cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Baron Sewel

Community Veteran
Posts: 7,929
Thanks: 603
Fixes: 8
Registered: 02-08-2007

Baron Sewel

There is plenty of information on the news about this idiot I am not going to repeat but his statement, "That many members of the House of Lords received money for doing f all" is probably accurate, yet it's likely the numbers will shortly be increased to nearly a thousand.
Even worse is the possibility they may not kick him out despite having the power to do so be interesting to see if they do and what action the Police will take other than issue a verbal warning to him.
At a time when most government departments are having to make large savings which are likely to result in job losses there can be no excuse for a House of Lords with this number of members.
The government should check which of the Lords has made the most valuable contribution over the past few years and then get shut of the rest.
I can't imagine how those on the minimum wage or no wage at all feel when they read about this.
19 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 18,551
Thanks: 195
Registered: 12-08-2007

Re: Baron Sewel

Yes, a disgraceful  situation. He should be kicked out without further delay.
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,274
Thanks: 339
Fixes: 12
Registered: 24-10-2013

Re: Baron Sewel

it's an interesting conundrum really.
should a person be sacked/kicked out for something they do in the personal life behind closed doors regardless of what their job is.
now if we look at the legalities of what he was allegedly doing.
1) drugs - do we know for sure what he was taking? other than making assumptions based on the footage? he wasn't dealing so at most it would be possession for personal consumption.
2) hookers - is there evidence that any money changed hands? if it did then can it be proved that the money was for sexual services? or was it for their "time".
does what he did stop him from carrying out his duties in the role he has? that is certainly up for debate but it's not cut and dry IMO.
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17,255
Thanks: 905
Fixes: 105
Registered: 11-01-2008

Re: Baron Sewel

it's not a conundrum he should be kicked out
Quote
To those who say that what he or any other politician does in his private life is - so long as it's within the law - his or her own business, there's only one sensible response: get real.Let's just say that again: he is a cocaine-snorting, prostitute user.
And for good measure, a cocaine-snorting, prostitute user who does it in his grace and favour flat, subsidised to the tune of nearly £2,000 a month by the taxpayer. Remember, this is not any Lord Average. It's the man who set the standards for other peers, and as Deputy Speaker sets himself up as an arbiter of proper behaviour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11764002/Lord-Sewel-the-cocaine-snorting-prosti...
Will Moderate For Thanks
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,929
Thanks: 603
Fixes: 8
Registered: 02-08-2007

Re: Baron Sewel

@chenks76,
Whilst I can understand where you are coming from regarding the points you make it would not be difficult to establish what he was taking following blood or hair samples, at no point has he denied taking the stuff and I guess most innocent people would deny they had taken a drugs.
Now it cannot be proved that he has taken drugs before but there is a good chance he has and if so would this not effect his judgement .?
Whichever way you look at it taking drugs is illegal irrespective of it being behind closed doors and as someone in his position is he not expected to set an example of good behaviour, how can you get young people not to take drugs when they see someone like him doing that.
Also remember his comments regarding most of them getting money for nothing.
So in short he should be kicked out but having said that he is refusing to go.
198kHz
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 3,217
Thanks: 253
Fixes: 7
Registered: 30-07-2008

Re: Baron Sewel

Quote from: chenks76
should a person be sacked/kicked out for something they do in the personal life behind closed doors regardless of what their job is.

If I'm paying to see an entertainer, or buying their CD, I don't pay much regard to what they may do in private - with one or two extreme exceptions.
I do, however, object to my taxes being used to further the career and pay the expenses of a morally bankrupt peer in the upper house of the UK parliament.
Not young enough to know everything
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,274
Thanks: 339
Fixes: 12
Registered: 24-10-2013

Re: Baron Sewel

Quote from: gleneagles
@chenks76,
Whilst I can understand where you are coming from regarding the points you make it would not be difficult to establish what he was taking following blood or hair samples, at no point has he denied taking the stuff and I guess most innocent people would deny they had taken a drugs.
Now it cannot be proved that he has taken drugs before but there is a good chance he has and if so would this not effect his judgement .?
Whichever way you look at it taking drugs is illegal irrespective of it being behind closed doors and as someone in his position is he not expected to set an example of good behaviour, how can you get young people not to take drugs when they see someone like him doing that.
Also remember his comments regarding most of them getting money for nothing.
So in short he should be kicked out but having said that he is refusing to go.

should he not be offered suitable rehabilitation then?
i'm not sure there is an expectation from the general public (or plebs) that a member of the house of lords is expected to set an example of good behaviour.
Quote from: Force
If I'm paying to see an entertainer, or buying their CD, I don't pay much regard to what they may do in private - with one or two extreme exceptions.
I do, however, object to my taxes being used to further the career and pay the expenses of a morally bankrupt peer in the upper house of the UK parliament.

you'll be checking the morals of every elected MP then?
and every civil servant?
not sure why an entertainer should be let off with it though, surely one rule for all?
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,929
Thanks: 603
Fixes: 8
Registered: 02-08-2007

Re: Baron Sewel

By all means offer him rehab but that does not negate any of the points I made.
I Would expect any decent person to set an example of good behaviour, the fact that less people do so these days is the cause of many problems.
Irrespective of the above there can be little sympathy for a man who get's the salary and perks he gets whilst stating he does nothing for it.
198kHz
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 3,217
Thanks: 253
Fixes: 7
Registered: 30-07-2008

Re: Baron Sewel

Quote from: chenks76
should he not be offered suitable rehabilitation then?

Yes of course - as Johann Hari explains so eloquently.
Quote from: chenks76
you'll be checking the morals of every elected MP then?
and every civil servant?

No - the press seem to be doing a good job.
Quote from: chenks76
not sure why an entertainer should be let off with it though, surely one rule for all?

I see no reason to be worried about an entertainer's morals, if s/he is not breaking the law.
Whether illegal or not, I want the legislature to be morally upstanding.
Not young enough to know everything
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,274
Thanks: 339
Fixes: 12
Registered: 24-10-2013

Re: Baron Sewel

Quote from: gleneagles
whilst stating he does nothing for it.

at least he's honest.
the UK is full of people who do nothing for their government provided money, collected by signing on at the local job centre. many of them also waste it on drugs and women.
i'm almost certain they have not been influenced by any bad examples from the house of lords.
of course, we don't know if this particular lord was using personal money for his entertainment or salaried money.
for me, he's committed an offence that would most likely result in a caution for anyone else - he wasn't out on street he was in private residence.
should that result in the loss of job? some will say yes, some will say no.
Community Veteran
Posts: 3,274
Thanks: 339
Fixes: 12
Registered: 24-10-2013

Re: Baron Sewel

Quote from: Force
I see no reason to be worried about an entertainer's morals, if s/he is not breaking the law.
Whether illegal or not, I want the legislature to be morally upstanding.

yet you said "If I'm paying to see an entertainer, or buying their CD, I don't pay much regard to what they may do in private - with one or two extreme exceptions."
so what are the one or two extreme exceptions?
that sounds like you are forgiving lots of illegalities.
surely an entertainer is more in the public eye as an example setter than a lord that 99% of population had never heard of.
morals and law are not the same thing.
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,929
Thanks: 603
Fixes: 8
Registered: 02-08-2007

Re: Baron Sewel

@chenks76.
quote,"at least he is honest"
Not sure how you can be honest and get the money he is on for doing nothing.
I would have thought that was fraud.
Might be more accurate to say he was telling the truth regarding what he did or in his case did not do for the money. (ie: tax payers money)
Community Veteran
Posts: 18,551
Thanks: 195
Registered: 12-08-2007

Re: Baron Sewel

Quote from: chenks76
of course, we don't know if this particular lord was using personal money for his entertainment or salaried money.


For the record members of the House of Lords do not receive a salary. They do, however, receive a daily allowance of £300 for each day they attend.
Community Veteran
Posts: 7,929
Thanks: 603
Fixes: 8
Registered: 02-08-2007

Re: Baron Sewel

Plus perks such as a subsidised flat
Community Veteran
Posts: 18,551
Thanks: 195
Registered: 12-08-2007

Re: Baron Sewel

Checking into this further it appears he didn't get £300 a day expenses as he received a salary of £84,525 per annum as Chairman of Committees. He also claimed £403,799 in expenses over a 10 year period. In addition he paid £1000 a month for his flat which was a discount of £1817.