I am, of course, ashamed my conduct fell below acceptable standards. I've little recollection of the evening, but that doesn't make it right.
Little recollection?! That takes some believing. How many of us wouldn't remember an evening like that, I wonder?! Or does it happen most nights to Mr Griffiths? Lucky him... :)
32 comments:
Does that mean that he was under the influence of some mind-altering drug? Something illegal, perhaps?
" ... my conduct fell below acceptable standards ..."
What a disgustingly weasley phrase.
I have no idea Iain, but what about Ken Clarke's takeover of Tory tax policy? Isn't that worthy of some small comment from your good self?
... my conduct fell below acceptable standards ..." but i did nothing wrong as it was within the rules !
Tony McNulty makes me sick. How DARE he steal from us and try to say that it was all 'within the rules?' He's a crook but somehow because he's an MP it's all allowed. Disgusting.
Does this mean that the Palace of Westminster is now officially a "disorderly house"? Send in the cops, I say, and arrest all the usual suspects.
Now one can expect the woman, who will be furious that her exertions having been dismissed as 'I cannot recall etc' will now tell the whole story which could well- with any luck- finish off the bugger.
Little Britain's Sir Norman Fry uses much the same technique, as in "I have no recollection of how my clothes all fell off, or of how a passing Rastafarian gentleman out badger-watching tripped and accidentally fell into my bottom ..."
“How many of us wouldn't remember an evening like that...”
Amongst so many?
And I’m pleased you like bonkathon™.
But seriously, I have always understood this sort of thing is precisely why people become MPs in the first place.
Tom Driberg anyone? Edwina? John Major? One really could go on forever.
And frankly, isn’t it rather a private matter for them - wherever it might actually happen?
You really are a despairing Liberal -
Quote from Ken Clarke, which I as a 'Raving Right Winger' can easily agree with --
"So far as I am concerned, we are fully committed to raising the threshold for inheritance tax in the first parliament of a Conservative government as George Osborne has promised," he said.
"This measure will appear in the manifesto and I support it. We also all agree that George Osborne cannot write his first Budget until we have seen what we have inherited. I cannot see any significant difference between what I have said and what my colleagues have said."
So no wonder Iain is not commenting.
I cannot help but agree with Bugledog.
Following on from Smith its clear that with McNulty's efforts that some labour Ministers are simply taking the piss.
Errm.
The Clarke/Osborne thing is clearly a big story.
Having a forceful ex-Chancellor around with a weak Shadow Chancellor was a recipe for trouble and here it is.
I’m sure it won’t be the last time.
Stages of confession
1) I didn't do it.
2) I can't recall doing it.
3) Bye!
or pittly as the wv puts it
Oliver Drew says -
this is something that is between him and his wife and nothing to do with us really.
- so the character, integrity, honesty and trustworthiness of an MP are matters which are nothing to do with us? In that case we should all pack up, give up, and get the politicians we deserve. Or are we practically there already?
How about the sheer STUPIDITY of the imbecile in taking photographs of the "event"?
Maybe he knows his memory is flaky and wanted some keepsakes to remind him?
But then to lose possession of them?
I do hope he has not bred, we don't need his genes even in the shallow end that is NuLiebore.
The Penguin
Nigel is just representing the section of the electorate that like to bonk in the office.
Rah, rah
Hunter-Gatherer said... “Nigel is just representing the section of the electorate that like to bonk in the office.”
And hooray for that.
Blogger Oliver Drew said... “Personally if he was my constituency MP I would indeed think twice about voting for him again...”
How extraordinarily silly.
until we have seen what we have inherited
--------------------
Since when is nothing visible?
from the scotsman
'--- party leaders locally and nationally believe "the world has moved on" and voters are not as concerned about allegations of sexual impropriety by their public representatives as they were ten or 15 years ago---'.
so we conclude that the party hierachy assume that voters will accept without question that although it is alleged that their m.p.has the morals of an alley cat, he is still a fit and proper person to represent them!
Oliver Drew said... “why is it extraordinarily silly”
Because it’s got absolutely and completely bugger-all to do with his abilities or otherwise as an MP. And not trying to be biblical (being a militant atheist and all) but you need to walk in his shoes.
You know nothing of his sex life as you know nothing of the private lives of all the other MPs (with the possible exception of Ann Widdecombe) and it’s got bugger-all to do with you and bugger-all to do with the electorate unless it happens to threaten the security of the country. It clearly doesn’t.
The mail also points out
"Last year, the Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell was accused of pocketing thousands of pounds in expenses and avoiding tax by designating one of his properties as both his main residence and a second home.
He said his London flat was his second home so he could claim Commons expenses. But when he sold the property in 2004, he also said it was his main home - thereby avoiding Capital Gains Tax. "
Unbeeleevable.
Typicality in this new labour age its only a conservative who has paid back any money for second homes allowances.
Smith and McNulty need to did into their own pockets.
> Simon Gardner said it’s got absolutely and completely bugger-all to do with his abilities or otherwise as an MP.
Rubbish - if he's prepared to do this to his wife and family, then what levels of dishonesty and betrayal is he going to direct towards his constituents or the general public?
Best comment on Guido, re Mr Griffiths constituency party:
We're only making plans for Nigel..
I love the "don't recall" defense. But he really needs something more convincing.
He clearly hasn't read this:
http://wrinkledweasel.blogspot.com/2009/03/women-can-be-fooled.html
seebag said... “Rubbish - if he's prepared to do this...”
More extraordinarily silly nonsense.
Thanks Simon, I really do like a cogent well thought out and well argued point - now tell me that's more than extraordinarily silly.
Simon Gardner said...
More extraordinarily silly nonsense
Some of us who comment on here (i.e. the adults) lke to think that we can tell the difference between right and wrong. You seem to have something of a shortcoming in that area.
@ Simon Gardner:
"Because it’s got absolutely and completely bugger-all to do with his abilities or otherwise as an MP."
Allowing photos to leave his possession would imply that he's an idiot to say the least!
Oh! I see what you mean...
And I stand by my @ 12:12 PM
If you (any of you) decide to choose an MP on anything to do with their private lives (for which we mean their sex lives) you have a recipe for hypocrisy and/or a very odd and highly unrepresentative bunch of MPs.
It just isn’t relevant.
I wonder how his wife will react when he tells her "It is clear that, although I have little recollection of the night, my conduct fell below acceptable standards".
Ah well. Perhaps he can ask Gordon Brown to set up an inquiry headed by a government stooge with lines of inquiry so narrow that they have no choice but to exonerate him of all wrongdoing?
If we agree to disagree, then I'll carry on deciding who to vote for based on, amongst other things like policies, their integrity, principles, trustworthiness, judgement and honesty, and I guess you will carry on using some different basis. The mind boggles at what this might be.
Just NOT their sex lives - capische?
Simon, "capische" is the name of a restaurant on Maui.
I believe that you were referring to "capisce".
I don't agree that it has nothing to do with me. I wouldn't trust a man that has cheated on his wife. I couldn't trust him not to cheat me, in any dealings, I may have with him.
Politicians are bad enough without "tainted goods" setting themselves up to represent me in Parliament.
The number of times Labour MPs have excused assorted misdemeanours by claiming memory loss is worrying. It's leading me to believe that the Government benches (including the front one) are packed with people who have serious mental health issues.
I realise we should be caring and try to make nutters feel valued, but is it really wise to put so much responsibility and pressure on such fragile shoulders? Might not the resultant damage cause more anguish in the long run?
Post a Comment