excerpt, press column: Trinity Mirror (UK) Tuesday, July 24 2007
FCS
welcome" by Keith Hellawell
"Many politicians have skeletons in their closets, and they, like
the rest of us, do all in their power to keep them there. I am not
naïve. This is not a new problem amongst elected personell. However,
those who went before them had the good grace to resign if they were
caught out. Seemingly this is no longer the case."
"Can you imagine any government in the not too distant past
suriving after a large proportion of its ministers admitted breaking
the criminal law? They say it was many years ago, 25 in the case of
the Home Secretary, but this is not so for many of her younger
colleagues."
"Distance in time is no excuse. They knew they were breaking the
criminal law. They knew that had they been discovered they would have
ended up in court and may have had to serve a prison sentence. They
knew that they would have been 'sent down' from university. They knew
that a drug conviction would have precluded them from certain
professions and restricted their international travel."
Er,
"They knew that they would have
been 'sent down' from university."?
15 years ago?
1992?
Really?
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--
Phil Stovell
> Excerpt of article titled "Is this really the kind of confession to
> welcome" by Keith Hellawell
Do you have a link? This reads like upd stuff.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.misc:
> "Can you imagine any government in the not too distant past
> suriving after a large proportion of its ministers admitted breaking
> the criminal law?
Michael Howard?
mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk
From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.
Disc Space
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:16:25 -0700, FCS <sipst...@my-deja.com>
> wrote the following to uk.misc:
>
>> "Can you imagine any government in the not too distant past
>> suriving after a large proportion of its ministers admitted breaking
>> the criminal law?
>
> Michael Howard?
Cash for honours, Iraq etc etc
FCS
I thought I'd removed the post I followed this
up with. I have now.
It's worth keeping in mind that although he's
published in the UK he writes from France.
This excerpt from his column today should give
an idea how "in-touch" he is. About as "in-touch"
as I am with the preoccupations of the average
teen', IOW.
"...How often do you check the
amount you are charged on a card?
"I know most assistants now ask you to
do so before signing, but how many of us
do it?"
As I found when I managed to lock myself
out of my PIN on a plastic card, there
are very few places which will allow you
to sign for a transaction in these days
of chip & PIN.
I was fobbed a variety of flannels from
"oh, nowhere'll let you sign these days"
(untrue)
to
"Ah, we have a special machine we use
for processing cheques and it's broken."
(erm, I've never seen one despite having
dealings in retail sector backrooms for
20 years. Why would they suddenly be new
technology now, when the whole sector is
moving away from cheques?).
In short, whilst Keith may influence the
opinions of voters and local campaigners
may incorporate his approach into theirs
as a result, it's highly unlikely he'll
ever influence policymakers again. As such
although it may be of some interest in upd
I still don't consider core it material.
I do also take a lot of his points as well
made, if somewhat blinkered, FWIW. I know
where he's coming from but disagree on his
preoccupation with surface appearances to
the detriment of substance.
But he's in his autumn years and it would
be unfair to represent him as otherwise and
it's a family newspaper.
He still seems to believe the way to break
the link between drug use and crime is to
keep drug supply in the hands of criminals.
Mark Whiteley
"FCS" <sipst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1185892840.0...@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Commendable, some people don't seem to care how they refer to others on the
net. A bit of respect for all is a good thing. A lot of prohibitionist are
well meaning, they just hold a different view.