Who knows what transpires behind ‘closed doors’?

With the recent resignation of a Secretary of State for Defense – for the apparent crime of ‘misbehaviour’ – and the growing ‘witch-hunt’ to discover those of his ilk who may be ‘guilty’ of similar crimes, an important question arises.

First though, let us consider a subject that is inherent in the question of ‘misbehaviour’,  where two people are concerned. When two people pledge to spend the remainder of their lives together, if the relationship is to last, then two main factors come into play; of which one is ‘trust’ and the other is ‘fidelity’. Without either, I would contend, no relationship can survive.

In said relationship, especially when one – or both – in the relationship has ‘played around’, the suspicion must be at the back of the minds of either, or both, as to whether the ‘other’ still is. Yes, it is acknowledged that there are many relationships that have overcome this fear and those involved have lived ‘happily ever after’.

To return to the important question I raised in the first paragraph of this article, it is this: when we have, under our current system of democracy, a group of people we have elected and who, in effect, dictate the morality under which we have to live our lives, then appear to have flaunted those rules – and are then found guilty or admit their guilt – should they not then be barred from ever holding the position they have, or any similar position, in which they can ‘dictate’ our behaviour? Should we, the people, not be able to expect those who say that only they have the ability/knowledge/right to ‘govern’ us, then abide by the same rules to which they expect us to adhere?

As an aside, where men are concerned, is it too much to ask that they keep their ‘Cressida’ zipped ; and for women to keep their hands of a man’s ‘Cressida’? But I digress………..

This then begs the question that, were we to have true democracy, ie, direct democracy, should we not have the right to decide their fate – after all, it is our money that provides their income and subsequent  ‘lifestyle/’perks”; it is our income that ultimately provides them to set our ‘mores’ (the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group) – so why should we, the people, not have the ultimate ‘say’ over the actions?

Just a few immediate questions on an important ‘matter du jour’……………………….

Afterthought: In a preceding article I used the term ‘head-fart’ – perhaps, with this article, I may introduce another: ie, ‘Cressida-Head’: where those within the ‘Westminster Bubble’ are concerned (be they masculine or feminine) the latter who, possibly deliberately or otherwise, aid and abet this practice.


7 thoughts on “Who knows what transpires behind ‘closed doors’?

  1. “and are then found guilty or admit their guilt – should they not then be barred from ever holding the position they have, or any similar position, in which they can ‘dictate’ our behaviour?”

    In an ideal world.

  2. No, they should not be banned. In an ideal world they should be unseated but allowed to stand again so that an informed electorate can decide on their worthiness to serve. Problem is how do you get the electorate informed? Who informs the informers? (Sorry but my Latin is not up the the Qis… bit!)

    1. Qui autem administrat Antistius Sosianus? (Who informs the informers?)

      Or better still:

      Et qui veritatem docet? (Who informs those who would tell the truth?)

      Well it’s close enough for Government work.

    2. Well I have to disagree. Just how many attempts do these people get? As far as I am concerned it is one strike and out! I firmly believe taxpayers, were they given the choice, woud agree with my view.

  3. The HoC sex scandal, I see the ‘unseated’ now include one ex-police officer, who was sacked, and another with a mixed track record. It looks to me as if the settling of old scores is about to begin! And while this is going on we have a wonderful opportunity to tell the nation about direct democracy. But nothing will happen.

Comments are closed.