M.Gove regrets using cocaine

Stevo_666

Ben6899 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again...

Pretty sure?

It's the Class A that every well-off, upper middle class suit turns to.

Given that he has had to fess up and will be in the spotlight for this for a long time, pretty comfortable that's a no.

Any doubts about Corbyn using socialism again?

Ben6899

I don't doubt either, tbh.

Corbyn - Socialism
Gove - cocaine

Although they hardly compare.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I look forward to Michael Gove explaining to his colleagues that what Corbyn did in the 90s has no relevance today.

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again, whereas Corbyn will definitely use socialism again if given a chance.

I meant all the fake outrage over who he talked to in the 90s.

bompington

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I look forward to Michael Gove explaining to his colleagues that what Corbyn did in the 90s has no relevance today.

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again, whereas Corbyn will definitely use socialism again if given a chance.

I meant all the fake outrage over who he talked to in the 90s.

Why would it be fake outrage that he talked to - actually supported - terrorists who were actually murdering people in this country?
You may not particularly be fond of Norman Tebbit, for example, but can you put yourself in his shoes and imagine what it must be like to bump into someone in the corridors of your workplace who hobnobbed with and promoted - in fact invited into your workplace - the people who did that to your wife?

kingstongraham

bompington wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I look forward to Michael Gove explaining to his colleagues that what Corbyn did in the 90s has no relevance today.

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again, whereas Corbyn will definitely use socialism again if given a chance.

I meant all the fake outrage over who he talked to in the 90s.

Why would it be fake outrage that he talked to - actually supported - terrorists who were actually murdering people in this country?
You may not particularly be fond of Norman Tebbit, for example, but can you put yourself in his shoes and imagine what it must be like to bump into someone in the corridors of your workplace who hobnobbed with and promoted - in fact invited into your workplace - the people who did that to your wife?

I mean the fake outrage. Like using the words hobnobbed with rather than met.

Alejandrosdog

KingstonGraham wrote:

bompington wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I look forward to Michael Gove explaining to his colleagues that what Corbyn did in the 90s has no relevance today.

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again, whereas Corbyn will definitely use socialism again if given a chance.

I meant all the fake outrage over who he talked to in the 90s.

Why would it be fake outrage that he talked to - actually supported - terrorists who were actually murdering people in this country?
You may not particularly be fond of Norman Tebbit, for example, but can you put yourself in his shoes and imagine what it must be like to bump into someone in the corridors of your workplace who hobnobbed with and promoted - in fact invited into your workplace - the people who did that to your wife?

I mean the fake outrage. Like using the words hobnobbed with rather than met.

The difference with Gove who did a bit of cocaine when he was younger and Corbyn is that corbyn A continues to support terrorism and B doesnt think hes made a mistake.

In other words Gove has learned from his mistakes, Corbyn is still making the same mistakes.

kingstongraham

Who amongst us hasn't made a youthful indiscretion we look back on and cringe?

shirley_basso

Gove isn't cringing at the indiscretion and he wasn't a youth.

He is a complete hypocrite on this issue and is so pathetic he can't do a job without breaking the law and succumbing to peer pressure to abuse a substance he vilified in his articles.

What a tool.

chris_bass

Shirley Basso wrote:

Gove isn't cringing at the indiscretion and he wasn't a youth.

He is a complete hypocrite on this issue and is so pathetic he can't do a job without breaking the law and succumbing to peer pressure to abuse a substance he vilified in his articles.

What a tool.

you never broken the law?

rick_chasey

Chris Bass wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Gove isn't cringing at the indiscretion and he wasn't a youth.

He is a complete hypocrite on this issue and is so pathetic he can't do a job without breaking the law and succumbing to peer pressure to abuse a substance he vilified in his articles.

What a tool.

you never broken the law?

It’d be different if Shirley was helping make the laws harsher for the same misdemeanour he was doing/had done.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Gove isn't cringing at the indiscretion and he wasn't a youth.

He is a complete hypocrite on this issue and is so pathetic he can't do a job without breaking the law and succumbing to peer pressure to abuse a substance he vilified in his articles.

What a tool.

you never broken the law?

It’d be different if Shirley was helping make the laws harsher for the same misdemeanour he was doing/had done.

How much harsher were they? I mean, cocaine has been Class A as long as I can remember.

shirley_basso

I have broken the law many times but I don't preach about not breaking them, then put myself in a position where lawmaking may become part of my job.

If he was a strong advocate for relaxing drug laws, it would be a different story.

I can't really understand why people don't see the blatant hypocrisy as an issue. It's like Boris Johnson - he'll say and do whatever the hell he needs to, to get into power. The act in itself I couldn't give 2 sh!ts (although there is a wider issue here about middle classes using illegal drugs thinking it's not a big deal when the downstream effects are significant).

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

I have broken the law many times but I don't preach about not breaking them, then put myself in a position where lawmaking may become part of my job.

If he was a strong advocate for relaxing drug laws, it would be a different story.

I can't really understand why people don't see the blatant hypocrisy as an issue. It's like Boris Johnson - he'll say and do whatever the hell he needs to, to get into power. The act in itself I couldn't give 2 sh!ts (although there is a wider issue here about middle classes using illegal drugs thinking it's not a big deal when the downstream effects are significant).

So not being a hypocrite is more important than whether your actual position on something has any merit? That seems a bit back-to-front to me.

shirley_basso

Well how on earth can one know his position if he says one thing and does another?

He says what people want to hear and does whatever suits him / gives him an easy ride among his peers.

darkhairedlord

Rick Chasey wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Gove isn't cringing at the indiscretion and he wasn't a youth.

He is a complete hypocrite on this issue and is so pathetic he can't do a job without breaking the law and succumbing to peer pressure to abuse a substance he vilified in his articles.

What a tool.

you never broken the law?

It’d be different if Shirley was helping make the laws harsher for the same misdemeanour he was doing/had done.

It's like all the gay stories in the 70s and 80s complaining about the gays

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

Well how on earth can one know his position if he says one thing and does another?

He says what people want to hear and does whatever suits him / gives him an easy ride among his peers.

Well, I'd have thought that the public statements and actions as Education minister in the last 5 years, carried more weight than a handful of parties from 20 years ago.

shirley_basso

It's the whole handing of the matter which is so shameless.

He's clearly demonstrated that he is willing to say what the masses want to hear in order to sell copy, yet so feeble to crumble under peer pressure to take a class A drug which he so vocally denounces. Is that the type of person we want to run the country.

Surely someone with a demonstrable track record of being a vertebrate would be a good start.

I don't understand why politicians are held to such low standards.

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's the whole handing of the matter which is so shameless.

He's clearly demonstrated that he is willing to say what the masses want to hear in order to sell copy, yet so feeble to crumble under peer pressure to take a class A drug which he so vocally denounces. Is that the type of person we want to run the country.

Surely someone with a demonstrable track record of being a vertebrate would be a good start.

I don't understand why politicians are held to such low standards.

Saying what sells newspapers is your job, as a columnist, not saying what you 'really' think. It's interesting to contrast the treatment of Johnson - who has chopped, changed and watered down tales of his own drug-taking several times - with Gove. It would seem that making jokes about your drug-taking makes it OK, whereas just giving a straight answer about your past inconsistencies brands you a hypocrite.

I don't understand why anyone thinks politicians are likely to behave any differently from the rest of society. I don't know if you have children, but if you do, I'm sure you can think of a time when they have picked you up for doing exactly what you've told them not to do.

bompington

The question on Gove: is he
1. a snide and cynical "do as I say not as I do" merchant who doesn't think there's anything wrong in him taking drugs or
2. someone who knew perfectly well that what he was doing was wrong but did it anyway, and has genuinely felt guilty about it since.

People who are adamant that it's option 1 (Hi SB) need to ask themselves if they're actually guilty of stereotyping - "he's a Tory so he must be a grasping cynical rich **** "

Of course, we can't tell which one it is, and you could certainly say that 2 could suggest character flaws that aren't a great qualification either.

But I suspect the rush to "condemn more and understand less" has more to do with finding a convenient stick to bash a political opponent with than anything else.

The truth is that all of us are inconsistent (perhaps even hypocritical): susceptible to judging our opponents with taliban-like moral policing, but those we favour get the benefit of the doubt with "it's the policies that matter."

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

The question on Gove: is he
1. a snide and cynical "do as I say not as I do" merchant who doesn't think there's anything wrong in him taking drugs or
2. someone who knew perfectly well that what he was doing was wrong but did it anyway, and has genuinely felt guilty about it since.

People who are adamant that it's option 1 (Hi SB) need to ask themselves if they're actually guilty of stereotyping - "he's a Tory so he must be a grasping cynical rich **** "

Of course, we can't tell which one it is, and you could certainly say that 2 could suggest character flaws that aren't a great qualification either.

But I suspect the rush to "condemn more and understand less" has more to do with finding a convenient stick to bash a political opponent with than anything else.

The truth is that all of us are inconsistent (perhaps even hypocritical): susceptible to judging our opponents with taliban-like moral policing, but those we favour get the benefit of the doubt with "it's the policies that matter."

Well put.

I think we know why a lot of people on here are adamant that it's option 1.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

The question on Gove: is he
1. a snide and cynical "do as I say not as I do" merchant who doesn't think there's anything wrong in him taking drugs or
2. someone who knew perfectly well that what he was doing was wrong but did it anyway, and has genuinely felt guilty about it since.

People who are adamant that it's option 1 (Hi SB) need to ask themselves if they're actually guilty of stereotyping - "he's a Tory so he must be a grasping cynical rich **** "

Of course, we can't tell which one it is, and you could certainly say that 2 could suggest character flaws that aren't a great qualification either.

But I suspect the rush to "condemn more and understand less" has more to do with finding a convenient stick to bash a political opponent with than anything else.

The truth is that all of us are inconsistent (perhaps even hypocritical): susceptible to judging our opponents with taliban-like moral policing, but those we favour get the benefit of the doubt with "it's the policies that matter."

So I would be more sympathetic to #2 but why does he insist on ratcheting up the illegality of it?

It’s that that makes me think #1 more likely. It’s also an attitude I have heard myself over and over again from people from very very similar background.

shirley_basso

Why do I care that he's rich? I'm a staunch Tory voter.

A small amount of backtracking and hypocracy is fine but in my eyes he just comes across as a Johnson type who will do and say whatever it takes to get into power and is clearly top spineless even at the age of 30 to reject some coke.

Pathetic

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

[So I would be more sympathetic to #2 but why does he insist on ratcheting up the illegality of it?

It’s that that makes me think #1 more likely. It’s also an attitude I have heard myself over and over again from people from very very similar background.

He didn't change the illegality of cocaine possession. It was already illegal. He changed some of the sanctions for offenders in certain professions.

Isn't your second point just judging him on the basis of his background?

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[So I would be more sympathetic to #2 but why does he insist on ratcheting up the illegality of it?

It’s that that makes me think #1 more likely. It’s also an attitude I have heard myself over and over again from people from very very similar background.

He didn't change the illegality of cocaine possession. It was already illegal. He changed some of the sanctions for offenders in certain professions.

Isn't your second point just judging him on the basis of his background?

He made punishments more onerous.

And yes I am. It’s so similar to conversations I’ve witnessed over and over again I really struggle to see it in a different light.

Particular conversation about a stag do this guy attended with topless prostituted and blow, which was all “fun and games” and within 2 minutes was spitting blood about a drug dealer who didn’t get a long enough sentence sticks in my memory. Suffice to say the “lads” in question attended a well known boarding school.

That kind of thing. It really colours how you see people like Gove.

5 years ago my inclination would have been yours. But I’ve really changed my mind since working in close proximity with a whole bunch.

rick_chasey

Have to say, the experience really changed my politics, generally that. I guess this is how it is manifesting. I was never really inclined to that view or type of politics at all, but it's really changed.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

[So I would be more sympathetic to #2 but why does he insist on ratcheting up the illegality of it?

It’s that that makes me think #1 more likely. It’s also an attitude I have heard myself over and over again from people from very very similar background.

He didn't change the illegality of cocaine possession. It was already illegal. He changed some of the sanctions for offenders in certain professions.

Isn't your second point just judging him on the basis of his background?

He made punishments more onerous.

And yes I am. It’s so similar to conversations I’ve witnessed over and over again I really struggle to see it in a different light.

Particular conversation about a stag do this guy attended with topless prostituted and blow, which was all “fun and games” and within 2 minutes was spitting blood about a drug dealer who didn’t get a long enough sentence sticks in my memory. Suffice to say the “lads” in question attended a well known boarding school.

That kind of thing. It really colours how you see people like Gove.

5 years ago my inclination would have been yours. But I’ve really changed my mind since working in close proximity with a whole bunch.

I completely agree that there is quite a sizeable demographic who can't join the dots between their own actions and wider consequences, and that isn't limited to drug use. It's not a blindness limited to public school boys by any means. As a trivial example, the chap who lives round the corner from me (white van; ex-council house) complained to the council about people parking across his drive. 2 months and a parking consultation later and the same chap is outraged at the idea of parking restrictions being introduced. I'm not sure how relevant it is that Gove fell in to this trap 20 years ago when considering candidates for the party leadership or assessing government drug policy.

I'm quite sure Gove would make a better leader than Johnson, Raab, Javid, McVey or Leadsom for starters, and that surely is the primary quality he should be judged on. Personally, I have more of an issue with his recent denial of the increase in hate crime and his involvement with Vote Leave, but still preferable to at least half of the alternatives.

chris_bass

Are people annoyed by
a) what he did
b) what he said about policies
c) he is a hypocrite
d) he is a torrie
e) other

as far as i see it, if people make policies that go against what they do or have done makes no difference as long as the policies they do advocate for or put through are what you agree with. if they do stuff in their private lives that you disagree with then don't be their friend, but if they suggest/vote for/pass good laws/polices then they are a good politician if they dont then they are a bad politician, everything else is of no interest to me.

who in the world isn't on some level a hypocrite?

caveat - i have never, and probably will never vote conservative

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

As a trivial example, the chap who lives round the corner from me (white van; ex-council house) complained to the council about people parking across his drive. 2 months and a parking consultation later and the same chap is outraged at the idea of parking restrictions being introduced.

He is happy for people (including his potential visitors) to park on the road provided he can access his drive. Doesn't sound all that outrageous to me.

rick_chasey

Chris Bass wrote:

Are people annoyed by
a) what he did
b) what he said about policies
c) he is a hypocrite
d) he is a torrie
e) other

as far as i see it, if people make policies that go against what they do or have done makes no difference as long as the policies they do advocate for or put through are what you agree with. if they do stuff in their private lives that you disagree with then don't be their friend, but if they suggest/vote for/pass good laws/polices then they are a good politician if they dont then they are a bad politician, everything else is of no interest to me.

who in the world isn't on some level a hypocrite?

caveat - i have never, and probably will never vote conservative

I do try very hard not to be a professional hypocrite and practice what I preach in my job.

I agree that we are all hypocrites at various levels - I certainly am - but then I do think there is a lower standard for people who are not in power vs those who are. With power comes greater scrutiny and greater responsibility. This guy wants to be PM, it's not just some bloke you have heard of.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

As a trivial example, the chap who lives round the corner from me (white van; ex-council house) complained to the council about people parking across his drive. 2 months and a parking consultation later and the same chap is outraged at the idea of parking restrictions being introduced.

He is happy for people (including his potential visitors) to park on the road provided he can access his drive. Doesn't sound all that outrageous to me.

2 car family with a 1 car drive. The proposed restrictions would have kept his drive clear but cost him a year's permit for the other car. It didn't occur to him that his initial complaint to the council might have instigated the proposed restrictions.