Only the Tories could produce a sex dossier like this one, in tremendous High Tory prose. They talk of “impregnation” and “fornication”. This provides some backing for its authenticity.
It is difficult to understand the provenance of this “sex list” of Tory MPs. What was the standing of the junior Tory researchers who allegedly compiled it, and at whose behest? Assuming this copy is genuine, we know that at least some of it is accurate because individuals like Mark Garnier have admitted the detail of the allegation. But I publish it as a matter of intense public interest at the moment, and I publish it as evidence that this is what is alleged. This list is already extremely widely available online. I am not in any sense endorsing or promoting as true any of the specific individual allegations, which may be groundless nonsense. I understand that in some cases these allegations are strongly denied.
Except for the Liam Fox and Adam Werritty bit, we all know that is true.
What is genuinely alarming about this list is the clear picture that emerges overall that the pool of MPs’ researchers, who are often young and are in a subservient position in this context, are viewed as fair game for MPs’ sexual predation. The list of 40 Tory MPs (NB Not 36) includes 23 who are accused of inappropriate behaviour towards researchers, secretaries and others in a dependent position. This is disgusting exploitation and may be justly compared to the Weinstein affair.
But some of the other allegations do not strike me as of genuine public interest. Personal sexual preferences between consenting adults are not my business, and I detect a definite whiff of homophobia in some of these details. If somebody likes to be peed on by three men, what has that got to do with his ability or integrity as an MP? Similarly the concern about extra-marital affairs seems to come from a bygone age. If the several citings of Kwesi Kwerteng are true, the man has truly appalling taste. Women appear to be dubiously targeted for mere promiscuity.
Tories are sleazebags. Who knew?
Smells like a ‘limited hangout’ for all the reasons which lend it credibility.
Yes – one further possibility that struck me was they wanted it published to prejudice legal actions.
“If somebody likes to be peed on by three men, what has that got to do with his ability or integrity as an MP?”
Quite a lot, if their election address used (e.g.) a photograph of their fragrant wife and three lovely children as an implied testament to their commitment to “decent family values”.
“Handsy” sounds like an authentic Toryism!
I don’t accept that Julian. I know people who have a happily family life and a completely “other” sex life. These are personal choices.
Surely that’s only because their happy family is in complete ignorance of the truth, and moreover being constantly lied to.
I’m no moral prude by any means – if someone unattached wants to behave with other consenting adults as they wish, good luck to them.
But if a person can lie to, betray and deceive their closest and dearest, how much can the rest of the country trust them?
The more I consider it, the more I believe the problem is an organised hypocrisy in society. The Home Office estimate 72,000 sex workers in the UK. It is not the poor who are the bulk of the clients – the poor cannot afford it.
Thinking about it further, it really becomes a more serious moral failing when the politician in question touts his “family values” and denounces the lack of ethics in others while behaving like this. Since the employment of sex workers is so common, it doesn’t otherwise make for an outstanding moral failure in a politician – they really are behaving like everyone else.
I’m not sure engaging the services of sex workers is always terribly expensive. According to articles such as this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-41533411
… depending on how desperate these poor women are, twenty pounds might be her starting offer in negotiations.
A weak point, Murray. 72,000 is vanishingly tiny, and therefore a matter for concern about those who seek them out. Different if you’d omitted a nought. A million starts to justify regarding it as semi-normal. As for 7.2 million, positively run-of-the-mill, like the daily stroll down to the newsagent.
“These are personal choices” Of course,of course they are. They are part and parcel of the discreet charm (and sophistication) of the the elite bourgeoisie. Seems to be more fuss and bother over this than the paedophilic stench emanating from the dank recesses of crumbling Westminster.
Some actions that people should have a right to carry out indicate mental illness or other unfitness for public office.
“This is disgusting exploitation and may be justly compared to the Weinstein affair.”
Julian Assange is different how? He used his celebrity status to obtain sexual favours from not one but two women, when they found out about each other they felt cheated and used and went to the police. The sex was consensual but then so was the sex Weinstein had with the starlets who’s careers he could make or break.
Tory politicians, Weinstein and whistle blower website owners all look very much the same to me.
I am not convinced by the argument that those who sleep with someone because of their celebrity status have been wronged. They have rather wronged themselves. In the Weinstein case there is a clear distinction to be made. He coerced, blackmailed or even physically forced people. Those are crimes. Others slept with him willingly for career advancement. The latter is just scummy behaviour on both sides, but not criminal.
But if the career advancement was “…or you’ll never work in this town again…”
But I suppose that’s included in coercion
Narrowing that down to a single field, acting, for simplicity – ‘you’ll never work in this town again’ only has real credibility if there is an oversupply of aspirants and wannabes in ‘this town’. Very much the case in Hollywood. And most of the aspirants and wannabees must SURELY realise that their path to the Oscars will involve little in the way of academic thespian skills and quite a lot of compromise with, among other things, conventional morality. (Ditto politics)
People can be incredibly naive and/or in denial about the wicked ways of the world. Others might choose to remain silent about being coerced or otherwise pressured into performing depraved acts at the behest of a powerful and wealthy individual because doing so might jeopardize their earning potential or put them in a position that makes them socially uncomfortable.
The Weinstein spectacle again brings to light a divisive issue. Listening to, or reading, accounts of rape and sexual assault it is clear that many women – especially younger women – are not at all comfortable unambiguously asserting their will against the unwanted advances of a socially powerful, sexually aggressive male. They choose instead to remain effectively passive, even when threat of force or physical harm is absent, and then vehemently eschew taking responsibility for their actions (or lack thereof). In this they get encouragement from liberal feminists and the mainstream media who seem to equate women being assertive with victim-blaming. Instead, men – yes #allmen – are blamed not only for rapes and abuse they did not commit, but for women’s biological/socially constructed difficulty with asserting themselves.
Once in a while, however, poor old neglected reason is still invited to make a guest appearance in the MSM, such as in this CBC piece by a (self-hating, no doubt) woman who asks Why do we expect total self-flagellation from men in the wake of sexual assault scandals?
I think it’s a lot simpler than that. If you are the subject of unwanted advances, tell the advancer to fuck off. If that doesn’t work, hit him/her somewhere painful and call the police. You are defending yourself against assault, and that’s fine.If you accept the advance in the hopes of benefiting from your acceptance in some other way, that’s a done deal, and it’s too late to complain. It’s not that women aren’t assertive enough – as many suffering husbands will agree, they are more than adequate in that respect. It’s that screwing around is now regarded as acceptable behaviour, even a matter of pride, and the social barriers to what was once unacceptable behaviour ( but has always existed, nevertheless) have fallen.
For underage victims, the advance itself is illegal, and should be reported to the police not four years later, but immediately.
On the rash of would-be slebs (or their agents) suddenly remembering that they were violated years ago: even in Victorian times, actresses – generically – were regarded as little better than prostitutes. Nice people didn’t marry them. As stereotypes go, this was probably OTT, but there was a nucleus of truth to the slur, and given the nature of drama and the people who are attracted to it, there probably still is.
You highlight the difference yourself. The starlets and researchers careers weren’t going to make or break on whether they had sex with a whistle blower website owner.
So far, as I am concerned, all the politicians can shag each other…I’d just rather they did some work. That is what we pay you for. You are supposed to do what we pay you to do. We have delegated our views to you – about what we should do to make things better – and all you do is shag your secretary or your butler – and get pissed.
That’s not very good
Even Craig Murray occassionaly did something useful work.
What a useless bunch of arseholes – You are also incredibly stupid with very few exceptions.
Tony
@ Craig
‘…If somebody likes to be peed on by three men, what has that got to do with his ability or integrity as an MP? ….’
Er, quite a lot, in my book.
He’s open to being blackmailed, apart from anything else.
Cryzine have now published the dossier that has been doing the rounds of the media in redacted form. I won’t mention any of the names here. They include 6 cabinet ministers and 3 Tory leadership contenders.
What Cryzine published is precisely the same document I have published here.
A lot of it seems pretty gossipy – so and so had an affair. Hardly unusual in a mixed workplace is it. And some men have some homosexual proclivities, again surely something we now accept as relatively normal. It’s true that Tories aren’t the moral angles they claim to be, so there is a certain amount of dishonesty with their voter base, but no matter what they profess Tory voters don’t vote for moral reasons, they vote for lower taxes – the rest is what they use as cover and justification for the appalling and always inept polices the conservatives muster.
The last big leak on MPs was the expenses scandal which was done deliberately to remove browns government, it took a little over a year to be devastating.
I wonder if this is an attempt but the Civil Service to unseat May. Thing is the papers has no wish to remove the Tories like they did brown. So I can’t see this story hanging around beyond shifting a bit of copy
Angels or angles
‘By their works one shalt know them’.
A person is perverted (INHO) by Lucifer/Satan; such critters I don’t want as my ‘representative’.
I do not condone their hounding or persecutionj, but nor will I accept these pervs as MY representatives.
Democracy? What, by chequebook, blackmail or bribery? Thanks, but no thanks.
The Cryzine analysis is interesting. There are three leadership contenders on the list: the frontrunners Boris Johnson and Amber Rudd, and Dominic Raab among those following a short way behind. David Davis is not on the list but he has been called a disgusting sexist.
That leaves Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tridentine Mass-preferring far-right Catholic.
Note the use of the oldfashioned word “fornicated” in the text.
Never mind the piss. The Foreign Secretary is accused of “signing a non-disclosure agreement with” a woman he had an adulterous affair with, Danielle Fleet – in other words, paying the hole to keep its trap shut.
Assuming it’s true – and he hasn’t denied it – when did Russian intelligence first hear about the agreement? That’s the question. The guy has been an appalling security risk. The issue doesn’t disappear when the sex is consensual rather than rape. He paid her money to keep quiet. Did he pay the Russians in secrets?
Johnson is likely to be out of politics tomorrow, or within a few days at most.
I’m more appalled by your phrase “paying the hole to keep its trap shut.” Just the sort of attitude we’re talking about, surely?
@Ruth – How would you phrase it if you were trying to express the point of view of such a person in all its disgustingness? That is how very powerful men who like to have sex with young attractive women 30 years younger than them, women who are in lowly subordinate positions, view them. As holes, to be silenced afterwards if necessary. I was expressing the viewpoint of such vile men in what I consider to be a realistic way. It is not my style to follow the “beltway’s” minimisation or semi-jokification of such an objectifying view of beddable women by using terms such as “handsy” or “sleaze”. Seriously I think you should have realised this before posting.
I’m surprised that Boris Johnson’s dalliances have been compressed into one line.
Amber Rudd divorced in 1996 so there’s no reason why she shouldn’t be in a relationship. Dating a work colleague might be unwise but it isn’t illegal or immoral.
I say he paid her off, but maybe the way he got her to sign the non-disclosure agreement was to get one of his pals to threaten to break her legs or worse? He’s got form for conspiring to have a journalist beaten up. He obviously wouldn’t have taken her to court if she’d breached the NDA. How many others have been prevailed upon to keep quiet after experiencing Johnson’s Johnson? I recall Jeffrey Archer paying a prostitute two grand at Victoria Station. The message was “You’re leaving the country, girl. No buts.” She must have been terrified. Ditto poor Danielle Fleet, who’s only in her mid-20s now. Johnson is utter toast and he damned well should be.
Who will take over as Foreign Secretary? If Fallon, Green and Cairns fall this week as Johnson, surely it’s general election time?
Only madmen, or possibly some conscious price manipulators, are keeping their investments in Johnson as next Tory leader in the betting markets.
It’s strange what’s said about Amber Rudd. Kwasi Kwarteng is her partner. So what? She’s at the Home Office; he’s the PPS to Philip Hammond. They don’t share a workplace.
Wiki says Kwasi and Amber have been domestic partners, since 2010
so it is a non-story.
She’s older and more senior than Kwasi so she shouldn’t be taking advantage of the poor chap…..
Or so the logic seems to go.
So whilst politicians are involved in mass killing and disgraceful acts of social injustices, we are distracted with a list of 40 MPs who in many cases have done nothing illegal. This smacks of typical distraction tactics and its use of faux morality smacks of typical self righteous hypocrisy.
There are extremely serious threats in the world but these distractions consume the media. We have had a massive coverage on all media of the Harvey Weinstein story which goes on and on. We have now a new trial by media and social media even before any charges are brought. In the good old days this would all be considered prejudicial to the old concept of fairness but no more now.
I am really not in any way trying to defend either Weinstein or the Tories but let’s us talk more about how universal credit has actually killed people and the cholera epidemic in Yemen or global warming or the disaster looming in the form of Brexit and not be distracted by this rather voyeristic form of sensationalism.
Those other issues don’t dominate the agenda any other day. Why are you so angry about sexual predators in our parliament being exposed?
Having consensual affairs, being urinated on is hardly the stuff of sexual predators. There are some activities that qualify for the title. I do not defend sexual predators, just the trivialisation that these politically motivated saturation coverage distracts and the lack of due process in people being able to defend themselves.
Agree – Tories selling arms to all sorts of dodgy regimes barely gets a mention. This usually involves a bit more corruption – ‘commisions’ from Bae to dodgy saudis princes who then donate 10% to their favourite ISIS/AlQaeda charity. Which of course helps to keep bae in business and keeps the ‘commisions’ coming. Meanwhile May sits on the dossier that tells us which dodgy princes are funding wahabi mosques in the UK. Tit for tat I suppose.
Disappointing. No oranges in mouths or chelsea kits? Only dumbbell Fallon’s rapsheet contains hints of the very deepest tory perversions, although this Cairns individual shows promise. And it turns out that Nigel Evans is actually everything they assured us he wasn’t, what a shock.
Milligan’s corpse was naked except for a pair of stockings and suspenders, with an electrical flex tied around his neck and a black bin liner over his head, with an orange segment in his mouth
Voyeurism alert!
It looks like a blackmail list.
Incidentally, I actually do think it matters if an MP has had an affair. If someone is capable of systematically lying to and deceiving the closest person in their life then it casts doubt over their honesty in other areas of their life.
From introspection, there is a great deal of wisdom in the saw “all’s fair in love and war”. I have lied continually in pursuing affairs of the heart, and yet am in general afflicted with pathological honesty. Besides to debar people who have affairs would empty Parliament and have barred Disraeli, Gladstone, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, to name but a few.
But what of the 2nd part of that phrase “.. and war”. Many MPs may view politics as a kind of war, and thus will justify anything in the name of it, just as with love. It sounds like the plea of the guilty. Just because some people may be able to compartmentalise honesty between their love life and everything else doesn’t mean everyone can. No one should be disbarred for it, I just mean it may be an indicator of a lack of moral compass. I’ve also been deceitful in matters of the heart but it certainly wasn’t all fair and I certainly could have behaved better.
Also I would not shed a tear for the loss of Churchill.
You only lie to your nearest and dearest, about the only stuff that really matters? Nice ..
Women do it all the time without a hesitation; it’s called managing your other half. It’s millennial, since the dawn of civilisation and before.
Sarge: (November 1, 2017 at 07:50): (“You only lie to your nearest and dearest, about the only stuff that really matters? Nice”)……Oh Dear, ‘Sarge’. Do Please spare us your sanctimonious and priggish cant… !
There have been much better candidates who were passed over in favour of all of those. Churchill in particular is inflated in importance. An observer at Spion Kop he failed to learn the importance of holding the high ground, and years later went on to order the attempted invasion at Gallipoli. We credit him with spotting Hitler for what he was “Hitler is a monster of wickedness, insatiable in his lust for blood and plunder.” and use this to mythologize him as winning the war single handed. In reality the war was lost by Hitler and won by the Russians on the banks of Volga, by young Americans dying on the beaches of France, and Commonwealth soldiers fighting far from their homes, not by the pampered and privileged products of the class system. We reference his contrived speeches but forget he was voted out of office the first chance the electorate got.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlcn6JtQX_s
Concerning the Tory peccadillos, what consenting adults do on their own time is their own business, however when we see patterns of exploitation and deception we should be concerned. It will be for the constituents to decide if they wish to be represented by these people, perhaps soon. One might almost think the Tory’s want to lose an election and dump the Brexit burden on Labour and spend the next 30 years reminding the Brits how Corbyn messed it up.
The same Churchill who pushed for sending an army to fight the Russian revolution in 1919. The same Churchill who gassed Iraqis.
I’m inclined to agree with Craig here. I can’t actually think of anyone, in or out of public life, who doesn’t have a shadow over their personal life in some way. None of us is perfect, or perfectly honest, even if we try to be. We’re human, f’r goshsakes! Surely the distinction to be made here is not about sexual behaviour, but about the abuse of power.
Shame on Poulter. He’s a doctor ffs. ‘First do no harm’.
He was a health minister.
‘His primary responsibilities as a Health Minister were for workforce issues, NHS estates and IT systems. After the 2015 general election, Poulter returned to the back benches.’
When it first came out (in the early Seventies), I saw the Bunuel film with the title of this post. Brilliant and memorable.
I agree with all you have written here. However even though this version of the document has already been widely circulated, I would have preferred it if you had used the redacted version, where the details of the victims have been redacted. Possibly they have already suffered enough, & will no doubt face further media intrusion. Moreover they will be open to all sorts of abuse on Social Media. We can’t stop it, but perhaps we can at least make some effort to discourage it.
I really doubt the utility of hiding information which everybody remotely interested has already seen.
Maybe I’m a tad old fashioned however being married or in a relationship both imply a degree of honour and trust. An affair no matter how transient or sordid is a betrayal of trust. If someone can betray their partner how much easier to betray constituents.
Moira,
I am sorry to tell you that the large majority of my close married male friends have to my certain knowledge been unfaithful, and there are none whom I would vouch have not been. DNA testing for a variety of purposes has become increasingly used and, across all cultures, shows that over 10% of people’s fathers are not who they “ought” to be, a fact I recall well from being in charge of immigration sections. I fear the world is not as you would wish, and impossible sexual perfection is not a quality I seek.
This information about ‘infidelity’ is interesting. It is highlighted in an early chapter of the book by Jared Diamond-‘The Third Chimpanzee’. Not sure of his precise sources but when I read this I remember being ‘surprised’ at what appeared to be a high level of ‘false’ paternity.
The information was originally based on material which arose from the understanding of the genetics of the ABO blood groups, in the thirties in the US. Researchers checked the blood groups of offspring against that of parents and realised that a considerable proportion of children were not biologically related to the father. This information was suppressed for some considerable time, as the authorities feared it would lead to domestic violence as cuckolded husbands had their suspicions aroused. I am not actually sure that is correct and may be more to do with the sensitivities of the average puritanically inclined US authoritarian, but I guess it became more widely known in the Masters and Johnson era. Diamond goes on to say that this ‘feature’ is repeated across cultures to sone degree or other i.e. there is a level of wrongly (or falsely) assigned paternity across the world but this varies according to cultural context.
One thing to remember is that Jared Diamond is a ‘science storyteller’. Not altogether a bad thing but this always requires simplification, and this simplification is always done in accordance with the ideological predispositions of the author. Some of hs other work has been deconstructed to reveal some considerable ideological assumptions.
He likes to spin plausible effects into ‘scientific’ causation. It CAN be quite convincing but Diamond has been caught out several times now making unsupportable assertions, or spinning a scientific story line to suit his own purposes, assigning more meaning to something than is supportable. When i first read this I was impressed. Now-somewhat less.
The fact is that these figures would have to be broken down in considerable detail to find out what is actually going on. I doubt that it is a straightforward indication of widespread marital or relationship infidelity although obviously that must be a factor.
I also meant to say that i am sceptical of your ‘10%’ figure. I think it may be considerably lower but that is an intuition not a fact.
Absolutely agree with what you allude to about science and ideology and science storytelling and scientism. (Similar elaborations and fabrications are often discernible in other popular science journallists.) I also suspect a figure considerably lower than 10 %, probably lower than 1 % even.
Even if we accept 10 %, it still means a 90 % veracity of fatherhood, which brings us right around to Moira Currie’s point about honour and fidelity and trust, at which Murray was somewhat lamely retorting. If 90 % (probably much higher) of fathers can behave honourably, why can we not expect absolute, rock-solid honour in those who put themselves forward to be our legislative, and in some cases government, representatives?
“If 90 % (probably much higher) of fathers can behave honourably”
Erm, Pietra: if “over 10% of people’s fathers are not who they “ought” to be”, that suggests to me not that 90% of fathers are behaving honourably, but that 10% of mothers are not behaving honourably, unless I am missing something.
Possibly a much higher proportion of fathers than that are not behaving honourably, but that is not a conclusion that can be drawn from the proposition. It might be that a very low percentage of highly sexually active men are impregnating that 10% of mothers. J
Craig: your reply might show the reality of the situation, it doesn’t make it right. An affair is a terrible betrayal of the most basic trust two people can put in each other, assuming both have promised each other a loving and monogamous relationship. Pure selfishness, with the responsibility often shrugged off when the cheating party claims to be unable to control themselves. I agree – up to a point – that a person’s private life shouldn’t impact on the perception of their ability to do a public job, but it is a good indication of their character, or lack thereof. That someone can compartmentalise deceit and selfishness in one aspect of their life means only they lack empathy, not that they should be assumed honest in all other matters.
I am slightly astonished. You posit: “If somebody likes to be peed on by three men, what has that got to do with his ability or integrity as an MP?” The answer is simple: such perverted behaviour indicates a dubious underlying psychodynamic. Are we sure we want such people making our laws; running our country… I don’t.
When Cecil Parkinson entered the news way back when it did not concern me. It was a private matter between consenting adults. But perverted behaviour is not so simple a matter. What is obviously perverted behaviour is problematic.
I don’t mind if people want to swap; swing; group; gang-bang etc., etc., etc. They are all fun variations upon the basic sexual function. When some wants to be pissed on from a great height I wonder why? The answers are never indicative of a healthy personality structure. I ask again: do we want such people representing us in our legislature; do we want such people making our decisions for us; do we want them running the country; and do we want such laughing stocks representing us abroad… to other countries.
I am reminded of Craig’s reports of an early vetting, when he was told that it was refreshing that his history of naughtiness involved nothing more than a penchant for the ladies rather than the little boys; or little girls or…. maybe being pissed on from a great height.
Bert.
Don’t be so prurient, what people get up to is no business of yours, so long as they’re not hurting anyone. Anything two (or more!) consenting adults do with each other is fair play. One man’s perversion is another man’s missionary position every Christmas and birthday.
They may be hurting others. I thought I had made the point clear enough: when it was Cecil Parkinson and Sara Keyes I didn’t give a monkey’s… Not my business. When the behaviour is ‘PERVERTED'(and that is the key point) it might indicate an underlying psychological issue that could disqualify the person from public office. Even just being a backbencher.
I don’t think this is prurience; if you want to take part in swaps and swings and groups and gang-bangs that is your own business. I have myself been involved in a few games now and then, What I am hitting on; what I am concerned with; what I am raising is questions about the psychological fitness for public office when they are involved in PERVERTED behaviour. There is a very important difference between what is perverted and what is just good healthy – if broad-minded – rumpy-pumpy.
Bert.
Personally, I feel that Parkinson’s subsequent treatment of Keyes and their daughter is more of a disqualification than being pissed on by three (presumably consenting) adults.
You may well be right. Unfortunately, the unplanned pregnancy pickled the herring for Parkinson. Suddenly a bit of a frolic over an office desk became a much more serious matter.
Te difference is that Parkinson’s treatment of Keyes is a moral question and may well strongly contra-indicate adequacy in public office – which is also a moral question; but psychological competence is a serious issue – it can lead to very bad decision making.
Bert.
Rather than call anything that’s not to my taste perverted, and then imply from that some moral or psychological deficiency, I’d rather live and let live, so long as nobody is harmed. Although I think being pissed on is about the least erotic thing imaginable, I would not call someone else a pervert for getting off on it in the company of like minded adults.
Of all the arguments I’ve got involved in on this site, standing up for the right of the MP for Hazel Grove to have three men piss on him is not one I saw coming…
Responding to this leads to a certain contradiction. I do not define ‘pervert’ in merely personal terms. It is not defined by my opinion; it is defined by natural function. I tend to agree with you; live and let live. But there is a very different standard for those who wish to rule over me. And I think others have the same right also.
I define perversion as out of keeping with natural processes. Natural processes then, are those nature defined… In this case the reporductive coupling of male and female. This leads to a moral contradiction since I tend to say that homosexuals (male or female) should be left alone and not in any way abused or mistreated for the way they are. Male homosexuality may be a consequence of low testosterone levels during the 8th to 16th weeks of gestation leading to under-masculinisation of the would-be male brain. Female homosexuality may be a consequence of Congential Adrenal Hyperphasia leading to excess testosterone causing an over-masculinisation of the would-be female brain.
As a matter of common decency I tend to say that homosexuals shold be allowed to lead their lives without abuse and/or harrassment. But technically, given the definition above, homosexuals would be perverts. As an erstwhile engineer I have a slight problem: I look for clearly defined parameters: definitions. Frameworks of thought that have (wherever possible) irrefutable; objective; scientific intellectual foundations.
Of course, such an approach can lead to moral contradictions but should not lead to technical contradictions.
Perhaps you are giving your moral views priority and I am giving the question of technical definition priority. Nor does anything I have said here suggest that homosexuals should be mistreated in any way; or give sucre to homophobes.
Bert.
Who gets to define what is perverted activity. Is it something as simple as alternative forms of intercourse (Oral or Anal)? Watching porn or filming yourself? Phone sex/sexting? Having sex with a lifelike silicon doll? Enjoying the risk of getting caught in public, etc? I saw a survey recently that suggested around one third of people incorporate some element of S&M roleplay into their sex life – does that qualify? When you add up the innumerable different fetishes and kinky preferences there is little doubt the great majority of people fantasize about one such “non traditional” erotic interaction whether or not they act it out in real life. Or to express it differently the most sexually unusual people are those who like nothing unusual. Why should politicians be different. You may not like the idea of being pissed on but if you look inside yourself there’s a good chance you have interests that others could label perverse.
See above. I try to define things in – hopefully – logical rational and scientifically arguable terms.
Bert.
Only Kwasi Kwarteng MP emerges from this with his reputation enhanced.
Two cabinet ministers! Serially or in parallel?!
And he was a stellar performer for the victorious winning team on University Challenge around 20 years ago, the multi talented media smoothie !
Mind you, news of his dalliances may queer his pitch in his attempt to be the ‘British Obama’.
Oh dear, how sad….never mind
Did you spot P Harry speaking about his mother (yet again!) at the Obomber Foundation. YCNMIU.
Prince Harry tells Obama summit: ‘Young people inspire me’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/01/prince-harry-tells-obama-summit-young-people-inspire/
It would appear that no longer does he do ‘bad things to bad people.
http://persophile.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/prince-harry-does-bad-things-to-bad.html
It is a great pity
no one was willing to prosecute Cyril Smith
when he was alive.
I’d tend to agree with you that people’s affairs and sexual predilections are not in the public interest. However, these are Tories. They are always keen to pass intrusive surveillance and anti-privacy laws so they can find out what you or I get up to. Legitimate that they should suffer what they want to inflict on the rest of us.
Also, this list was not compiled with what might shock an ordinary person but on the basis of what would outrage the average Daily Mail reader with things the Tories would prefer not to see published in that illustrious journal. On that basis, female promiscuity, male homosexuality and ‘out of the ordinary’ sexual practices are of the utmost interest.
Trust the Wikipedia editors update the records of each of the above.
In particular, this one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Stewart_(British_Army_officer)
Oversaw a spot of killing in NI and Bosnia and then moved on to the HoC where, amongst his other extra mural activities, he proselytises for more war.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=24907 Visits to Bahrain, Taiwan, Gibraltar, Kazakhstan,…
What evidence have you that he took part in ‘killing’ while serving in Northern Ireland?
Apologies ‘oversaw a spot of killing’, I know you are fan of accuracy…
Yes Dreoilin.
I have told you often enough I am not Dreoilin but whatever makes you happy. So what evidence have you that Bob Stewart oversaw killings in Northern Ireland? I am sure there would be many parties interested in such information, especially given the Sinn Fein’s desire to see British Soldiers in the dock while their own lot cower from justice with Royal pardons. Alternatively, if you are just spouting your usual anti-British guff and abject ignorance about Northern Ireland, then say so.
When people make a marriage vow, “forsaking all others” is the only practical thing that’s really being asked of them. Just setting up with someone as your partner rather implies faithfulness, even if it isn’t formally sworn in front of all the people most important to you both.
So it’s a pretty important commitment that is not being honoured. It’s also the most profound betrayal of a partner, and probably the most hurtful thing one could do to a partner. One might wonder – upon finding themselves the victim of such behaviour – how their partner could _choose_ to hurt them that badly.
And then there are the goings on which led to Elliott Johnson to take his own life.
Rest assured our respected representatives demand that we vote for them again as no others will be able to do the job as badly and as wasteful as they can.
Never did I see a better time for real Independents to emerge, eight cllrs. have resigned from North Norfolk District council in the last three month, two days ago some seven Kippers on Gt. Yarmouth council joined the Tory group and were warmly received as they now took over power.
Clowns who don’t want to realise that their act has finished, they love srtanding on the stage for the love of looking down on people, thinking that they deserve to be were they are, parties and political policies don’t come into it, that is just guff you tell people on the doorstep.
WHERE IS THE POLICE? Why have they not been called in to investigate, take computers away and interview those who have a grievance? Where is the motion of no confidence?
Comment writer’s challenge!
Can anyone come up with a definition of bourgeoisie that doesn’t include our host?
Lets’s see,
Liberal,
well educated, aloof, entitled, swings both ways, likes a drink, enjoys the theatre, well travelled, loads of self belief, hands some money to charity, sleeps easy in bed at night.
There are absurd calls for Damian Green to stand aside from cabinet duties while he is being investigated. For allegations of lightly touching the knee of a woman in her early 30s, flirting with her by text and sounding her out about an affair. Even if he did do it why would he be sacked?
Nigel Evans was prosecuted for sexually assaulting men and the case collapsed on the grounds that the witnesses (the alleged victims) all said they were consenting on the stand.
Have you ever considered that the utter failure of your miserable attempt at a career in politics is because you don’t kiddy-fiddle? A puppet with no strings is no useful puppet.
Related, perhaps interesting fact: If you are jailed in Scotland for the sexual abuse of children, inmates call your offence ‘stoat the ba’ (Translation for English viewers: ‘bounce the ball’). You will encounter some very trying peer disapproval if you bounce the ball.
We should collect the Tories, put them in a cell in Barlinnie, and leak the information that they are in for stoat the ba.
Harsh? Yes, but not unfair.
I wonder if this sort of treatment by fellow inmates is because of genuine disgust, or they’re simply trying to gain kudos among the other old lags. After all, they don’t seem to exhibit the same moral outrage about the most appalling treatment of women among their mates, never mind other crimes showing a severe sign of moral lacking.
If only half the details in this are true, it will still explain Craig’s liberal, if not lax, attitude to moral integrity;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504117/The-squalid-truth-Our-Man-Uzbekistan-belly-dancer-lover.html
Why do you reckon the the Daily Hate-Mail might want to discredit CM, Macky? It’s not as if it’s any sort of scoop either – all that salacious gossip you gleefully referenced has been voluntarily admitted.
If all that has been voluntarily admitted, then CM should have no problem with me referencing it to help explain his rather cavalier attitude.
(BTW deeply impressed how your intuition leads you to state that I posted the link “gleefully”, Mystic Meg has nothing on you, she was rarely right about anything neither.)
A factor not mentioned in the comments section ,is the role of the SECURITY services in this Tory sex imbroglio. It is not unusual for the likes of MI6 or Westminster Whips to use knowledge of an MP’s peccadilloes to pressure them into voting or making statements inline with security service or another Powers objectives. It is an old form of political control.
I have been amazed at the puerile war mongering statements by Fallon and other politicians ,both European,USA and NATO in recent years.
This expose of the Tories has dampened the ammunition in the ‘black bag’ of the Dark forces, now that it is Public knowledge.
A blackmail secret is only useful as a pressure point as long AS IT IS A SECRET.
Whoever shone a light into these dark corners has done the State some good.
I wondered why Boris was so ridiculously gung-ho
Excellent point, Salford Lad.
Nevermind the Security services, look at the Government;
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNgDYMSXUAAClX0.jpg:large
Dear Craig
Is this a wise strategy given the legal problems you have encountered, or potentially another opportunity to asks readers to contribute to another legal defence fund
Yours sincerely
Mr MillWall