PDA

View Full Version : What has happened to Morals 2006


Vfrpilotpb
26th Jan 2006, 09:31
Why all of a sudden are we finding out about many MPs who are obviously perverted and have no morals whatsoever, is this what Politial Correctness is bringing us, main reason for getting job in public office is surely to be seen as someone to be able to make right and proper moves and decisions, Members of Parliament are at the forefront of representing UK PLC to the rest of the World, why then are many being exposed as Perverts and LMF.

we will not let teachers near our children if they have any sex convictions or cautions against them ,... so why in hell should we allow Pervets into Parliament or to offer to help in any political party,

This thread is not Party Political, it is to ask a very serious question, these sort of people are degrading the fine office of Govenment why is nothing being done about it apart from tabloid newspapers being sensational and selling a few more copies!

Vfr:mad:

RiskyRossco
26th Jan 2006, 09:38
What's even more of a worry is these amoral ratbags are only the publicised ones. Ever consider how many there are that aren't pilloried?

There is a sobering consequence of the law, illustrated by revelation and exposure of these fallen-from-grace, and that is the more laws are made the more readily an immoral/amoral character will break those laws.
This is the human condition.

maggioneato
26th Jan 2006, 09:44
I suppose they are human just like the rest of us. Society generally now has no morals these days. Yes they should as politicians be squeeky clean. Even the heir to the throne has had his flings, he above all should show a good example but didn't. It's all down to no restraint, do as you like , sod everyone else and the consequences, at one time it was unheard of to be unmarried and pregnant, it's now the norm, no one cares, everything is acceptable.

tony draper
26th Jan 2006, 09:46
Politics is just another branch of showbiz now, and that business has always attracted the weirdo's.
:cool:

PerArdua
26th Jan 2006, 09:51
As we are a democracy then society is voting for these bufoons/wierdos/deviants etc. I find it alarming that more people have an opinion on Big Brother and George Galloway than his politics.

Come the revolution my firing squads are going to be pretty busy tidying the place up again and reinforcing family values.

PA

Bahn-Jeaux
26th Jan 2006, 10:05
Given the choice of Chimps, Gorillas, and Orang Utans to vote for, the end result is that you are governed by Apes.
Sums up todays political option I feel.

Stockpicker
26th Jan 2006, 10:08
We don't need morals any more in this country, we have legislation instead.

BlueDiamond
26th Jan 2006, 10:10
Yes they should as politicians be squeeky clean. Even the heir to the throne has had his flings, he above all should show a good example but didn't.

Let whoever is without sin ...

If those we elect to office, or those who inherit it, were shining examples of how to live a perfect life, would you follow their example?

Would you refuse to have sex outside of marriage, refuse to exceed the speed limit, never drink to excess, take a pencil home from work and "forget" to take it back, never say, "Jesus Christ" next time you cut your finger or stub your toe, would you refuse to tell a lie ... even a little one?

What gives people the right to demand perfection in their leaders when they have no intention of being perfect themselves?

Kolibear
26th Jan 2006, 10:16
Its called 'leading by example'

I don't expect anyone in public office to be absolutely without fault, that would be naive, If fact I would prefer them to be slightly tarnished as that shows they have experience of life.

Gouabafla
26th Jan 2006, 10:32
Bluey, I have every right to demand certain standards from my leaders, because they are asking me to vote for them, not the other way round

I don't have any right to insist that anyone adopts my moral standards. However, just as I will choose to vote for someone who reflects my political opinion, I will also choose to vote for someone who shares the same sort of moral outlook on life.

For me, the biggest issue in all of this is truthfulness. I don't expect perfection, but I do want people I can trust to represent me. Just because Simon Hughes has admitted to being gay does not mean I would vote against him - but the fact that he has lied about it for years, is a big issue.

BlueDiamond
26th Jan 2006, 10:37
Its called 'leading by example'
Leading by example is utterly pointless unless emulation is compulsory.

If one of your "leaders" habitually drinks and drives, will you do the same?

If one of your "leaders" refuses to have sex outside of marriage, will you do the same?

Or will you continue to exercise your own judgement and free will?

BlueDiamond
26th Jan 2006, 10:51
How far would you be prepared to go in following an example, Cheerio?

Go to church every Sunday? Never speed, tell a lie, get into a punch-up, never steal by, perhaps, making a personal phone call on your employer's time? If you get the politicians you wish for, are you actually prepared to follow the example that is set or will you modify it to suit yourself?

RiskyRossco
26th Jan 2006, 11:02
Who was it wrote, "The people get the government you deserve"?

We are all like sheep who have led astray, each have gone their own way.

There but for the grace of God, and our insignificance to the paparazzi, go I.

cavortingcheetah
26th Jan 2006, 11:07
:hmm:

Whilst not expecting politicians, as distinct from the clergy, to be paragons of moral rectitude I do think that we, the voters are entitled to demand that they demonstrate, collectively and individually, honesty and good sense.
We are further within our rights to insist that they do not abuse the public purse, our tax money which pays their salaries, whether in opposition or no.
In addition to that, it is not unreasonable for the voting public to expect that politicians will not allow their pubic desires to entrap them in any situation where blackmail or emotional leverage on the part of others might cloud their judgement and perhaps lead them down paths where national security might be compromised.
There is no crime in being an alcoholic but the serious error of judgment, which must perforce call into question all aspects of the poor individuals' capacity for forthright reasoning, lies in the public mendacity and the self deceit that has accompanied the Liberal Democrats' cases in particular. Some of you may not be aware that Lord Mc Nally, their leader in The House of Lords, recently stood to his feet and allowed that he had once, quite recently, been an alcoholic. That is excusatory self delusion, a characteristic I would not wish to see in someone in a position of great responsibility.
Cavorting with rent boys might or might not be disgusting to some but it is an extremely injudicious thing to do for one who effectively puts himself forward as a potential future Prime Minister.
In volunteering to become public servants, those who do so take upon themselves a duty and responsibility to demonstrate that they warrent such
public trust. They are not asked to lead lives without blame, for such would be neither human nor indeed historical; but they should be expected to comport themselves in a manner befitting the gravitas of their employ. Anything less than such behaviour is to demean their station of office and to ridicule the confidence which the public places in their hands.:ugh:

Vfrpilotpb
26th Jan 2006, 11:19
Blue Diamond,

One of the problems we have in the UK is that if a polititian stands for office for any of the Partys, he/she is always put as being a brilliant guy or gal, educated here there or where ever, has strong principals and will do the work of the Party involved, with luck they may be voted in, at that point they then realise they are on the threshold of greater things and money, very sadly they start to believe their own rhetoric, from then on its downhill all the way,

This guy who has "Come out" today has spent the last two weeks stating catogorically he is not gay, but today has admitted to having gay experiences in the past..... well forgive me for being old fashioned, but when my father and grandfather were helping me into this adult world, that sort of behavoir and actions was called " Plain Old Fashioned Lying" I was alway taught that a liar can NEVER be trusted,

I still do not and never will Trust any person male or female commoner or King who tells lie's to us the members of the public.

You may be happy to trust such degraded nd perverted people, I dont.

Vfr

BlueDiamond
26th Jan 2006, 11:36
You may be happy to trust such degraded nd perverted people, I dont.
You are categorising any person who tells a lie as degraded and perverted? You must lead an exemplary life indeed.

I have written nothing here which gives you enough information to arrive at the conclusion above. What I have said is that leading by example is pointless unless emulation is compulsory. Since it is not, we remain free to make our own choices and judgements. I have also said that we have no right to expect people in office to lead exemplary lives if we are not prepared to do the same. You have no basis for making a statement such as I have quoted above. Would you trust someone who was prepared to have sex before marriage? What if I suggested to you that it was a perverted practice? Does my opinion carry the same weight as yours? What if it was my opinion that drinking alcohol was a sign of degradation and that people who drink are not to be trusted? Would you vote for someone who was so corrupt as to engage in such activities?

Onan the Clumsy
26th Jan 2006, 12:19
Do you people actually froth at the mouth when you write posts like these? Do you flagelate yourselves with rolled up copies of the Daily Mail?

More importantly, do you think you are the first generation to say these things?

If society's morals are so bad now, to which year would you go back to find suitable morals?

and if today's politicians are so bad, with which figures in history would you replace them?

Wedge
26th Jan 2006, 12:21
I've already said this on the Oaten thread, but the reason Hughes lied about it was precisely because there are still a few people with attitudes like yours VFR, who seem to think there is something 'degraded and immoral' about homosexuality. Not because they think they have done anything wrong.

You've been making a lot of posts about homosexuals being degraded and immoral, your obsession with them is quite intriguing. I can't think why a straight man comfortable with his sexuality would really care what others do in their private lives, within the boundaries of consenting adults, which all of the behaviour you term 'immoral' has been.

J. Edgar Hoover publicly denounced homosexuals as 'sexual deviants'.

Vfrpilotpb
26th Jan 2006, 12:45
Onan,
daily Telegraph actually, and no, I feel many other from previous decades will have also bemoned similar problems, but then they didnt have the Net, did they!

Wedge,

I must be part of an Era or generation of person for whom trust is important, people who have something to hide become liar's, at that point they have abdicated any possible trust that any form of High Office demands from them.

For you to make some sort of veiled nasty small minded comments about my attitude, speaks volumes for your attitude, we are all entitled to our opinions, my opinion obviously clashes with a few of you on this Forum, possibly some of you are playing the role of Devils advocate, the other, I couldn't really comment!

Vfr

cavortingcheetah
26th Jan 2006, 12:46
:hmm:

Actually, Onan, old beano, Disraeli, biography put on hold, had a wicked little penchant for young, very young from time to time, prostitutes.
His exculpatory remedy was indeed, self-flagellation. This he used to perform after the event. Had he done so before I dare say he could perhaps have been categorized as a sexual sadist.
Personally, I rather tend to the Lloyd George attitude.:E

ORAC
26th Jan 2006, 12:52
Did he know your father?...... :E

Biggles Flies Undone
26th Jan 2006, 13:15
An unmarried man who swings both ways.

A married man (and who projects that as his public persona) who has three in a bed romps with rent boys.

I can see a difference between the two and I prefer to judge each case on the evidence presented.

cavortingcheetah
26th Jan 2006, 13:46
:oh:

I don't know, but:

My father knew Lloyd George.:E

surely not
26th Jan 2006, 15:10
Surely the main functions of a politician is to try to ensure through good judgement that their constituents are provided with the services they need to have a safe, clean environment with employment opportunities and housing available for all. Yes there are other functions that no doubt if I wasn't dashing this response off at work I would add.

In common with some successful Business leaders their ability to do this has absolutely **** all to do with whether they shag girls or blokes!! Having worked in an industry where there are a high number of gay guys I would point out that many of them are extremely professional and their attention to detail in many cases is better than many hetro colleagues.

History shows Churchill was a drunk, but it didn't stop him having some success as a leader. Clinton was a womaniser but he got the US economy back on track, Rhodes was a homosexual but he founded a country in Africa!!

I would rather have a competant homosexual running the country than an ineffective hetro, and it wouldn't make me want to run out and shag the first bloke I saw:mad:

There have been drunks, womanisers, homosexuals, liars and scoundrels in Parliament since time immemorial but we are getting all het up aboutit now because the tabloid press whip up the frenzy. No wonder the first reaction of someone cornered by the press is denial!! At least he didn't offer to use the sword of Damacles on his accusers:p

It is how well the guy/gal does the job that matters not who they bed down with.

Jerricho
26th Jan 2006, 15:22
Politics is just another branch of showbiz now, and that business has always attracted the weirdo's.
:cool:

The whole world's a stage Tones ;)

Standard Noise
26th Jan 2006, 15:54
"What has happened to Morals 2006?"

Ah, I see what you mean now, I thought it was an add on for Windows XP.:O