I can’t help wondering if some people have a really confused idea of right and wrong…
A minister has to resign his post for sending some rather tasteless photos whereas using photos without permission to assume a false identity is OK as long as it’s allegedly “in the public interest”?
I’ve never really understood why the private life and perceived morals of MP’s and other public figures is deemed of greater importance than their ability to do their jobs. A vicar or priest of whatever persuasion is there to offer spiritual and moral guidance and so it seems logical that we should expect that within the bounds of being fallible humans, they endeavour to uphold at least the level of morality they ask of other people. (That said, I write this with an image in my head of the repentant Richard Chamberlain in Shogun which is, I admit, somewhat distracting…)
So logically, while it seems natural to expect and demand that those responsible for creating our laws do in fact also uphold the law, is it right to also demand that they live to a higher moral code than the rest of us?
I often feel I’m in a minority in thinking that I’d rather have ministers who are good at doing their jobs, even if they are occasionally incredibly naive and stupid in their private lives.
But what worries me more is that surely the matter of who governs us should be a democratic one – not at the whim of a few people who choose to go on a witch-hunt. It seems extremely dangerous to allow newspapers or individual journalists to decide to target ministers of a particular political party, viewpoint or background with a view to embarrassing them into resigning.
Whilst we may not like or agree with those in power now or in the past, in some sense it was our votes (or lack of vote) which got them there – a small group of individuals or corporations shouldn’t be able to change that.
Rant over. Your views would be most welcome xx
* Grey is so last year, Daahhling…. ;-)