Burning question
What I want to know is, now that we know they all liked a toot on the doobie in their youth, how they think they have the moral authority to lock up those doing the same now?
And why aren’t Scotland Yard asking Ruth, Alistair, Jacqui and all who their dealers were?
Posted on July 19th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
| See also • Thought experiment • Shooting first, asking question (much) later • Tim Ireland: The ‘limits’ of the exclusion zone |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under New Labour |
Typical baby-boomer point-of-view:
“We had fun so you’re not allowed to”…
On the plus side, they’re showing that if you get stoned as a student, you’ll end up as a politician… A reason not to have a spliff if there ever was one!
The hypocrisy of this discussion, as shown by George Howarth on Newsnight, is that politicians talk as if smoking pot in their youth was no big deal, all in the past and no barrier to the above mentioned tosspots ability to work in politics.
I agree with the main premise; having a toke doesn’t discount you from any job. But having a criminal conviction can, and during the era this lot were at uni, did change the life chances for many young people caught with cannabis. They ended up sharing a jail cell, refused employment and training opportunities, and were held up as social pariahs.
Twenty-odd years ago, a friend of mine, from a public school, was repeatedly arrested, his parents house raided monthly, his dying Grandad turfed out of the hospital bed in their back room so it could be searched and his life generally turned upside down by Police. He is a criminal, with a police record. All because he was a toker.
What was the difference between these poor sods and Ruth Kelly other than being unluky enough to be caught?
What were his chances of becoming a politician with a criminal record?