Personal Morals:

[Gluestick]

In the week where it has been revealed that red Ken has five kids by three different mothers and Max Mosley has been carvorting with whores whilst Nazi uniforms have been involved, do people's moral and private lives matter when they are in significant offices of authority?

Does the public interest come first? Or ought people's private lives be sacrosacnt?

Alternatively, ought we, the public, to expect higher examples of moral rectitude than seems so often to pertain amongst the great and the apparently good?

Discuss!

[6]

 

[Iceni]

Ignore morals and ethics and only worry about legal or illegal.

N.B. - if the newspaper reports are correct we now know why Moseley was so keen to support the Axis Ferrari team against the Allies McLaren last year.

John

[Tony F Dordogne]

And that's without the almost incestours relationship between Moseley and Ecclestone, now that's a real can of legal but appalling inter-related companies.

As for Moseley himself, he probably borrowed his Dad and Mum's uniforms, at least he's keeping it within the family.

[Weedon]

In my view, of course the way they behave in their private lives makes a difference about whether you trust them to make sensible judgements and decisions in public life.

John Profumo, from what I can deduce, was a man who made a mistake in his private life to the extent that he had the decency to resign from office, then spent his life trying to attone for an error of judgement.  Not many of them around.  But then I only know what I read in the papers.   Apparently it's not always the truth, can you believe that?

[Clair]

[quote user="Iceni"]Ignore morals and ethics and only worry about legal or illegal. [/quote]

I agree.

By all accounts, Ken Livingstone has not abandoned his children and they all form part of an extended family.

As for Max Mosley, what takes place between consenting adults is their business. His family's opinion is the only one that should matter.

[Clarkkent]

John Profumo, from what I can deduce, was a man who made a mistake in his private life to the extent that he had the decency to resign from office, then spent his life trying to attone for an error of judgement.

John Profumo's "mistake" was not in his private life but lying to the House of Commons, this provoked his resignation. Earlier sexual peccadilloes apart, his atonement showed him to be a humane and decent man.

However, I do find it difficult to understand how a person's sex life is at all relevent to organising a petrol-wasting extravaganza like F1.

[Weedon]

[quote user="Clarkkent"]

John Profumo, from what I can deduce, was a man who made a mistake in his private life to the extent that he had the decency to resign from office, then spent his life trying to attone for an error of judgement.

John Profumo's "mistake" was not in his private life but lying to the House of Commons, this provoked his resignation. Earlier sexual peccadilloes apart, his atonement showed him to be a humane and decent man.

However, I do find it difficult to understand how a person's sex life is at all relevent to organising a petrol-wasting extravaganza like F1.

[/quote]

Actually Clark I did mean to mention that I thought him to be a decent person.  But it just shows you that he knew he had made a mistake which is maybe why he lied to the HoC.

I know times have changed since "I were a lad" but if you believe what you read in the papers don't you think that dressing up in a uniform to....how shall I put it...have a discussion with ladies, is ever so slightly odd.  Should, heaven forbid, I ever meet him I would never be able to get a certain image out of my mind.

[Gluestick]

The FIA, of which body Max the Nazi is head honcho, is not just responsible for ensuring the Pint Sized highwayman can continue to extort billions from a "Sport": it is responsible (and has been) for supervising Motor Sport globally, which includes regulations, safety and supervision of participating and recognised national organising clubs and associations: as well as representing not only sporting motorist's position to governments, but the cause of the motor car too.

Hardly therefore simply just a "petrol-wasting extravaganza like F1", but rather a highly responsible position with significant and onerous obligations.

http://www.fia.com/thefia/Organisation/organisation.html

What was left of his credibility has now evaporated; hardly surprising really.....................................

One could imagine the snickers and parodies of Nazi salutes in tricky international meetings!

Profumo was Minister of Defence at the time of his relationship with Ms. Keeler: who was also involved with a senior Russian Naval Attache as well as the rather strange osteopath, Stephen Ward. During both the Cold War and numerous Russian spy scandals.

A gentleman I worked closely with at the time was a founder of the first UK society for Mongoloid children: as were Profumo and his charming wife, Valerie Hobson: my supervisor spoke highly of them both.

That said, in the midst of the ongoing intelligence disasters of Philby, McClean, Vassal, Blunt et al, not exactly sensible behaviour for a senior cabinet minister in such a delicate role, surely?

 

[Weedon]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

The FIA, of which body Max the Nazi is head honcho, is not just responsible for ensuring the Pint Sized highwayman can continue to extort billions from a "Sport": it is responsible (and has been) for supervising Motor Sport globally, which includes regulations, safety and supervision of participating and recognised national organising clubs and associations: as well as representing not only sporting motorist's position to governments, but the cause of the motor car too.

Hardly therefore simply just a "petrol-wasting extravaganza like F1", but rather a highly responsible position with significant and onerous obligations.

http://www.fia.com/thefia/Organisation/organisation.html

What was left of his credibility has now evaporated; hardly surprising really.....................................

One could imagine the snickers and parodies of Nazi salutes in tricky international meetings!

Profumo was Minister of Defence at the time of his relationship with Ms. Keeler: who was also involved with a senior Russian Naval Attache as well as the rather strange osteopath, Stephen Ward. During both the Cold War and numerous Russian spy scandals.

A gentleman I worked closely with at the time was a founder of the first UK society for Mongoloid children: as were Profumo and his charming wife, Valerie Hobson: my supervisor spoke highly of them both.

That said, in the midst of the ongoing intelligence disasters of Philby, McClean, Vassal, Blunt et al, not exactly sensible behaviour for a senior cabinet minister in such a delicate role, surely?

[/quote]

A much more concise way than I could have put it Gluey.

Over the years I have sometimes questioned whether my views about certain things have become out of step with the real world, but I still think that those who hold any part of our future in their hands should possess standards of the highest quality and anything less shows a fundamental flaw in their ability to do the job.  In that respect it is my opinion that a lot of the misfits that have held government office over the last twenty years or so have shown themselves to be incapable of doing the job, but the saddest part about them is the inability to recognise it themselves. 

[woolybananasbrother]

I think I prefer my politicians flawed and honest rather than morally correct as therein lies fanaticism.

Morals are essentially subjective anyway, varying from culture to culture and just a means of control.

The idea that any person is not flawed suggests that human beings can be perfected, which they cant. Flaws are as natural as hair colouring, if they are really flaws, because one person's flaw is another person's quality.

Perhaps the only misfits definable in the present Govt are those who belong to fundamentalist religious organisations and who are subject to external moral pressure to which they might not admit.

Weedon, perhaps you would care to speculate on politicians you consider flawed or not so we can see what you mean?

[Gluestick]

We are in complete accord, Weedon

In this case, I also must be totally out of step, too!

Personally, my own view is that people in positions of serious authority, who are constantly faced with earth changing decisions, need to demonstrate personal, social and emotional stability of the highest calibre.

Otherwise, those decisions almost inevitably become flawed, since either their focus is divided and/or they do not regard the world in the same light as the majority.

Additionally, weird extra-curricular activities, shall we say, leave decision makers open to expedient blackmail, at the very least, all apart from demonstrating an abnormal psyche.

During the past 30 years, or so, Western society has increasingly become infested with groups of abnormals, who, aided and abetted by their troupes of apologists, have set out to not only "prove" their abherant behaviour and lifestyles are quite normal, but that those who take issue with their version of normality are in fact the abnormal ones!

And personally, I am becoming somewhat tired of it!

[:@]

 

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

We are in complete accord, Weedon

In this case, I also must be totally out of step, too!

Personally, my own view is that people in positions of serious authority, who are constantly faced with earth changing decisions, need to demonstrate personal, social and emotional stability of the highest calibre.

Otherwise, those decisions almost inevitably become flawed, since either their focus is divided and/or they do not regard the world in the same light as the majority.

Additionally, weird extra-curricular activities, shall we say, leave decision makers open to expedient blackmail, at the very least, all apart from demonstrating an abnormal psyche.

During the past 30 years, or so, Western society has increasingly become infested with groups of abnormals, who, aided and abetted by their troupes of apologists, have set out to not only "prove" their abherant behaviour and lifestyles are quite normal, but that those who take issue with their version of normality are in fact the abnormal ones!

And personally, I am becoming somewhat tired of it!

[:@]

 

[/quote]

Seconded. On the basis of your comment above I am seriously pleased that I am one of the "abnormal ones"

Those who aspire to be considered "leaders" must IMHO lead by example, if their example of personal / professional behaviour is as it appears to be, how can they expect different standards from the "led"?

[woolybananasbrother]

Leaders should be flawed like all of us. Superhumans get superhuman ideas and become detached from reality.

All decisions are flawed in some ways as they are the result of compromise, but they are the best we can get.

There are seldom individual decision makers as they are usually the result of committees, consultation etc leading to convergant thought and concensus. Unless your name is Mugabe of course.

Define abnormal GS.

 

[Cat]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

During the past 30 years, or so, Western society has increasingly become infested with groups of abnormals, who, aided and abetted by their troupes of apologists, have set out to not only "prove" their abherant behaviour and lifestyles are quite normal, but that those who take issue with their version of normality are in fact the abnormal ones!

[/quote]

Did you have one particular group of people in mind here GS?  I'd like to make quite sure that I understand what you are saying.

[powerdesal]

Wooly,

Whilst I would agree that perfect (ie un-flawed ) leaders may be an unrealistic expectation, the expectation of honesty, truth, circumspection in their public (private is public with todays media) life and a realisation that they are setting themselves up as "examples" is NOT an unreasonable expectation at all.

Marital fidelity (as an example) may not be everyones idea of how behaviour should be (it is my idea) but flaunting such behaviour "sends the wrong message" (in modern politico-speak). Niether is the "grab it because I can" behaviour. It degrades society, gives a poor example to susceptible "yoof" and shows a distinct lack of OQs, and, like it or not, they are considered as "Officers of the State".

[Gluestick]

Extremely tempting though the invitation is, WB and Cathy, I fear I am going to pass up the opportunity and skirt around it in the main by suggesting that we all have pretty clear concepts, hopefully, of what is and is not "Normal" behaviour.

Social mores were developed over many many centuries, in fact since mankind commenced living in gregarious association: some of the rules have been codified in law: many are taken as read. Or perhaps were is a more accurate statement.

However as one fairly innocuous example, perhaps people marrying and employing their children as pages and bridesmaids is but one illustration of how to create and encourage unstable society, IMHO.

And as another, the behaviour of Carla Bruni is to me, socially and morally reprehensible and totally unfitted as the wife of the president of a major nation state: but then the Pocket-Sized Poseure is wholly unfitted for the task anyway! [Www]

Whilst your conception of modern government is heartening, WB, I also fear the reality is somewhat different.

Thatcher all but discounted Cabinet Government: BLiar dispensed with it all together, As Tony Benn repeatedly warned.

The illegal invasion of Iraq provides an excellent example: as did the outright lies told to Parliament at the time.

Sadly, most Western society is now amoral, selfish and self-focused, with a preoccupation on money, which has become, transitorily the only benchmark of social value. Ability, scholarship, compassion, real achievement have little true value anymore.

As with any dynamic system of management, corruption and decay right at the top, creates emulation right the way down to the lowest echelons. 

And as Steve stated in his last post, leaders adopting the attitude of "Do as I say: not as I do!" merely encourages the masses (and again as he states) and in particular impressionable youth, to follow the worst, rather than the best examples.

However, all that aside, perhaps one could forgive modern political leaders their minor indiscretions and sexual pecadillos, were they to have succeeded in creating a stable, economically vibrant, fairer and safe society.

Simply they haven't: indeed far from it, so they have failed on both counts.