blunkett & adultery....

bananabrain

awkward squadnik
Messages
2,749
Reaction score
6
Points
36
Location
London, UK, Malkhut she'be'Assiyah
so, it seems that the british home secretary (minister of the interior for all you johnny-foreigners) has had to resign following a series of revelations of conflicts-of-interest and loss of support. basically it all started going wrong as a result of his 3-year affair and two children with a [still-]married woman who was also very well-connected in the world of publishing. i dare say you can read all the info in the british papers (i recommend the times) about the downfall of this otherwise pretty impressive politician (whether you like his policies or not) who overcome a disadvantaged background and blindness to rise to nearly the top of the political tree; indeed he was talked of in some quarters as a future prime minister.

my question is this: how important is the adultery? how much should we expect politicians to behave with "personal morality"? i personally detest adultery and disapprove strongly of adulterers, albeit i concede that it doesn't always affect a politician's ability to do his (or her) job. so what are our objections? are they religious? are they pragmatic? is it inevitable that personal sins (if you want to put it like that) should have public consequences? it seems to me at least that his downfall wouldn't have happened without the adultery - but then again, bill clinton seems to have survived. is it down to the how "bad" the adultery was?

what do y'all think?

b'shalom

bananabrian
 
Dear BB

blunkett & adultery....

I haven't really read the indepth details so accept that everyone is human and suffer human weakness. I do not judge him but he appears to have judged himself.

Then if you ask me about Camilla and Prince Charles that is a different ball game as head of state once King. The British people will never accept Camilla as Queen of England. If we accept this we would be giving sanction to adultery. But our national newspapers today were stating NO!

If he wants to marry her then he will have to abdicate the throne.So we do not condone it, and we see cause and effect in action again with Blunkett.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar
 
I do not judge him but he appears to have judged himself.
mmph. i personally think he would have toughed it out if he had been able to count on the support of his cabinet colleagues. unfortunately for him, his biographer had just released details of all the rude things he'd said about them - so he was pretty much screwed.

it's interesting that you bring up charles and camilla. there again, i would say that the adultery was problematic and the behaviour of both parties was immoral - the difference is that they did both actually do the right thing and get divorced from their respective spouses, evidently so they could be together. i think for me it's crucial that people actually try and resolve the situation. for the prince of wales to have a lover is not so much of an issue once they are both unmarried.

The British people will never accept Camilla as Queen of England.
i don't know about that. i think if their key influencers start communicating it as "true love conquers all eventually" they'll come round. i think there are surveys to support it.

If we accept this we would be giving sanction to adultery. But our national newspapers today were stating NO!
yeah, but i don't pay much attention to what newspapers say on this subject. they'll say whatever sells and, morally speaking, they don't have a leg to stand on anyway - quite apart from the fact that the most outraged ones are most likely to run "MY NIGHTS OF PASSION WITH MARRIED VICAR" sort of stories. i don't see how letting them marry would be sanctioning adultery. i would say that letting them marry would be rectifying the original mistake. constitutionally they will make it work if they want to; this isn't wallis simpson and the queen mum (who was the original instigator of charles marrying diana) is no longer around to poke her oar in.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Dear BB

Well there has been a lot of discussion about this in recent years in the UK on the internet. The majority do not and will condone the darkness.So it will be interesting to see what transpires, the British people feel so strongly about this it could well be the downfall of the monarchy.

Feelings about Princess Diana are still very high in the UK with most people believing she was murdered.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar
 
bb,

The discussion concerning Charlie and Camilla reminds me of something from British history, the Duke and Dutchess of Windsor (I think). If he hadn't abdicated for his love, Charles wouldn't be the Crown Prince. But, because she was a divorcee, he chose to step down.

Please corect me if I'm wrong about this. :)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
 
Ultimately, no matter our personal logic, we are emotional beings, and I can appreciate that this means we can find ourselves drawn - even thrown - into situations we would not possibly invite in more rational periods of our lives.

A key issue I would think is the acceptance of consequence, and how that is dealt with - my impression is that those who never accept their own errors, or take repsonsibility for their own actions, are where the real issues of criticism.

The problem Blunkett had was that he had apparently already taken the moral high road against his colleagues - and that it was this that finished him off quickest, rather than the reported claims of dishonesty towards Parliament, that could have damaged him in the longer run anyway.

There are different levels to the question as well - is the person whose emotions throw them into such a situation in a single instance, equivalent to a habitual adulterer who is simply seeking to avoid responsibilities? How about the adulterer who comes out of the process a more responsible person, as opposed to the one who loses all sense of responsibility to their kin?
 
Well there has been a lot of discussion about this in recent years in the UK on the internet.
oh, i bet there has. just like there's been a lot of discussion about, oh, i don't know, the da vinci codes.

The majority do not and will condone the darkness. So it will be interesting to see what transpires, the British people feel so strongly about this it could well be the downfall of the monarchy.
or at least the part of it that discusses this on the internet ("morallyoutraged1997" and his friends in alt.conspiracies.diana i dare say)

Feelings about Princess Diana are still very high in the UK with most people believing she was murdered.
oh, for feck's sake. "most people" indeed. you can raise plenty of doubt if you've got a big bank account and like making trouble and enough people shop in your overpriced knightsbridge bazaar. sheesh. as for the beatification of diana and the sickening sentimentalism surrounding her awful death - frankly, anyone who's ever bought "hello" or one of those dreadful celeb magazines contributed to it. and have they learned? nooooooooooooooooooo.

phyllis - wallis simpson (see above) is who i was talking about...

The problem Blunkett had was that he had apparently already taken the moral high road against his colleagues - and that it was this that finished him off quickest, rather than the reported claims of dishonesty towards Parliament, that could have damaged him in the longer run anyway.
i agree. however, i think if the budd inquiry manages to blur things enough i dare say he will be able to contribute to the election campaign and then return to cabinet, probably via the chairmanship of the party. that's where you generally put people who screw up spectacularly until you can get away with slipping them back into government. i confidently expect blunkett to 'do a mandelson' at some point, at any rate before blair goes.

is the person whose emotions throw them into such a situation in a single instance, equivalent to a habitual adulterer who is simply seeking to avoid responsibilities? How about the adulterer who comes out of the process a more responsible person, as opposed to the one who loses all sense of responsibility to their kin?
i guess that's what interests me - which is why the question of rectification arises. clearly, kimberly fortier is not a woman who thinks she has to live by the moral norms (as today's revelations about the simon hoggart affair make clear) and i think in the long run blunkett may be personally - if not politically - vindicated, particularly if she ends up looking worse than she already does. my question is really about why people seem to find it so hard to do the right thing - ie, get divorced or end the affair. i find it impossible to accept the idea of a menage. call me a prude if you like but i just don't like it.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Dear BB

Yes I agree, one can accept that marriages go wrong but hard to accept a man that begins an affair prior the marriage and carries it on during the marriage, then makes the marriage so unbearable it breaks up.

I went through this experience myself, so I truly understand how our Queen of Hearts must have felt.

This is what is different about the Charles affair and it is this will not condone for it is against common human decency.

Sorry BB Princess Di will always be in our hearts no matter what anyone says about her. Our compassion understands this little 19 year old girl that was sucked up by the wicked queen and her wolves.

She will always be our Queen of Hearts.

The Queen of England cried over her boat Brittania but was pleased to see the back of Diana.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar
 
bananabrain said:
my question is really about why people seem to find it so hard to do the right thing - ie, get divorced or end the affair. i find it impossible to accept the idea of a menage. call me a prude if you like but i just don't like it.
It almost sounds like you're asking why people maintain rational control over their emotional drives.

But I agree - hardly a pleasant concept.
 
Back
Top