Nobody has more contempt than me for the House of Lords or for cronies of Tony Blair. But I shall not join in the pillorying of John Sewel over his private life. If he wants to take cocaine and spend time with prostitutes that is entirely his own business. Britain’s periodic outcries over private morality are contemptible. There is no legitimate reason why the activities of consenting adults in their own homes should be of concern to the rest of us. Not the least unpleasant aspect is that those journalists and politicians who whip up such witch hunts are for the most part hiding secrets about themselves. That in 2015 we still have not come to terms with the most ordinary sexual desire or formulated a more rational policy response to use of narcotics, is unfortunate.
I expect if I dug around I could find a lot of things to dislike Sewel for, in terms of the policies he has supported. But to attack political opponents over their private lives – assuming the necessary factors of adults and consent – is low.
Squonk: He does??!! Well screw him in that case! I hadn’t actually bothered reading the story, it being so irrelevant to the genuine problems that beset us. But that kind of makes it a story worth reporting – a Standards Committee head abusing his own expense account. That’s the only part really worth getting upset about.
I have no problem with this Lord bring outed for his taking of a class A drug. It’s against the law, it’s that simple. The wider point of the press setting up such people is the important issue. In terms of him getting caught, it’s no different than those who pay the penalty for speeding, drink driving etc etc. all such activity is against the law and he got caught. He won’t be the last but it’s hardly enough to say he should be thrown out of the Lords.
“The argument springs largely from sex-negative feminism and the idea that sexual activity, and particularly penetration, in itself “demeans women”. This is nonsensical.”
This comes from the “All sex is rape” school of thought, brought to us by that old harridan Andrea Dworkin. Even in marriage, of course, no exceptions.
An old mate proposed once, “The only honest shag is the one you pay for.” To which another mate responded, “Then that must make you the most honest man alive.” Those were the days.
“Squonk: He does??!! Well screw him in that case! I hadn’t actually bothered reading the story, it being so irrelevant to the genuine problems that beset us. But that kind of makes it a story worth reporting – a Standards Committee head abusing his own expense account. That’s the only part really worth getting upset about.”
__________________________________
Glenn here’s what Sewel had to say about his fellow Lords.
In the video, Sewel, who has been a peer since 1996, is asked whether he receives expenses, and explains that he now gets a flat-rate allowance of £200 a day, though he alludes to the system being less rewarding than it once was.
“It’s all changed and disappeared. People were making false claims,” he is heard saying. “Members of her lordship’s house … are right thieves, rogues and bastards at times. Wonderful people that they are.”
Straight from the horses mouth, I never doubted it for one minute.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/26/lord-sewel-resigns-video-cocaine-sex-workers-deputy-speaker
Republicofscotland
Neither being a prostitute nor engaging one’s services is illegal in the UK.
I’m not sure if engaging the services of two prostitutes is illegal. I think if on his own premises it is not, but on their premises it is.
Kind regards,
John
Members of the House of Lords get their “expenses” every day just for signing in. They don’t get a salary.
He would have got the 300 anyway and could have just kept it in his pocket or Antiguan bank account. The fact he chose to spend it on prostitutes and drugs is irrelevant.
The very existence of the House of Lords is a disgrace. But not relevant to Sewel’s sex life.
Two lives.
The monotony of this deadly dull committee stuff
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?pid=13183&pop=1#n4
relieved by the use of drugs and alcohol, the latter endangering the lives of others.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/lord-sewel-banned-after-drink-driving-charge-1-499838 (2003)
Thank you John for your information, Wiki says this on the matter.
In Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland), prostitution itself (the exchange of sexual services for money) is legal, but a number of related activities, including soliciting in a public place, kerb crawling, owning or managing a brothel, pimping and pandering, are crimes.
In Northern Ireland, which previously had similar laws, paying for sex was criminalised in January 2015.
In England and Wales, it is an offence to pay for sex with a prostitute who has been “subjected to force” and this is a strict liability offence (clients can be prosecuted even if they did not know the prostitute was forced).
Could the prostitutes who allegedly had intimate knowledge with Sewel, could they have been forced to do so, by say a handler or trafficker etc?
“Neither being a prostitute nor engaging one’s services is illegal in the UK.”
Living off immoral earnings is so the majority of politicians in Britain are breaking the law.
Republicofscotland
5:57pm
You’re welcome, and I did not know that it was illegal to pay for sex in Northern Ireland.
Well, “forced” presumably has a legal definition and I think it would be difficult to prove – Craig says most prostitution is not “forced” in any case.
Kind regards,
John
He was paid £84,500 pa.
‘As chairman of committees, the crossbench peer also chaired the privileges and conduct committee, and was responsible for enforcing standards in the Lords.
The role, which comes with an £84,500 salary, meant he was in charge of proceedings when the Lords considered a bill at committee stage, and was automatically made a deputy speaker.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33667676
D’Souza the Speaker receives £101,038 pa, less than Bercow!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Speaker
Dismantle the whole shebang.
Craig
5:37pm
You seem to have a much healthier attitude towards prostitution than this Sewel character. I think this video itself is an excellent illustration of the way in which “prostitution demeans women” in the concrete, if not in the abstract. All you have to do is listen to his comments.
Kind regards,
John
“…In these socialist utopias why are people so willing to take drugs that others will risk execution to supply them?”
Surely, John, you don’t really regard the PRC as a “socialist” anything.
Craig is right about this case. Crimes seem to have been committed but the worst of them is blamable on The Sun.
It matters not at all whether this man is a careerist follower of Blair, (except that one understands such people desperately seeking mood changing services and narcotics; and particularly so for the Scots among them) he should not be spied on by Murdoch’s creatures. Nor should any revelations published by the dirty digger be credited as anything more than indications that the victim was suspected of secret decencies.
As to prostitution (no pun intended) it is rapidly becoming one of the few career options open to young people who are not prepared to betray their country and their friends by entering into the service of the City or the State.
John,
Yes – though this kind of roleplay is sometimes an understood part of the transaction. Very difficult to interpret it in isolation, particularly given that the women were setting him up.
@Craig
26 Jul, 2015 – 5:55 pm
But Craig, if we abolished the House of Lords just think of all the prostitutes and drug dealers who would go out of business!
Craig
6:19 pm
That’s quite true. For all I know, he’s the kindliest man alive. All we’ve got to go on is this, though, and in my judgement, which I’m quite prepared to admit might be mistaken, he is showing his authentic character in the video.
Kind regards,
John
Having listened to his comments (on R4 18:00), he’s just saying that his daily allowance is paying for “this” (the romp & snort). Not that he’s specifically expensing the jollies to the taxpayer.
That’s similar to my using this computer, which I bought with money earned from the company I work for, to write on this blog. It’s not directly billed to my company, the money is now mine – so how I spend it should be of no concern to them.
What is a bit sad is that the sex-workers’ code of conduct is being broken here. There ought to be an assurance of confidence involved. Allowing scum from the gutter-press to film the activity is well out of order.
Bevin
6:16 pm
No, of course I don’t – I was being ironic. Becky Cohen seemed to be arguing that drug trafficking is peculiar to capitalist societies and that it is eliminated in other societies through these really harsh measures. I think it is a mistake to execute drug traffickers as a matter of continuing state policy. I would much rather see the incentive for drug trafficking removed, which would be achieved in two ways: decriminalising the manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs and minimising the usage. I don’t want to see the equivalent of breweries and cigarette manufacturers with presently illegal substances. So I want the state to do it as the least harmful alternative.
Kind regards,
John
John, you are probably right.
Craig
Thanks, I appreciate that. J
yeah coz shagging prossies and sniffin charlie at 60 odd years of age isnt a sign that the people in charge of this country are complete reprobates and cant be trusted does it.
‘private life lol’ wouldn’t that be relaxing at home with his wife, you nutter.
Drugs and alchohol are wrong and we are better without them.
They cause violence and society would be well rid of such behaviour.
John Spencer-Davis, I agree that “drug problems” are mainly symptomatic of deeper emotional dissatisfaction. Structure society such that it is easier for people to achieve good emotional states and most “drug problems” would evaporate. But of course society structured to “improve market conditions” will inevitably find ways of creating emotional dissatisfaction; indeed, this is a fundamental principle of advertising – there’s a multi-billion dollar industry literally committed to making everyone feel worse about themselves. Maybe government should divert a proportion of the profits from advertising towards provision of psychological education and therapy.
Regarding drugs, I think that any psychoactive substance can be used or abused; indeed the same can be said of most behaviours or activities. Appropriate and universal education about drugs, behaviour, habit and addiction is necessary, and young people’s initial experiences with drugs need to occur in the company of experienced users, as happens in many tribal societies. Though possibly insufficient in itself, in the absence of such education it’s impossible even to evaluate how much of a problem there really is, so much of the trouble stemming in fact from a generalised ignorance of our own psychology and neurology, and the lack of communication of experience from elders to youngers – imagine if, say, driving vehicles was learned illicitly in the manner that drug use is.
Towards a sensible drug policy, after implementation of the above theoretical and cultural education, I’d advocate the full legalisation of drugs in their natural forms with control and restriction upon refining, isomerisation, synthesis and cross-breeding. So many “drug problems” seem to be associated with quest for increased potency. Of course this would also focus attention on the pharmaceutical companies, another multi-billion dollar industry which performs most of the testing, evaluation and promotion of its own products.
Jay
Intolerant nonsense. I have drunk alcohol my entire adult life and it has never once made me at all violent.
Slick, you are ludicrously intolerant if you think people of 60 should be confined to their homes. Adults of any age are quite entitled to private pursuits. I shall be 60 soon and have no intention of taking to Horlicks and Strictly.
Snorting cocaine off a prostitutes breast isn’t the crime of the century, betraying the trust of the people is. Those who make the laws should obey the laws, they receive a lot of public money and high status on the understanding they will not bring society into disrepute. This goes for all politicians, the judiciary, high ranking police officers and civil servants.
Ben he would get hairs on his palms and then he would be pointed to as the Lord Wanker of Plamiston!
===============
John Spencer-Davis, as Gore Vidal used to say, if the governments didn’t have the drugs to criminalize, they would be hard pushed to find something else to criminalize in substitution.
The huge amounts of money that is being pumped into the black hole of the drugs markets is a great source of income for many of the SIS. As well as the source of income for some of the very powerful players. Hence the criminalization of the drugs is here to stay. the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank that is the forerunner of the HSBC was founded to handle the opium windfalls, and the principles have not changed much, another era and another bunch of banksters enjoying the proceeds of the drugs trade.
==========
Craig I agree with your analysis of the prostitution;
However given the attitudes prevalent in US, that holds prison “rape” as part of the punishment regimen of the offenders, the wider notions of “penetration demeans” further reinforces the myths of the misandrist whom would rather see men dead than sullying the mother Earth by simply walking on it.
Notwithstanding the above, it is still not apparent why his Lordship has been pushed under the bus at this juncture? What has he said/done/thought out loud to face such an acrimonious trial by the tabloids? Who shoved him under the bus on whose orders?
Oh please. Yes, women, esp. trafficked women, suffer in prostitution; and many people suffer in the making, transport and trade in crack cocaine, but this distraction named Lord Sewell is to re-direct our attention to something that happens all the time and is between vaguely consenting adults instead of the accounts of child abuse that are starting to bubble up in the MSM and need to be kept deep in the Parliamentary (and other elites) closets.
Fedup
I often wonder about it. The Westminster and media elite new about Cook’s philandering for years, but nobody used it against him until he became an obstacle to the neo-con Blair wars. At a lower level precisely the same was true of me. They have known about Jack Straw but he never did oppose the wars so has never been outed. I wonder whether the threat is open or just implied? In my case I was openly threatened and warned to get back in line on the Blair programme, but I told them where to go. Result, love life all over Daily Mail. I suspect Straw wouldn’t have to be warned, he’d do whatever advanced his career for free.
Why Murdoch turned on or was pointed at Sewel I don’t know.
Clark
6:50pm
Thanks, Clark. I am largely in agreement with your comments.
I think there is a fundamental principle here: does the state have a right to interfere with what humans choose to do with their own bodies? My answer is no, but it’s a heavily qualified no. If what you do with your body harms other people (and Craig, I have drunk alcohol and have been violent as a result! The alcohol doesn’t cause the violence, it dissolves the inhibitions around letting it out) then the state has every right to interfere. If what you do with your body places you in a position where you are virtually helpless to help yourself (e.g., heroin or crack addiction or alcoholism), then the state may well have a right to interfere.
The quest for potency, in my view, is largely about getting more bang for your buck, and hence would very likely be substantially diminished if the profit motive was eliminated from the situation.
Yes, that’s why most advertising is a peculiarly pernicious evil, and I am particularly incensed by the glamorising by advertising of alcohol and tobacco, which I am extremely pleased to see is pretty well gone now.
Kind regards,
John
Right, I’m signing off now as I am spending the evening alone in a cheap hotel, and have not paid for Wi-Fi 🙁
Perhaps I should call Lord Sewel for suggestions on how I could pass the time.
Wish me luck – I’m lecturing fifty police officers on dementia tomorrow.
Kind regards,
John