Those whom the gods wish to destroy…..

Being a fairly rational soul, I just cannot fathom the reality which certain people, nearly all of whom are politicians or high-profile so-called sporting celebrities, seem to wish to reside in. Times without number, we see men and women in high office or public standing, brought low as a direct result of truly foolish, usually sexual but not always, behaviour. Is it simply hubris, that strange sensation which tells them that ‘they can get away with it’; or ‘no-one is watching’, or the last and probably the most foolish, ‘no-one can touch me because of who I am’?

The list is endless, but just the latest in a long sordid line are the revelations regarding Lord Sewel, some cocaine and a couple of prostitutes who were obviously more mercenary than usual. Here is a man who was at the very backbone of political life, and he throws it all away for what? Seemingly for very little indeed. John Buttifant The Lord Sewel, Baron Sewel CBE, BA, MScEcon, PhD, LL.D., by very virtue of the letters after his name and title, is not a daft man; he’s got a Degree, a Masters, a PhD, and he piloted through the Lords the whole Scottish Devolution kerfuffle.

Okay, he didn’t do the last job totally by himself, but his finger was on the thread, and his team did the business. So why the hookers? Why the totally stupid faffing about with an orange bra? He’ll be lucky if he’s not doing time along with the ordinary criminals, except, if he is charged, it’ll probably be a stiff slap on; no better not, he may enjoy that!

The list of politicians who have grovelled for forgiveness just goes on, with the name of John Prescott, he who WorkedForCunard’ featuring prominently, alongside such paragons as Jeremy Thorpe, cleared of plotting the murder of his homosexual lover, but really as guilty as sin; David Mellor for having taken a holiday courtesy of the PLO, as well as screwing some whore; Neil Hamilton for taking cash for questions from that paragon of virtue Mohammed Fayed. John Major, the man who would later become Prime Minister, screwing Edwina Currie in a four-year long affair: the mind boggles, not for the affair, but for risking everything for a screw with the Westminster Bicycle?

Move the red-lined ‘scope towards the ‘Celebs’ and the target area becomes almost too rich, with the ‘clean-living family man’ image of the wealthy Ryan Giggs ever-so-slightly tarnished after the super-injunction failed to stop the news of his sexual activity with some slapper, and then the bombshell of his eight-year affair with his brother’s wife; then the strangely-hushed reporting of the suicide of some football bloke called Gary Speed. or the strange case of the ex-wife of the Sultan of Brunei who claimed she could silence the UK Parliament over the facts of her abortion and gambling. (follow the link, and search for ‘Burby’)

As I wrote, there are too many to select more than a few names, but the reader must get the picture. The ‘sportsmen’ or celebrity builds up a reputation with a sporting ability, which appears to draw a fan following; they parlay that ability into the big bucks, and then; what happens? Do they lose sight of their character? Do they realise the pressure which their screwing around places on their families? Do they even care?

The reason for my writing is important, for one of the very few freedoms given us by our rulers is under review. It is true that Sewel’s ruin would have been made public without the Act; but we would not have learned about the scope of the Expenses scandal without it. A great many stories have come under scrutiny because of the Freedom of Information Act, and the politicians have learned to detest this one Act, which makes them ‘reveal all’.

A committee has been formed to scrutinise the Freedom of Information Act, and as Tony Blair himself stated that his one regret was proceeding with this Act, we can only watch and listen as our freedoms are once more curtailed, by the very people who said it would be so good!

8 comments for “Those whom the gods wish to destroy…..

  1. Henry Kaye
    July 28, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    I know we mustn’t tar them all with the same brush but is it any wonder that any thinking person can no longer place any reliance on the people we depend upon to make our laws and provide leadership in our national concerns?

  2. Rossa
    July 28, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    I have to ask why we hold our ‘betters’, if you can call them that, to a higher standard than the rest of us and then are so shocked and surprised when they fail?

    We are always so ‘scandalised’ by these activities (well at least the rags are) but then surely those throwing stones at the glasshouses should take a look in their own back yard first. Yes, they are paid by the public purse and that is somehow meant to hold them in check and make them whiter than white? Purlease! If it weren’t so easy to game the system they wouldn’t be able to make the headline. And anyone notice how this has conveniently knocked the Royal Heilnesses off the scandal pages.

    It truly is the silly season for so called news!

  3. James Strong
    July 29, 2015 at 7:38 am

    Mike,
    What are you doing on a libertarian site?
    What is the libertarian position on:
    1) sex with prostitutes, a commercial transaction with a willing buyer and seller?

    2) a man wearing an orange bra?

    3) Taking drugs? (This one is a bit more controversial, but I am in favour of legalising drugs)

    Which one of Sewel’s comments about Blair or Cameron was wrong or reprehensible?

    Yes, of course there are political realities about Sewel’s position after his actions were published. His position was untenable because of the publicity.
    But from a libertarian point of view what has he done wrong?

    Now, your language:
    Did David Mellor screw some whore? Did he pay her or not? And either way what’s wrong with it? He had consensual sex.
    The same with Ryan Giggs and his sexual activity with some slapper.

    And was Edwina Currie really the Westminster Bicycle? Tell us who else rode her, or are you simply strutting here with low-life bloke language?

    For me, neither Major nor Giggs would be welcome in my house but that’s because of the treatment of their wives. But that’s a personal matter, it’s not a crime. In each case, although it involved gross deceit of their partners what they did was consensual private sex.

    As for your comment about Gary Speed- well, you only hint and your nastiness in here.

    In an earlier article, my comment on which didn’t make it past the moderator because I swore in it, you referred to a human being as ‘it’. That was Bruce/Caitlin Jenner. You then when on to use the phrase She-He-It.
    There was no sense of you understanding that person’s anguish. Or of you having even the slightest understanding that, from a libertarian position, it’s none of your business.

    The positions you take on this site are more like what I would expect from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

    What are you doing on a libertarian site?

    You could have made a serious point about censorship, the free flow of information, the public’s right to know, and more.
    Instead you’ve chosen low-register language about consensual behaviour.
    What are you doing writing on a libertarian site?

    • July 29, 2015 at 9:30 am

      In an earlier article, my comment on which didn’t make it past the moderator because I swore in it.

      James S, that is bollox. OoL readers know full well that that has never been one of the grounds. Read the policy page.

      I certainly have no recollection of banning a regular’s comment from here. I agree my memory is not 100% but it is not my thing to do that. Whether Julia did, I can’t say.

      What I can say and you might remember this, is that we had a hell of a lot of tech trouble and I posted on that, apologizing that things had gone awry – I found myself in spam for example.

      We’re on a new server now and it appears to have settled down.

      But purr-lease – blocked because you swore?

      • July 29, 2015 at 4:12 pm

        Nope, never zapped any waiting comments that weren’t obviously spam. A little cussin’ isn’t going to cause me to pick up my petticoats in horror… 😉

      • James Strong
        July 29, 2015 at 7:28 pm

        OK.Find the comment and put it up.
        It’s in there somewhere.
        The major points of my comment were:
        that it is none of Mike Cunningham’s damn fucking business if someone undergoes a sex change.

        I also pointed out,calmly and before the swearing, that liberatarian theory would not condemn a sex change.

        I also took Mike Cunningham to task for referring to a human being as ‘it’.
        And I accused him of extreme malice and an unwillingness to make any effort to sympathise with the anguish that Caitlin Jenner must have gone through.

        I stand by all those comments, and if you can find my earlier comment and put it up I’d be very happy for people to read it.

        I respect Mike Cunnigham’s right to hold and express his opinions, but after what he has written, about Caitlin Jenner and here on this posting I do not expect to respect his opinions.

        I am usually open to contrarian opinions; indeed my own views on gun ownership and drug legalisation, to name just two, are contrary to the mainstream in this country. But I don’t put those views forward while pretending to be a Social Democrat.

        Why is Mike Cunningham putting forward anti-libertarian views while pretending to be a libertarian?

        And that’s just the political philosophy siode of it. What about his nastiness, as shown in the language in the article at the head of this thread?

        • July 29, 2015 at 8:53 pm

          James:

          “OK.Find the comment and put it up.
          It’s in there somewhere.”

          I don’t think you saw what I wrote. I explained that we had tech troubles, we lost much, many people were inconvenienced, we apologized to readers.

          But there’s nothing in there now as when the changeover occurred, all that was swept away.

          As for Mike, he’s a big enough boy to answer for himself, so I shan’t. On the other hand, I am certainly thinking about your points, no need for the repetition, you were heard loud and clear.

          My issue at this very moment is approaching toothache, so I’m shutting up shop at my own blog and over here for now [speaking only for myself here, Julia is still here].

  4. Henry Kaye
    July 29, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    Further to my previous comment, I feel that I have to add another. The actions described by Mike of a seemingly large number of notable individuals can be criticised or accepted according to the moral views held by the individual. In my own case my upbringing took place in an environment that reflected a generally accepted judeo/christian moral philosophy. I was not brought up in a religious family and I didn’t observe any religious zeal amongst any of my school friends or post-school social circle. I don’t remember, however, any inclination amongst any of those people to indulge in any sexual deviances or drug usage. In fact, as a youngster in the 40’s and 50’s neither I nor any of my contemporaries had even heard of drugs. It may be that these (to me) undesirable activities were there in the wider world but it was seemingly much later that they were brought to the attention of a more naive youthful population by the ever eager media and the entertainment industry.
    So, one’s opinion in these matters, depends on personal convictions and I have to admit that the past 50 or 60 years have seen a big change in the moral philosophy that formed my opinion – the opinion that still expects people (particularly those in positions of influence) to behave in a manner that I think appropriate.

Comments are closed.