Lord Sewel

[hollyisalovelyname]

You couldn't make it up.
I feel sorry for his family.
You'd think politicians would learn from the past.

No not at all, I'm not 'worried' about anything here - just noting the easy, age-related insults that we often let casually slide by.
And loving the 'cavorting' thing - really? Did you see him cavort? Or are you just a Sun-victim?

Cool his age is the least of his worries, if he were younger I would call him a sleazy young git, the disgust on here is not because of his age but his sordid actions.

Now all we need to know is WHO was the BBC Presenter Lord Sewel had an affair with - the problem being that the very fact they're presenting at the Beeb would indicate that they ALL have a penchant for Labour politicians. lol

For a start we can discount about 25% who don't like men at all, even those wearing red bras.

Next all the Blue Peter presenters, they're both too squeaky clean and have far too much common sense.

Regionally it would likely to be any presenter covering London affairs (a-hem) in the frame as more likely to make contact and practically be able to have an affair with a Westminster politician.

One could stand out as was single, covered the city/politics and dated weird ducks from Labour i.e. a certain Messrs Balls and Miliband the Younger.

Now left to join an Investment Bank, an early front runner?

Erm....you're kidding....a 'sleazy young git' is never used as an insult.

Professionally in a standards role of the HoL his position is totally undermined. Outside of that...what's the story here? Man is filmed using cocaine, wearing a bra at one point, in company with paid prostitutes. Not something I'd call 'disgusting' or never mind 'scandalous'. But that standard-bearer we know that is The Sun has tee'd up the rabbit and off you've scampered after it.

His position was undermined - but not untenable.
If I worked with someone who did this at the weekend (well I have as I'm sure a lot of us have) I wouldn't be asking for them to be sacked.

People are rightly annoyed about his comments, and that he was over seeing standards.

The House of Lords is another club where they all stick together.
I didn't hear anyone from the Lords asking for his resignation.

I still find it more offensive that Archer is still in there after serving a prison sentence for pejury.

Sure, Archer is a convicted criminal. This bloke hasn't actually done anything he would be charged with. (The Met have to look as if they're actually doing something.)

But under their rules - to sack him he would have to be given a prison sentence of over a year. I honestly thought he'd just weather the storm.
I bet he still gets his pension

?Imo lots of people in similar positions get up to this kind of thing, I wonder why he was singled out for public humiliation?
The prostitutes who filmed him, who put them up to it and why??

I believe Sewel sits as a crossbencher, despite being a friend of Blair's.

He does seem to be a most unsavoury character.

It's a Sun sting. Fairly easy for journos to find out who would be vulnerable to a bit of humiliation and embarassment and get to sell papers to bosum-hoikers......

I assumed he was a Tory . Why?

Someones got a 'a bug up' re Archer, back in the 1990's when politicians were accountable, jailed and paid their debt to society.

Until VERY recently Lords could not be booted out and it was Lord 'Ultimo' Sewel that brought in laws to give the chamber powers to boot them out - so unless retroactive, Archer or anyone else is not an issue.

The Lords despite what the Daily Mirror would have you believe, has a very important job filtering numb-nut Commons policies/laws, often badly thought out by thick MPs long on ideology, short on little grey cells - so goes back and forth between chambers (utilizing specialist skills/knowledge within the Lords) to PROTECT us from the 650 idiots in 'the other place'.

My point is that we can't have drugged up Lords of dubious character in any position looking after the rights of the plebs like me, never mind Lords in senior positions - as you really never know what legislation the Lords will be asked to pass.

Aug 2006; Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

“Tony Blair's government has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences during its nine-year tenure, one for almost every day it has been in power.”

”The astonishing tally brought accusations last night of a "frenzied approach to law-making" that contrasts with falling detection rates and climbing levels of violent crime.”

”The 3,000-plus offences have been driven on to the statute book by an administration that has faced repeated charges of meddling in the everyday lives of citizens, from restricting freedom of speech to planning to issue identity cards to all adults.”

Actually yes I would call someone a young git, sleazy or otherwise & I do not read the Sun thanks.

Whilst his behaviour might not be illegal, it is immoral & when you are in the public eye, that's not acceptable. I agree with pp it's his wife & family I feel sorry for.

The Lords doesdo a very important job of carefully revising legislation that the Commons barely looks at. It's also built up a reputation for protecting by civil liberties and safeguarding the constitution. Members there are inclined to betray their whips and listen to argument more often that in the Commons. Plus nearly a third of members are independent and appointed for non political skills.

The Press aren't interested in that side of the Lords. Stories like this Sewel story play to a steryotype and are much easier to sell. Also the reporting has been full of errors: his flat wasn't paid for, he couldn't claim the daily expenses allowance let alone use it for cocaine, he's not been Labour for years etc etc etc

The man was a prize fool to behave as he did, especially while head of standards, but the Press have been pretty idiotic about this too.

I do not read the Sun, but the Mail recently did a similar sting on a Doctor.
The doctor is still working.

I have no idea what a bug up is but I assume that remark was aimed at me.

I used Archer as an example of someone who has actually been prosecuted for a crime.

Remember the injunction a few months ago re Mr Y and CHS - wonder if it was about this? There was speculation then about a BBC presenter

*It's a Sun sting. Fairly easy for journos to find out who would be vulnerable to a bit of humiliation and embarassment and get to sell
papers.."

Interesting isn't it that some of us will accept someone in public life casually breaking the law taking class A drugs. I wonder how he got the coke? And the young women?

Isn't it in the public interest to expose these double standards? By buying cocaine, he is directly contributing to an industry with direct links to orgAnised crime and human misery run by not very nice people. And he is at risk of bribery.

How could he possibly keep his job?

Steady. I don't condone/support using class A drugs, or buying prostitutes time, but neither am I about to hoike my imaginary bosum up. I accept that all sorts of people break the law every day, but was intrigued by 1. the age discrimination polluting the thread, 2. the prospect of The Sun pointing a moral finger at anyone and 3. the actual non-existence of any actionable activity being shown to have happened.

I'd also like to know why Ubik "assumed he was a Tory". Of course, Labour politicians never get up to no good..........

It's not that

It's just the whole story is so '80s
You know...Cecil Parkinson, David Mellor etc
It's quite old fashioned - a good old political sex scandal.

Yeah, it's so uncool to object to women being bought as wank socks. Tsk.

Indeed.

is this video old then I assumed it was recent.

@PamAyres: All hypocrites should take due care,
When snorting coke in Dolphin Square,
An orange bra is not so cute,
And best left on the prostitute.

Pam
Ayers

I object to important issues effecting us all being influenced by a man who's judgement may be impaired by stuff he is sticking up his nose & who's opinion of women is so openly sexist .

It's not a question of what he gets up to in his spare time.

It's the fact that said activities are indicative of someone who's judgement at work will not always be of the best to enable him to make important decisions .