copycat Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Since there have been numerous cases now in the UK's Labour Government of Ministers owning up to having used drugs / cannabis etc isn't it about time that the Manx press puts the question to each and every Manx elected politician as to whether or not they have ever used drugs / cannabis etc? If they haven't they they surely won't mind being asked and any that have should own up (and where a 'no comment' or otherwise evasive reply means 'yes, I did'. It would be interesting to see the results - are they all squeaky clean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Does it matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 Well "just because you know people who appear to be OK using cannabis, it doesn't mean that are or that it will be OK for you". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4052963.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Copycat, just exactly what drugs are you on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Since there have been numerous cases now in the UK's Labour Government of Ministers owning up to having used drugs / cannabis etc isn't it about time that the Manx press puts the question to each and every Manx elected politician as to whether or not they have ever used drugs / cannabis etc? If they haven't they they surely won't mind being asked and any that have should own up (and where a 'no comment' or otherwise evasive reply means 'yes, I did'. It would be interesting to see the results - are they all squeaky clean? If you think this is relevant why don't you ask your own MHK rather than posting here? As far as I can see most of the current house are probably whacked out on magic mushrooms most of the time so would it make any difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 I always thought Tony Brown's facial hair was inspired by watching Oliver! whilst tripping. Maybe his forum name should be Mr Bumble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 his forum name should be Mr Bumble? He posts on this forum? Go on tell me, he's copycat isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 No forum name, as in the name the forum calls him - like Ned, or the Fat Controller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 If it turned out they were all on drugs, it would explain a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 I could mention perhaps one...but I won't. I won't even say if the person still has a seat or not. AFAIAC, in the case of petty drugs etc. what many people did at 16 - 18 (which in many cases is often 20 - 40 years ago) is irrelevant to what they have learned since, and what they do now. And by the way - I have never touched the stuff, or been in any bother. How far do people take this attitude? - I mean this person was also smacked as a child for being naughty so does that make him/her naughty now? People are human, and never more so aged 16-21. Besides, people with past convictions can still stand - and I think they should be able to. I firmly believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and believe that many people with dodgy pasts can reform - even when all the Daily Mail 'hang, draw and quarter the lot of em!' brigade don't have the sense to realise what prison should really be about - i.e. returning criminals to behave normally and pull their weight in society. Many people seem to forget that, the result being that the policies they advocate and lobby for have created a revolving door prison system. If prison worked properly we wouldn't need to build more or bigger prisons. There seems to an attitude flourishing that there is no such thing as a 'reformed criminal' - and people should start to think that perhaps there never will be with such attitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 I could mention perhaps one...but I won't. I won't even say if the person still has a seat or not. AFAIAC, in the case of petty drugs etc. what many people did at 16 - 18 (which in many cases is often 20 - 40 years ago) is irrelevant to what they have learned since, and what they do now. And by the way - I have never touched the stuff, or been in any bother. How far do people take this attitude? - I mean this person was also smacked as a child for being naughty so does that make him/her naughty now? People are human, and never more so aged 16-21. Besides, people with past convictions can still stand - and I think they should be able to. I firmly believe in the rehabilitation of offenders, and believe that many people with dodgy pasts can reform - even when all the Daily Mail 'hang, draw and quarter the lot of em!' brigade don't have the sense to realise what prison should really be about - i.e. returning criminals to behave normally and pull their weight in society. Many people seem to forget that, the result being that the policies they advocate and lobby for have created a revolving door prison system. If prison worked properly we wouldn't need to build more or bigger prisons. There seems to an attitude flourishing that there is no such thing as a 'reformed criminal' - and people should start to think that perhaps there never will be with such attitudes. well we all know about one who admits to having been convicted of a criminal offence but the point is should they be honest enough to put their hand up to something that is wrong even if they didn't get caught at the time and to do it before they get asked and offer 'no comment' or evasive replies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deejay Denzel Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Which MHK's have smoked banana skins or teabags, which politicians have drank guiness. WHO GIVES A SHIT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 well we all know about one who admits to having been convicted of a criminal offence but the point is should they be honest enough to put their hand up to something that is wrong even if they didn't get caught at the time and to do it before they get asked and offer 'no comment' or evasive replies IMO everyone has a right to not incriminate themselves, a right to a private life, and yes, a right to a private past. You have to ask yourself why the question is important to you. Your attitude, if it was to spread, would simply result in elected officials who lie and hide their past, potentially resulting in a right rogues gallery, and with some of the best people unwilling to stand worried about some relatively simple misdemenour from a distant and naive past. The phrases 'no comment' or 'mind your own business' should not, nor do not, automatically imply guilt - as many people like you (the witch-finder general) seem to mistakenly believe. MHKs carry out a specific role - how would you feel if you got asked all sorts of private questions about your life when going for a job? Is what you did at 16-18 important? You are advocating the 'thought-police' FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 You are advocating the 'thought-police' FFS! The thought-police examined all of our politicians and found nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.