Channel Four's Dispatches has revealed Senior Labour politicians are willing to offer their services for cash. Despite the outcry this has caused, it is nevertheless wrong to liken MPs to whores simply because they are 'for hire'. Here are some points worth considering:-
- Whores are by and large willing to adopt any position - relative to pay. MPs are by contrast principled men and women who enter Parliament having adopted a specific position, and from this they rarely shift. It therefore follows that no amount of money would encourage an MP to, say, role over and "take it from behind" - unless, of course, that were already their adopted position.
- Whores NEVER give money to clients, whilst MPs do freely. We saw for example how the Chancellor Alistair Darling handed billions of pounds to investment bankers from 2008 onwards despite the "dangerous games" they wanted to play. The average whore would almost certainly expect a premium in return for such games, and some might even refuse to offer their services altogether.
- Whores can be unreliable. They can also leave clients with "nasty surprises". The shame of going to the doctor or explaining a rash to a partner can often make a client wonder whether the visit was really worth it. An assignation with an MP is an altogether pleasanter experience, with the client being entertained in the Houses of Parliament, treated to to the best food and receiving stellar treatment courtesy of the UK taxpayer. Very rarely are such clients disappointed - and very few will feel the need to see a doctor.
- Prostitution is illegal for both the client and the whore. Whereas being an MP - albeit an MP for hire - is not.
- For whores, prostitution is the sole source of income. MPs, as we all know, have many sources, all of which are considered highly respectable.
- MPs often pay visits to whores, and as legislators they will gain a rare insight into the nature of the client / whore exchange.Therefore they are bound to know the difference between prostitution and being an "MP for hire". Are they not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, I am bound to know the difference. And bound I like being very much in deed
ReplyDeleteIt is wrong and totally scurrilous to suggest that Parliamentarians, be they Lords or Commoners would pay visits to women who ply such a trade.
ReplyDeleteWe are far more discerning and would only ever consider dominatrices - which is by law acceptable.
I find this whole newspaper article indefensible and not worthy of the standards that we expect of our press.
ReplyDeleteWhen will we see pictures of the opposition dressed like Germans and being beaten black and blue? Eh?
I for one would very much treasure such pictures
Dirty stinking Parliamentarians, they're the most pervy
ReplyDeleteStop beating up on MPs you lot.
ReplyDeleteThat's my job
Politics is the oldest profession known to man, I'll have you know.
ReplyDeleteThere's only one way to deal with this. And that's to give me a third term.
ReplyDeleteCan I add that Parliaments a wheeze
ReplyDeleteI would just like to know for how long they've have been at it
ReplyDeleteCan I just say how disgusted I am?
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new. There've always been lobbyists. Lobbying for legislative change is even present in authoritarian governments.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Conservative Government is elected shortly we will have a better class of bandit! Remember cash for questions?
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of c****
ReplyDeleteThis has been going on for years. It should have been obvious that this was a conflict of interest
ReplyDeleteThe Parliamentary Standards Commissioner is as tame - just like the Fees Office who were vetting MP's expenses. They sacked the only reputable PSC - Elizabeth Filkin - because she was too good at her job
ReplyDeleteMPs shouldn't be allowed to profit from public office. It is a flagrant abuse.
ReplyDeleteThis is Labour sleaze