Another MP has been exposed (fnarr fnarr) for sending dirty text messages.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/married-tory-minister-andrew-griffiths-12919581
He has said he will be "seeking professional help to ensure it never happens again.â€"
I wonder which of the professions he might turn to for help. Hopefully not the "oldest one". :-)
And anyway, what's wrong with a bit of old fashioned self discipline?
|
Legal help, including a judge.
|
It beggars belief that anyone would take the risk of sending messages like that by text or email, let alone someone in a high profile public position.
Still, as the old saying goes, when the penis gets hard the brain gets soft.
|
>>It beggars belief that anyone would take the risk of sending messages like that by text or email, let alone someone in a high profile public position.
This.
He deserved to be fired for pure stupidity, never mind immorality. In fact I suspect that no illegal acts occured and the barmaid was happy to be involved until the opportunity for her 15 minutes appeared.
As for the actual texts, more pitiful than offensive, I'd say.
But he, as a man in the public eye, is beyond stupid.
|
>> As for the actual texts, more pitiful than offensive, I'd say.
>>
>> But he, as a man in the public eye, is beyond stupid.
Nail head hit.
|
>>
>> I wonder which of the professions he might turn to for help. Hopefully not the
>> "oldest one". :-)
>>
>>
>> A better tariff for his phone which includes two thousand texts per month.
|
Makes one wonder what background checks are made on these people, especially considering that they have the potential to impact on our daily lives.
If he has made bad decisions on this matter are there decisions in his ministerial position that we should be worried about?
Last edited by: Driver on Sun 15 Jul 18 at 21:02
|
>>Makes one wonder what background checks are made on these people
What sort of background checks do you have in mind?
|
Thinking of the standard-ish sort of checks many people on here will have had for working on secure projects or even normal professional employment sort of checks I suspect many of those in senior Government roles have never had any checks at all.
|
>> Thinking of the standard-ish sort of checks many people on here will have had for
>> working on secure projects or even normal professional employment sort of checks I suspect many
>> of those in senior Government roles have never had any checks at all.
One might hope such things would be checked before people get on the list of approved candidates to stand in Parliamentary Elections. Aside from anything else there's a reputational issue for the party if somebody turns out to have a criminal or otherwise problematic history - serial bankrupt for example.
Doubt there's anything more done prior to appointment to Ministerial role though the Whips' Office might be aware of sexual proclivities such as those exhibited here.
|
Going by the number of secure documents carried openly, laptops / memory devices left on trains over the last few years, no real security education done before allowing access to such things.
|
The security services never trust cabinet or government with secret important stuff.
|
>> >
>> What sort of background checks do you have in mind?
>>
Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party? Did you know 4 people at Cambridge?
Nothing too McCarthy-ist.
|
>>Are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party? Did you know 4 people at
>>Cambridge? Nothing too McCarthy-ist.
Those are worthwhile checks. An in-depth look into somebody's background through a series of interviews with life-long acquaintances.
A CRB or other criminal check, however, is of no point; it only helps if the person has done it before AND been caught. In this case, probably no criminal offence.
|
Report in Guardian says he was under investigation for bullying and 'inappropriate touching' before he was appointed a Minister:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/17/andrew-griffiths-made-minister-despite-touching-allegations
|
Touching a knee and putting an arm round someone's waist may well be out of bounds in this @metoo era, but there ain't a bloke in the world and not many women who haven't done the same thing in the past.
And I often suspect that many of these "Bullying" claims involve no more than giving someone a rollocking for not doing there job properly.
|
>> Report in Guardian says he was under investigation for bullying and 'inappropriate touching'
>> before he was appointed a Minister:
>>
Under investigation is still innocent and allegations, innuendo, unconfirmed reports which have not been investigated should not bar anyone from anything.
Once they have been confirmed by due process, whether legal or internal investigation that's different
|
>> Under investigation is still innocent and allegations, innuendo, unconfirmed reports which have not been investigated
>> should not bar anyone from anything.
Shouldn't be a total bar but it would surely be reasonable to not consider such a person for appointment until the investigation was complete.
|
>> Shouldn't be a total bar but it would surely be reasonable to not consider such
>> a person for appointment until the investigation was complete.
>>
As long as such investigations can be completed in a reasonable timeframe, ideally days or, at most small number of weeks. When they turn in to something lasting months or even years it gets a bit ridiculous to blight someone's life for that amount of time.
It goes without saying that anyone under investigation should not be named except for those with a "real need" to know, which by my "perfectly reasonable" definition excludes colleagues, the press etc.
|