Creating a link that doesn’t exist

Lord Norton

The House of Lords has been the subject of much media attention over the past few days.  You may think the reason for this is obvious.  It isn’t.  One peer engages in private conduct that attracts public opprobrium.  As I have pointed out elsewhere, there is no reason to link private behaviour with institutional reform.  It did not happen with MP and minister Antony Lambton, who in 1973 engaged in behaviour pretty similar to that alleged in respect of Lord Sewel, nor with the more recent Brooks Newmark revelations.  In each case, the individual decided to leave Parliament, but in only one did the media and others seek to link private behaviour with calls for changes to the institution.  Not only is there not a link, it is potentially dangerous to draw one.  As far as I am aware, no one in the media has been alert to the implications.  It raises important questions as to the accountability of institutions for the personal conduct of those who form the institution. There is a case for reform of the Lords – some has already been achieved and other reforms are being pursued – but that is separate from the conduct of members in a private capacity.  Demands for press reform do not derive from the conduct of journalists in a private capacity, but from their actions on behalf of their employers.  The somewhat unthinking pack mentality of the media has precluded any reflection on the implications of assuming a link between private behaviour and the work of an institution.  Sober reflection is needed in order to unhinge it.

7 comments for “Creating a link that doesn’t exist

  1. Lord Blagger
    29/07/2015 at 8:41 pm

    The problem is that we know you are all disreputable.

    I’ve the state secrecy certificate that says we are not allowed to know how many days you walk through the turnstiles because it would bring the Lords into disrepute.

    There is a link. When you have wide spread criminal behaviour and that is above and beyond fiddling expenses, from an organisation dictating to the rest of us what to do, with no control exercised back, its time to go.

    Just wait until the pedophiles in the Lords are outed.

    • maude elwes
      04/08/2015 at 9:31 am

      @ Blagger:

      I wrote more or less the same as you, only in more detail, and I guess with a more robust approach. Must have got in the craw. LOL

  2. maude elwes
    30/07/2015 at 8:14 am

    To Moderator:

    This morning I posted an opposing view on this thread and when I clicked the submit button it was swallowed up, no more to be seen. It did not come up saying it was being moderated. It was lost. I was unable to re-read it.

    Is there something wrong with the computer?

    Maude Elwes

    • MilesJSD
      04/08/2015 at 3:46 pm

      Has happened to me;
      also a few years ago I clicked to “get it registered in some other sober person’s mind lest it be lost forever”
      before I had properly vetted it,
      and once it had many punctuation and grammatical ‘slipshods’ in it;

      so I next “promised” LOTB that I would prepare my words in Word document first, and then copy it into the LOTB comment box, ‘space’ it, copy it; and finally click it.
      [ At least one moderator, Beccy Allen, is also a Citizenship Educator, so there is a need to keep us the Public up-to-date with shall we say “democratic-communicational-efficiency or effective ness” ?

      I still tend to start straight into the comment box;
      so “thank you” maude, for the reminder to “prepare and save”

      Perhaps we should be given, by peer, moderator, or a ;friendly’ other commenter, a quick word whenever we fail to ‘polish’ or properly finish off our work ?
      e.g.
      @JSDM “prep-first, please”.
      @maudeelwes “save-as-you-go ?”.

      Further possibiility
      when a peer or commenter is a bit !out of order” or has said something questionabe, that simply needs a quick ‘tag’ rather than a detailed analysis or refutational argument
      e.g. when conflation, enthymeme or factorial-avoidance, or ‘hidden-fallaciousness’ has been put forward as truth or fact.

      A little instance: I would tag a post thus:
      “‘social-mobility’ is a conflational-usurpery” ;
      without further need to detail e.g. “since it is usurpingly and socially-exclusively ‘owned’ by the pennies-&-power possessing career-ladder-climbing privileged and super-empowered elite”.

  3. MilesJSD
    02/08/2015 at 4:05 am

    In the greater democratic context, it is quite false that
    “There is no reason to link private behaviour with institutional reform”.

    1. Since the governing-representatives and advocates, of The Peoples’ Needs, need to be 24/7 lifestyling theirselves both exemplarily to, and emulably by, all ‘levels’ of the People, and worldwide too
    there is no sound ground for claiming separateness and varying ‘rights’ or ‘privileges to “private behaviour”.

    2. This moral factor has long been increasingly strengthened by the material practicalities of Humankind’s longest-term survival (& thrival, both need to be comfortably-frugally true) needs;
    which as Professor David Smith
    (also world leading author of the text “Continent In Crisis”)
    said on Australian TV university’s Environmental Studies:
    [“] With the GDP/GNP showing an ever-climbing profit-value [viz the Stock Market graphics] but the Earth’s Lifesupports themselves showing an increasing and probably irreversible downward, and in places negatively-logarithmic, trend
    someone needs to get it through to the economists that they have a fundamental equation wrong somewhere [“].

    Look also at least at “How Many People Can Live On Planet Earth” TV documentary, hosted by Sir David Attenborough,
    and you will have to face up to the clear-conclusion that nobody, nobody, has a “private life” outside of this Earth’s and our Longest-Term Human Needs;
    We should urgently add, nor does any-one have any just claim to any more than one-human-living each
    [True Job Costs separately budgeted and accounted, of course].

    We are in a far worse and more insidious World Emergency predicament than in any of the previous Wars, World-Wars, and Disasters, and in the whole of this Earth’s and Human-Civilisations’ history;

    the Media has yet to begin honestly and front-pagedly reporting this to all people, and to begin soberly and non-manipulatively leading our minds and hearts; so leave them out of it;

    while you re-consider the Biggest Picture,
    and your fundamentals on “private behaviours” and “institutional reforms” therein –

    (please).

  4. RJF
    04/08/2015 at 3:11 pm

    I agree entirely, Lord Norton. There’s been an astonishing level of sheer hypocrisy in the castigation of the House of Lords in the media – given the number of sex scandals that have embroiled the Commons over the decades, there wouldn’t even be a Parliament at all if they were treated as histrionically as Lord Sewell’s indiscretions have been.

    • maude elwes
      05/08/2015 at 2:43 pm

      You, RJF, are missing one very important factor. We, the voter and tax payer, can rid ourselves of deviants in the Commons. Even call for their dismissal should the crime committed be dastardly. On the other hand, the Lords are a bunch of freeloaders riding on the back of their despicable friends in that ‘other’ place. Appointed not elected. Which, until very recently, were utterly untouchable.

      They only have themselves to blame for their demise, by filling the place to the rafters with those not worthy of any office, let alone one we pay through the nose for.

      Add to that, the thrown out of office MP’s who remain well into a useless dotage. Anyone worth their salt could almost empty that place with one easy swoop. First by ridding us of those useless old politicians and their politically correct shove ins, sponsorship being highly debateable, as are the others there through bribery and worse, nepitism.

      Although, now, we have to raise the possible event of blackmail. Seeing as so many appear to have been in some kind of iniquitous ‘masonic’ club. Known to us outsiders only by their secretive handshake.

      In fact, any thinking man would say the press have been very stifled in their contempt so far.

Comments are closed.