The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

I think mummy's made the point a few times that he is unsure, perhaps uncomfortable, with discussions of morality being brought in to points of law. Thats what I understood anyway.

In which case, I withdraw my unworthy cynicism...

So, mummy, do you think the law should have any kind of moral basis or will the simply utilitarian do?

The point I was making was yes, check if any laws have been broken, but to some extent it's irrelevant, if the Minister, whilst breaking no laws has been helping his mate out, which by dint of him not helping all defence contractors out to the same level would effectively be morally wrong and abusing the position of his elected office...

Thought through and without flourish.

Now on planet H thats the code of conduct that should filter through all walks of life with a nice big shiney sword upon which to fall if transgressing.

[Prufrock]

'Morally' might not be the same as 'legally', but it is still a thing. Codes of conduct such as this are precisely for situations where activity is not necessarily illegal, but 'immoral'. That sometimes 'that's not moral' is a substitute for 'I don't like it but I've not thought through why' does not mean it always is. It isn't difficult to come up with a 'moral' argument as to why the Secretary of State for Defence shouldn't be abusing his elected position to help his mate out. As for what he has done, if he has abused his position, then we might say that is morally wrong, and he should go, but even if he hasn't erred morally, the code puts the burden of responsibility onto ministers not to even let it appear there is a conflict of interest. This is similar to the strict liability crimes Mummy mentioned in that it deals with issues other than 'moral'. Mummy's strict liability offence is a practical one, to stop folk just saying I didn't know I had it, someone must have planted it. This places an extra burden on ministers to protect the reputation of office. Some might consider that a woolly issue, perhaps rightly so, but it is difficult to argue Fox wouldn't have known about it.

[Worthy4England]

'Morally' might not be the same as 'legally', but it is still a thing. Codes of conduct such as this are precisely for situations where activity is not necessarily illegal, but 'immoral'. That sometimes 'that's not moral' is a substitute for 'I don't like it but I've not thought through why' does not mean it always is. It isn't difficult to come up with a 'moral' argument as to why the Secretary of State for Defence shouldn't be abusing his elected position to help his mate out. As for what he has done, if he has abused his position, then we might say that is morally wrong, and he should go, but even if he hasn't erred morally, the code puts the burden of responsibility onto ministers not to even let it appear there is a conflict of interest. This is similar to the strict liability crimes Mummy mentioned in that it deals with issues other than 'moral'. Mummy's strict liability offence is a practical one, to stop folk just saying I didn't know I had it, someone must have planted it. This places an extra burden on ministers to protect the reputation of office. Some might consider that a woolly issue, perhaps rightly so, but it is difficult to argue Fox wouldn't have known about it.

Pretty much what I was saying Pru. I compete for defence Contracts. The rules of engagement are very strict and very specific for Contractors. We break any of the rules (not in a illegal sense - purely procedural) and we get disqualified from the competition. So as our elected representatives, they need to be whiter than white too.

[Hoboh]

'Morally' might not be the same as 'legally', but it is still a thing. Codes of conduct such as this are precisely for situations where activity is not necessarily illegal, but 'immoral'. That sometimes 'that's not moral' is a substitute for 'I don't like it but I've not thought through why' does not mean it always is. It isn't difficult to come up with a 'moral' argument as to why the Secretary of State for Defence shouldn't be abusing his elected position to help his mate out. As for what he has done, if he has abused his position, then we might say that is morally wrong, and he should go, but even if he hasn't erred morally, the code puts the burden of responsibility onto ministers not to even let it appear there is a conflict of interest. This is similar to the strict liability crimes Mummy mentioned in that it deals with issues other than 'moral'. Mummy's strict liability offence is a practical one, to stop folk just saying I didn't know I had it, someone must have planted it. This places an extra burden on ministers to protect the reputation of office. Some might consider that a woolly issue, perhaps rightly so, but it is difficult to argue Fox wouldn't have known about it.

Pretty much what I was saying Pru. I compete for defence Contracts. The rules of engagement are very strict and very specific for Contractors. We break any of the rules (not in a illegal sense - purely procedural) and we get disqualified from the competition. So as our elected representatives, they need to be whiter than white too.

Oh I totally aree Mr W it's the "moral" bit just like bish pops at me about "evil" I am uncomfortable with. I mean who desides whats moral or not? now a code of conduct in its various forms such as the procurement rules you use as an example, thhats the way to go.

[thebish]

yes Hoboh - but what IS evil??? do you believe in it???

[William the White]

yes Hoboh - but what IS evil??? do you believe in it???

What do you mean by this, thebish? The wink obviously refers to... what?

[Lord Kangana]

Do we have to able to prove a things existence to believe in it?

[William the White]

Do we have to able to prove a things existence to believe in it?

Clearly not. Or how would bishops have a job?

[thebish]

yes Hoboh - but what IS evil??? do you believe in it???

What do you mean by this, thebish? The wink obviously refers to... what?

calm down william - I mean what Hoboh was referring to - an old running theme between him and me - it's a joke - hence the wink. maybe you need a glass of wine?

[William the White]

yes Hoboh - but what IS evil??? do you believe in it???

What do you mean by this, thebish? The wink obviously refers to... what?

calm down william - I mean what Hoboh was referring to - an old running theme between him and me - it's a joke - hence the wink. maybe you need a glass of wine?

Imagine above posting in quizzical voice... Very calm...

[thebish]

Do we have to able to prove a things existence to believe in it?

Clearly not. Or how would bishops have a job?

oops - look! my sides have split!

[Lord Kangana]

Put the corset on.

[William the White]

Do we have to able to prove a things existence to believe in it?

Clearly not. Or how would bishops have a job?

oops - look! my sides have split!

Mine have now... What's up with you?

[thebish]

Do we have to able to prove a things existence to believe in it?

Clearly not. Or how would bishops have a job?

oops - look! my sides have split!

Mine have now... What's up with you?

my sides have split - I thought I made it clear!

[William the White]

Do we have to able to prove a things existence to believe in it?

Clearly not. Or how would bishops have a job?

oops - look! my sides have split!

Mine have now... What's up with you?

my sides have split - I thought I made it clear!

So you did...

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Oh no - Trotsky and Lenin all over again. This could get very messy guys!

[William the White]

Oh no - Trotsky and Lenin all over again. This could get very messy guys!

Naah... I surrendered... But, as a matter of historical reference - did you mean trotsky and stalin?

[Prufrock]

Not in the Michael Caine version.

[Lord Kangana]

The Man Who Would Be King was on the other day. Every time I see it it gets better. I'm inclined to think it was Caine's best work now. Sorry for the deviation.

[Prufrock]

This again?

But yeah, awesome film. Watched it around New Year's one year after my granddad had a drunken xmas ramble on 'this bloody great film with Sean Connery and Michael Caine and the east.