Two Faced

Two faced, that’s what we, as a society, are. Hypocrites that speak with a forked tongue. Let me explain what has annoyed me this morning.

Two deaths. Two very different deaths, but both from drug misuse, and treated so differently by the media. First, and for me the more important is the loss of life of a young woman aged 17, who takes a ‘substance’ while on a night out. Maybe for the first time, but certainly the last. A waste of a life that was spread out before her, but she never got to see. Her candle snuffed out by an unknown and dangerous person, known only as a ‘dealer’ and who will probably never be brought to justice for murder.

The other death reported on the same news stream, is that of an actor. A celebrity who is known by movie worthies world wide, and the media reports? They are evenly split between reporting how great an actor he was, and how he has raised the bar for other actors, and then almost as an afterthought, the fact that he died of a possible drug overdose. This man is shown as a hero, who gets accolades in his death, possibly more than in life, and his loss of celebrity is mourned over the fact that he died from a drugs overdose.

Yes, we are two faced. What kind of message do we as society give our children? Is it ok to be a celebrity and take drugs, but receive praise on endless media reports, or do we mourn an equally important but unknown young girl who loses her life due to being misled by our very same confusion over whether drug use is acceptable or not, and is a footnote on the news? Sadly both have families who mourn their loss, but can we please not elevate drug taking actors to celebrity sainthood? As we say in Scotland, “Gonnae no dae that”?  

Simple Math

It is an unfortunate fact that our fine educational standard in mathematics does not transfer into our political understanding of morality. As a simple example, we have lost the meaning of the ‘=’ sign. Let me explain:

Man + Woman = Baby (Good place to start and universally understood) but in the news today, the UK government has passed a significant legal milestone and is allowing this equation: Man + Woman + Woman = Baby.

This is not the only basic equation we have tampered with. Let’s remind you of the first equation and see what we have already done with it:

Man + Woman = Man + Man (no baby here). In fact we have also made it acceptable as:

Man + Woman = Woman + Woman (no baby here either).

Sorry to do this to you. I hope you are following me so far, because there is another ‘equality’ waiting in the wings, which will emerge soon. Since we can bring conception about in the lab using a man and two women, surely it won’t be long before polygamy and polyamory is seen as an acceptable way to conceive ‘naturally’? That will be argued as an equality, and would make the ‘equation’ become:

Man + Woman = xMen + xWomen (where x = any number). So can you now say that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others?

Now, can you honestly tell me this new ‘equality’ will not be tested, and eventually legalised? Remember the wise old quotation, ‘for want of a shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse the knight was lost, for want of a knight the battle was lost, for want of a battle the kingdom was lost’? Well now we have lost our morality and all for want of an ‘=’ sign!

David Laws in Trouble..

David Laws is the Chief Secretary to the UK Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's right hand man. He weilds a lot of political financial clout in our new coalition Tory/Lib Dem government, so he knows his way around the money of the country. He has now been found to have claimed £40,000 in expenses to house his 'long term male partner' of 10 years. His name didn't come up when the whole expenses scandal raised its ugly head in the months before the General Election, and he certainly didn't poke his head above the parapet to 'come clean'! Why?


Apparently, he, and others are debating the meaning of the word 'partner'. Yes, these top guys in our political elite, don't know what the word partner means! Amazing, isn't it? Maybe, just maybe they are looking for some way to get him off the hook, or am I being a tad cynical? There is the very obvious question of ethics and morality here too, and that's not even taking into account the fact that the money claimed was for his gay partner! There is the moral question of why did he try to hide the fact of his dubious expense claims over the past 9 years? The media report that he was only trying to 'protect his private life'.


Politicians don't have a 'private life' and everyone accepts that, especially within the political scene, so what does he mean? My own opinion is that he viewed his gay relationship as a stumbling block to his career, and so didn't want to expose it, if he could help it. Now he can't help it, and he has confessed and apologised, in the hope that it will all blow over quietly and quickly.

Who is kidding who here? These people took the electorate as fools before, and they are trying it again! The new PM, David Cameron, must be nervously waiting to see what the media will do about this, especially so soon into his leadership. I think the coalition is seeing its first big test. What to do? Let me help.... There is the moral question of pretending not to know what the word 'partner' means in the context of a relationship. Then there is the moral and ethical question of siphoning off £40,000 in expenses for his partner. Then, and most importantly in my opinion, there is the secrecy and hiding of the fact that he had a gay lover. I think this is key. If he was fully at peace with his gay lifestyle (he is not the first in the Commons) he would have been open and above board about it. Perhaps he was ashamed of it, and hence his reluctance to declare the expense because in doing so, he would have had to also declare his lifestyle.


Message to the new PM David Cameron. Don't sit on the fence in the hope that we will forget, and be taken for fools again. Sack David Laws and find another morally and ethically better one. That can't be too hard, can it?