And the upside is that there were no young boys involved, it seems.

but I’ve not seen anything to suggest that his antics affected his day job

He had important positions overseeing HofL activity. Therefore in a position to influence the decision-making process around public policy. And if being photographed taking coke, in an orange bra, with a multitude of hookers isn’t the stuff to leave you wide open to blackmail (or exposure in this case, maybe he had the integrity to refuse to be blackmailed) either by our own powerful interests (media, security services etc) or those of another country, then I don’t know what is..

Me “i dont see what he’s done is that different to many footballers”
Mrs “but they’re not paid to make decisions on the country”
Me “No they’re paid millions to be role models for kids”

Errmm. Last time I checked they were paid to play football! This whole “role model for kids” line that is liberally applied to anyone in the public eye (but particularly sportspeople, pop stars etc) is one of the reasons why this country has become such a cliched “Little England” in the last few years, what with faux outraged “Twitterstorms” and othersuch. IMHO people who spout this line are the natural heirs of those in the early 60s who were having a go at the Beatles and the Stones et al..

PARENTS are the role models of children. It is our job to teach them right from wrong and to give them the faculties to be able to make decisions. early 20s footballers are – surprise, surprise – early 20s young men. With lots of money. Of course some of them will get up to no good. Thinking what I got up to when in my early 20s makes my eyes bleed.

Anyway, it looks like the honourable Lord’s parents didn’t teach him right from wrong (thereby neatly concluding this rant and bringing my thread hijack full circle back to the actual topic…)

Breaking news: he has now resigned.

That orange bra totally doesn’t match his skin tone, he should be arrested for fashion crime if nothing else!! 😈

Failing to see the problem here.

I can see the point of view, but the big difference for people in positions of power is he’s making it very easy for people to manipulate and blackmail him.

Presumably he would rather his friends, family and colleagues did not know about this. If a paper could catch him out in this way, it’s hardly inconceivable that another organisation could. Be it a criminal enterprise or foreign government. They then have the guy over a barrel.

Presumably he would rather his friends, family and colleagues did not know about this. If a paper could catch him out in this way, it’s hardly inconceivable that another organisation could. Be it a criminal enterprise or foreign government. They then have the guy over a barrel.

I was positively vetted for a job which took several months. When they interviewed me they pretty much said were not really that worried what you’ve done within reason just as long as we know so you can’t be blackmailed.
I also asked if they’d like to see bank statements to which they said no that’s fine. I kind of assumed that meant they’d already had a good look at them. 🙂

Failing to see the problem here.

chairman of the Lords privileges and conduct committee

Erm…….

Failing to see the problem here.

Being caught, in the papers, drawing attention, etc. He’d have to go.

It strikes me that the sort of man who employs £200 a night hookers probably rides an Apollo mountain bike and I for one have a policy of never sleeping with anyone who isn’t at least a mid range hardtail.
Such a man is clearly not fit to judge any kinds of standard.

seriously who gives one?

blackmail? really youll be telling me the at least 1/3rd of all peerages arent straight up bought by party political donations next!

303 Lords nominations between 2005 and the third quarter of 2014 and all donations since 2001. They isolated what they term the “usual suspects”: prominent people who would be expected to be in line for an honour, such as former parliamentarians, senior party staff, ex-council leaders, reserved public sector posts, “people’s peers” nominated by the House of LordsAppointments Commission, and those selected as part of Gordon Brown’s “government of all talents” agenda.
That left 92 “others”, who donated between them 97.9% (£33.83m) of all the donations coming from nominees to the Lords. Donations from the individuals’ companies, spouses or children were included. In the case of union leaders, the donations were generally from their unions rather than themselves

http://www.commondecency.org.uk/latest-news/economics/49-news/latest-economics/12197-revealed-the-link-between-life-peerages-and-party-donations

the whole place stinks, at least this guy was having sex with a consenting adult, though Im sure the women involved didnt relish the experience.
at least he didnt claim he was senile and couldnt face charges whilst still claiming his expenses

seriously who gives one?

I think the answer to that question is “most people”, although presumably not you.

Just like most people would have a problem with a senior police officer involved in using class A drugs most people have a problem with a senior legislator using class A drugs.

Having a responsible job doesn’t put you above the law.

.

at least he didnt claim he was senile

I’m sure the reason for that is based on the fact that it would certainly fail as a defence, rather than a reflection on his strength of character.

Just like most people would have a problem with a senior police officer involved in using class A drugs most people have a problem with a senior legislator using class A drugs.

🙄 Cmon Ernie, you can do better than that! Over the years I have read some masterful counters from you when in full flow. 😉 8)

Anyway, I’ll bite: the reason most people have a problem with class A drugs is because they believe what they are told and think that these and all the other substances that have been classified by the system as requiring control. The same system that tells us that they want to eradicate these substances as they are harmful to our health and not in the public interest.

But, we’ve been here before, discussed, washed and rinsed.

Sewell has more than likely p****d someone off and they’ve shopped him. I’m of the opinion as above, actions made in ‘private’ in his own time with consenting adults and presumably having as much fun and attention that he wanted. Probably done him no end of harm with the Saga demographic, pioneering new ways in which they can spend their cashed Annuities, at the same time, putting the cash directly into the system and as such, possibly becoming a bit of a role model for the grey vote at the same time. Win win.

….. most people have a problem with class A drugs …..

Do they ? I wouldn’t know. But I feel fairly confident though that most people have a problem with senior legislators, ie those who make the laws, attempting to live above the law. In the same way as they expect senior and not so senior police officers who flout the law to be sacked.

.

Sewell has more than likely p****d someone off and they’ve shopped him.

Is that the most likely explanation ?

Personally I don’t understand why he was so open about his identity and why he trusted women who are motivated by money to provide sexual favours. Did he really think there would be no chance that one of them might sell her story to the Sun for big money ?

Providing he paid out of his own pocket I’m less outraged than by some sponger repairing his moat or building a duck house on expenses.

how do you think his wife feels about the hookers? if he is prepared to treat his nearest & dearest with such contempt/prepared to deceive to such an extent then I’d rather not have him legislating for me thanks very much & that’s before we get to the illegal substances, just shows utter contempt for his position in society

* of course I may be wrong & it may be perfectly okay with the mrs but I suspect not

Apparently his wife is “not expecting him home”

Coke and hookers are part of the calculation for our GDP now, I believe, so at least he’s helping boost the government’s numbers!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/65704ba0-e730-11e3-88be-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3hCwTN7Cq

O just assumed that’s what most MPs got up to after work tbh, I’m sure the journos that wrote the story are no stranger to coke either, and does anyone actually think that everyone in those infamous bullingdon tux photos wasn’t coked up and loving it , Osborne honestly likes the dominatrices prince Andrew….!!! SamCam had to go thru rehab to kick the coke, and who Borris MUST be off his head half the time.

Of you think this isn’t standard practice for the palace of Westminster you are being very naive

Of you think this isn’t standard practice for the palace of Westminster you are being very naive

Yes I’m sure that most members of both Houses are habitual coke and prostitute users. They probably point and ridicule at the goody two-shoes who won’t join in the fun.

Living above the law. I take your point Ernie and agree, to a point. Although in the real world, none of us are saints. We all also tend to live above the law as and when we can, speeding for example. So how do we arrive at giving each type of offence, or living above/ ignoring it for a while law a proportional value or deemed severity?

Morals and ethics.

But which of these two situations – Sewell with the coke n hookers in the bedroom with the well used rolled up fiver, or someone having had one too many shandys on their way home and gets in their car to drive home after leaving the pub, has the potential to be a greater sin than the other?

In which case, we all need to seriously consider our future professional careers and do the right thing.

EDIT: do you think these hookers and their coke might be willing to stand in the next general erection? They sound like they could liven things up a bit, mebbe I would vote for them.

Although in the real world, none of us are saints.

Your defence of the Blair protege crossbencher is touching.

Perhaps your point plus the fact that he has lost his job will be taken into account when the decision whether or not to investigate and prosecute is being made.

But I feel fairly confident though that most people have a problem with senior legislators, ie those who make the laws, attempting to live above the law.

In what way is he trying to live above the law?

Outside, yes. Above? I see no evidence that he has attempted to use his position to his advantage here.

how do you think his wife feels about the hookers? if he is prepared to treat his nearest & dearest with such contempt/prepared to deceive to such an extent then I’d rather not have him legislating for me thanks very much & that’s before we get to the illegal substances, just shows utter contempt for his position in society

Ah so now he should be sacked for moral reasons totally outwith his ability to do his job*?

Maybe we should just sack anyone who has broken any one of the Ten Commandments. Or if that’s not enough why not just anything out the book of batshit crazy Revelations.

*ie. being taken seriously after this episode

In what way is he trying to live above the law?

Outside, yes. Above? I see no evidence that he has attempted to use his position to his advantage here.

above the law

1.
in a position where one can avoid being bound by the laws that govern ordinary people.

HTH

Well done you told me what I already knew.

Now answer the question, what has he done to attempt to put himself above the law? What privilege has he exercised?

None that I can see.

What privilege has he exercised?

I haven’t mentioned anything about “privilege”.

In my opinion he was attempting to live above the law in the same that if I ignored the speed limits and drove at whatever speed I fancied I would be attempting to live above the law.

I’m assuming that he wasn’t intending to hand himself in to the police.

I’m quite happy with my comment : “But I feel fairly confident though that most people have a problem with senior legislators, ie those who make the laws, attempting to live above the law” even if you don’t like the way I construct my posts 🙂

And if we’re passing judgement on other people’s posts I thought your comment : “Maybe we should just sack anyone who has broken any one of the Ten Commandments” was rather silly.

So in fact you’re confused. There is a marked difference between living outside and above the law.. Break a law and you’re outside, pervert the course of justice when caught and you’re above it. As fas as I can see he has, by your own definition, not attempted to avoid being bound by these laws as opposed to just breaking them.

As for the ten commandments, I thought it was an appropriate response to the ridiculous notion that he should be sacked for simply cheating on his wife.

FFS ok he was “living outside” not “above the law”. I can see that it’s very important to you.

And your “ten commandments” response was ridiculous on so many levels btw.

the ridiculous notion that he should be sacked for simply cheating on his wife.

all I stated was that I’d rather not be represented by someone who cheats on their wife – a long way from sacking everyone who doesn’t abide by the 10 commandments ffs

Where do we stand on the coveting of neighbours oxes?

just imagine how you would feel if you were an ox being coveted by a member of the house of lords, ill at ease now aren’t you sonny….

Where do we stand on the coveting of neighbours oxes?

I’m firmly behind it….with a tight grip.

FFS ok he was “living outside” not “above the law”. I can see that it’s very important to you.

And your “ten commandments” response was ridiculous on so many levels btw.

Well, yes it is important because there’s a distinct difference between the two. The latter implying that he was using his position to somehow evade prosecution which he hasn’t.

Dicky, that’s your opinion but don’t start back pedalling. If you’d rather not have him legislate for you then you obviously don’t think he’s fit to do his job ergo he shouldn’t be doing it. I’m not sure how the actions of someone within their own personal life (of which none of us is privy to the details of) affect their ability to do their job (besides the obvious issues of being open to blackmail which we weren’t discussing in this instance). So he cheated on his wife, so what? How many other folk cheat on their partners? How many of them do you think are unfit to do their job as a consequence?

That was my ten commandments point, you are applying arbitrary morals where really they have no relevance. It’s like that dentist in the US. Does he kill animals for pleasure? Sure. Does that affect his ability to carry out his professional duties? Of course not. Agree or disagree his personal life has absolutely NO bearing on his ability to carry said professional duties.

Yes I think he should go but not for the moral outrage bandwagon reasons most seem to be jumping on. His position is simply untenable, he can’t be taken seriously any more.

The next time a British legislator gets caught taking drugs, I would like them to call for the decriminalisation of cannabis in their resignation speech.

🙂

IME most people in positions of authority are unable to carry out their professional duties and responsibilities as they have been promoted to levels of incompetence.

And that’s even before we start delving into what they do in their own time, be it with Oxen, hookers, and/ or citrus fruit, or any of the other 10 commandments.

The latter implying that he was using his position to somehow evade prosecution which he hasn’t.

Don’t be ridiculous, being a member of the House of Lords can’t protect you from prosecution. You are arguing against an argument which no one has made.

Presumably you attempting to tailor what people have said to justify your own ridiculous comments. I see you’re still banging on about “the ten commandments” and still trying to justify your rather silly comment.

Don’t be ridiculous, being a member of the House of Lords can’t protect you from prosecution. You are arguing against an argument which no one has made.

*sigh*

You clearly STILL don’t understand the difference between two very different **** points which I have explained at least three **** times.

OUTSIDE THE LAW – DOING SOMETHING NAUGHTY AND ILLEGAL

ABOVE THE LAW – DOING THE ABOVE THEN USING YOUR POWER AND INFLUENCE TO AVOID PROSECUTION.

TL:DR – YOU made the argument. YOU said he was acting above the law. YOU continued to argue that he was acting above the law even when I explained the difference the first and second times. Intentionally or not though your own ignorance, wilful or otherwise.

I don’t care if you think my comment was silly or not, I was just taking the OP’s ridiculous comment to the nth degree to put it in context.

Jesus, no **** surprise you were a labour tout in a past life, you really do fit the bill.

I won’t be wasting any more time on you, it was amusing at first but you’ve just ripped the **** out of this.