Should a Minister caught Drink-Driving Resign?
Discussion
I think you can probably tell where I'm going with this one already 
If a government minister, say for example......
solicitor general... were caugfht drink driving - say 40% over the limit.. should they step down?
Now, if speeding were as socially unacceptable as drink-driving....
Get my drift?
If a government minister, say for example......
solicitor general... were caugfht drink driving - say 40% over the limit.. should they step down? Now, if speeding were as socially unacceptable as drink-driving....
Get my drift?
No, they shouldn't be made to resign.
If one of us was caught over the limit (and from previous discussions some people MIGHT get close to the legal limit - but still might be safe to drive in THEIR opinion)... would we expect them to resign from their job?
Granted, they may not be in the public eye... but surely the same rules should apply for everyone..
:returnstoutopianworld:
If one of us was caught over the limit (and from previous discussions some people MIGHT get close to the legal limit - but still might be safe to drive in THEIR opinion)... would we expect them to resign from their job?
Granted, they may not be in the public eye... but surely the same rules should apply for everyone..
:returnstoutopianworld:
Podie said: If one of us was caught over the limit (and from previous discussions some people MIGHT get close to the legal limit - but still might be safe to drive in THEIR opinion)... would we expect them to resign from their job?
Depends on the job surely ?? Lorry Driver, Cabbie, Copper, Paramedic, etc etc
Now I know all of those NEED a driving license to do their jobs, but doesn't (or rather shouldn't
) a Government Minister have integrity, honesty, and respectability in the eyes of the electorate in order to be able to do their job ????? The question really is if you think these requirements are compromised by a DD conviction ??? You're missing the point Podie.. I used DD because it's a driving example and because DD is seen as highly unacceptable (as is making speeding as unacceptable as...).
Podie said: No, they shouldn't be made to resign.
If one of us was caught over the limit (and from previous discussions some people MIGHT get close to the legal limit - but still might be safe to drive in THEIR opinion)... would we expect them to resign from their job?
Now, consider the fact that we have seen that ministers are held to account for their behaviour to a higher standard - one example being that the expectation is that they'll resign if they're caught up in an extra-marital affair, for example.
Which again, most of us rarely would be expected to lose our job or be demoted for, but the fact is we elect these people to protect and support our interests. They should be held to account and yes, they must maintain a higher standard than us proles, and if they cannot show complete integrity and sense of civic responsibility and duty then WTF are they doing in office other than being a power hungry manipulator who should be weeded out?
In the future, if they succeed in their speed brainwashing, IMO she'd be expected to stand down from her cabinet position and return to the back benches where she can't do any more harm with her so called progressive attitudes which amount to little more than bigotry.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 9th January 10:54
Then we shall agree to disagree...
these people have the destiny of our country in their hands and they should be utterly beyond reproach. Once they are not it becomes clear that they are not suitable for office and probably never were.
I'm not saying she should resign for this, but I am saying that if Blair gets his way with the whol speed kills thing, then she would have to resign were she, at that time, caught for thsi exact offence.
It ought to give them food for thought is all.
these people have the destiny of our country in their hands and they should be utterly beyond reproach. Once they are not it becomes clear that they are not suitable for office and probably never were.
I'm not saying she should resign for this, but I am saying that if Blair gets his way with the whol speed kills thing, then she would have to resign were she, at that time, caught for thsi exact offence.
It ought to give them food for thought is all.
The point is though minister X speeds to work, then issues a press statement saying all speeders should be shot on sight (slight exageration, but it's only a matter of time) it's the hypocracy of it that is the wind up 
She can keep her job but does not have a right to say speeding is a danger to the children
She can keep her job but does not have a right to say speeding is a danger to the children
If you spout on to the public about how they should live their lives and do this and do that....then contradict your own gasbagging, then yes as a minister or other public office-holder you should resign as you have no belief in your own policy.
Its the same as an illegal drug-selling doctor or pharmacist, or a bribe taking copper or judge - goes against the very fabric of your job.
Edited to say: for those of you who believe its just human error, then fair enough, but how can unavoidable human error then be justifiably punished by fines etc.
>> Edited by swilly on Thursday 9th January 11:11
Its the same as an illegal drug-selling doctor or pharmacist, or a bribe taking copper or judge - goes against the very fabric of your job.
Edited to say: for those of you who believe its just human error, then fair enough, but how can unavoidable human error then be justifiably punished by fines etc.
>> Edited by swilly on Thursday 9th January 11:11
World of difference between a mistake and an error of judgement.. IMO.
Podie said: We are only human after all (I beleive they are too) and humans make mistakes...
She made the latter when she judged it to be acceptable for her to drive at 100mph when she's a senior member of a government that'd like to jail motorists for driving at this speed.
CarZee said:World of difference between a mistake and an error of judgement.. IMO.
Podie said: We are only human after all (I beleive they are too
She made the latter when she judged it to be acceptable for her to drive at 100mph when she's a senior member of a government that'd like to jail motorists for driving at this speed.
OK, OK.. TRIED to be controversial, but I accept your point. Mistake / error of judgement / whatever - the point I was making is that we are all falliable.
And we agree entirely on that point, the difference is in the relative levity of our positions... If a policeman gets a speeding ticket they throw the book at him (as MadCop would tell you), because as an upholder of the law, he's expected to be an exemplorary example - policemen are human too and also fallable, but they are highly accountable.
Podie said: Mistake / error of judgement / whatever - the point I was making is that we are all falliable.
She's the Solicitor General.. same argument applies..
Personally I'd see her hang, but that's just me..
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff