any other sins that rule a person out of public office?
Also, is using cocaine once a sufficient disqualification, or is it necessary to prove it's an ongoing habit?
I'm with Boogie. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Best to apply Ockham's razor (blade).
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've referred to contracts in some positions that regulate off-duty behaviour. This is true. I also think such contracts are dubious in the extreme, but I believe they're legal.
Whatever you and I may think, their legality has never been questioned in the UK courts. If your social life renders you unfit to work and/or affects the reasonable reputation of your employer, then it is safe to argue that you've put yourself out of work. In any event, no one is going to take an undue risk with an employee who is "unreliable."
There's no case to answer for treating any public servant any differently.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've referred to contracts in some positions that regulate off-duty behaviour. This is true. I also think such contracts are dubious in the extreme, but I believe they're legal.
Whatever you and I may think, their legality has never been questioned in the UK courts. If your social life renders you unfit to work and/or affects the reasonable reputation of your employer, then it is safe to argue that you've put yourself out of work. In any event, no one is going to take an undue risk with an employee who is "unreliable."
There's no case to answer for treating any public servant any differently.
There's a case for treating any public servant differently if the kind of contract that upfront tells you your social life is regulated doesn't exist.
Frankly, I'm paid on the basis that my employer controls my behaviour for 37.5 hours a week. If they want to control my behaviour 168 hours a week then I expect some kind of bump in my remuneration accordingly (are those school teachers paid well for 168-hour control? I bet they aren't!)
And labelling someone "unreliable" is circular, because you've just ignored the very point of my argument which is that being unreliable has to do with incapacity to the job. You simply cannot equate your social life making you actually unfit for work with "your social life involves something that some people disapprove of" as if they're one and the same thing. You have to prove this is actually true in any given case.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I really don't want cocaine users in government, thank you very much - I don't think that's a big ask, to be fair.
Any other sins that rule a person out of public office?
Also, is using cocaine once a sufficient disqualification, or is it necessary to prove it's an ongoing habit?
I don't know how Lord Sewel got hold of the stuff, but if he brought the cocaine along to his meeting with the prostitute he is guilty of possession of a Class A drug, which is a serious criminal offence. I know 'law makers shouldn't be law breakers' is a rather trite phrase but it seems appropriate here.
Here's another trite phrase: innocent until proven guilty.
Or have we adopted the principle that being accused of a crime in a tabloid newspaper ought to be sufficient proof of guilt now? The courts will be pleased at the drop in their workload.
Let me clear: I've got no problem at all with the proposition that conviction of a criminal offence might disqualify you from certain jobs, or from Parliament. Our own Constitution explicitly disqualifies anyone who is convicted of an offence with a prison term of one year or longer.
What I do have a problem with is a culture that increasingly says we don't have to bother with all those boring procedural steps of proving that someone Rupert Murdoch accuses of doing something actually did something.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I really don't want cocaine users in government, thank you very much - I don't think that's a big ask, to be fair.
Any other sins that rule a person out of public office?
Also, is using cocaine once a sufficient disqualification, or is it necessary to prove it's an ongoing habit?
I'm with Boogie. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Then articulate the principle behind the line.
I'm quite happy to articulate my line. It has to do with demonstrated incapacity to perform the job. My concern is that some people appear to be drawing the line based on moral dislike. Not only are morals notoriously slippery things varying from person to person, but moral outrage is easily created and manipulated so that one person is punished and one is not for the same action.
Down in Hell we're talking about a Minnesota dentist who is being turned into the devil for killing Zimbabwe's favourite lion. Whether the lion was anyone's favourite is completely irrelevant to any sensible legal outcome in his case: if someone killed a lion that nobody particularly knew and didn't have a pet name, the same questions about whether the killing was within the law should arise. But boy, it sure makes a difference on the moral outrage scale that it was Cecil.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]There's a case for treating any public servant differently if the kind of contract that upfront tells you your social life is regulated doesn't exist.
Frankly, I'm paid on the basis that my employer controls my behaviour for 37.5 hours a week. If they want to control my behaviour 168 hours a week then I expect some kind of bump in my remuneration accordingly (are those school teachers paid well for 168-hour control? I bet they aren't!)
And labelling someone "unreliable" is circular, because you've just ignored the very point of my argument which is that being unreliable has to do with incapacity to the job. You simply cannot equate your social life making you actually unfit for work with "your social life involves something that some people disapprove of" as if they're one and the same thing. You have to prove this is actually true in any given case.
The assumption - and I grant you that it is an assumption - is that when at work you are at work and fit to be there. If there is anything which affects your ability to perform those tasks for which you are paid, then it is a matter of concern. Illness will be covered in its own way, as will performance on the job.
If certain behaviours and/or issues in your private (ie non working) life affect your ability or performance at work, then it is a matter of concern for those who employ you, irrespective and independent of morality. If those behaviours (known or proven) are likely to affect the public perception of the company or organisation employing you to the extent of a financial "hit" then irrespective of performance, your life outside work is affecting your life in it.
With the best will in the world, you cannot extract morality from it. As you rightly point out this kicks in at different points and over varying issues for all of us but it will, inevitably, be part of the patchwork of relationships in the workplace. In a team of people, it can happen that what the majority see as errant behaviour or poor attitudes will affect the team. Who do you blame - the one or the 95% - both have their issues, I agree.
As for this case, the issues of drugs and prostitution always cause a stir in the British psyche. [We have sex on the brain which is hardly the right place to have it]. Link it to drugs and £5 notes and a peer of the real in the silly summer season and we're away. Bear in mind that we are also entering a race for the leadership of the Labour party - guess what, Sewel is a Labour appointed peer - and you can see some of the seedier background.
Trouble is Sewel set himself up for this in lots of ways, not least his "this place is clean" claims. The predilections of many public figures are known and usually kept under wraps - if the need arises, then it gets dragged into the limelight. It's also in the febrile atmosphere of proven cover ups over pedophilia in the realm of the "great and the good," so any expose is welcome in some people's eyes to prove that the establishment can still cut it with the legal stuff (as opposed to the illegal).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Here's another trite phrase: innocent until proven guilty.
Or have we adopted the principle that being accused of a crime in a tabloid newspaper ought to be sufficient proof of guilt now? The courts will be pleased at the drop in their workload.
Let me clear: I've got no problem at all with the proposition that conviction of a criminal offence might disqualify you from certain jobs, or from Parliament. Our own Constitution explicitly disqualifies anyone who is convicted of an offence with a prison term of one year or longer.
What I do have a problem with is a culture that increasingly says we don't have to bother with all those boring procedural steps of proving that someone Rupert Murdoch accuses of doing something actually did something.
That gets a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Here's another trite phrase: innocent until proven guilty.
Or have we adopted the principle that being accused of a crime in a tabloid newspaper ought to be sufficient proof of guilt now? The courts will be pleased at the drop in their workload.
Let me clear: I've got no problem at all with the proposition that conviction of a criminal offence might disqualify you from certain jobs, or from Parliament. Our own Constitution explicitly disqualifies anyone who is convicted of an offence with a prison term of one year or longer.
What I do have a problem with is a culture that increasingly says we don't have to bother with all those boring procedural steps of proving that someone Rupert Murdoch accuses of doing something actually did something.
Absolutely. And also, see my post on the previous page: I believe that none of the Murdoch empire's dealings with the rich and influential are random or coincidental. This story was run with a specific purpose in mind. We just have to discover what it was. It might be that the Lords have been a bit legislatively unruly recently and needed a slapped wrist.
My two golden rules for reading anything such as journalism or scientific papers are:
1. Who commissioned this?
2. Who benefits from it?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
