This is why the Osborne cocaine allegations matter


3:29 pm - September 12th 2011

by Mark Thompson    


      Share on Tumblr

Guido has details today of a story about how someone who knew George Osborne when he was in his early twenties is claiming that she saw him take cocaine on multiple occasions.

Osborne has had these allegations made to him before and has always strenuously denied them. It is possible that this latest round of allegations will come to nothing too. It is not clear if there is a smoking gun.

But if it turned out to be true would Osborne have to resign?

If it was up to me he would definitely have to.

Not because I think taking cocaine as a 22 year old is such a terrible thing, I don’t and I know many young people take all sorts of illegal drugs and go on to have completely normal lives. The only person he was likely to harm is himself and if he was willing to take the risk, it should have been up to him.

But Osborne is one of the most senior members of a government that supports punitive measures against people who take cocaine. In fact it is possible for someone caught in possession of a small amount of a “Class A” drug such as cocaine to be sentenced to 7 years in prison. The same sentence you can get for armed robbery.

So if it turned out that he had taken cocaine, by the terms of the drugs policies that he himself supports he has committed an offence equivalent to this. That’s why he should have to resign. Because he himself insists that anyone caught doing what he is alleged to have done can have that sentence imposed on them.

Of course we already know that people like Louise Mensch have admitted drug use in the past and Nick Clegg and even David Cameron himself have refused to deny similar allegations. Cameron insisted that he is entitled to a “private life before politics”.

The fact that Osborne could survive something like this, and that numerous of his colleagues have survived too demonstrates the truth of the matter. That despite the “tough on drugs” rhetoric, politicians actually understand that drawing a parallel between a crime like armed robbery and ingesting a powder that affects nobody but yourself is ludicrous.

If you don’t believe me, ask yourself whether Mensch, Clegg, Cameron or Osborne could still continue as MPs if there was a strong suspicion that any of them had been involved in an armed robbery.

Of course not. Robbery is a real crime.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Mark Thompson is an occasional Liberal Conspiracy contributor. He is a Lib Dem member and activist and blogs about UK politics here
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Law ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I don’t believe that someone should be punished for taking drugs, especially for taking drugs over a decade ago. Hipocrisy is telling someone not to do something you are doing yourself, not for telling someone not to do something you did when you were barely out of your teens. Thats not hipocrisy, that’s experience.

Personally, I’d have more respect for him if he DID take drugs, but this endless prying into other people’s lives, whether by the press, the State, the church, or any other body should be put to sleep.

@Shatterface – I am afraid I cannot agree with you.

If Osborne had gone off into the City or some other private job then I would not give a monkeys what he did when he was 22. But he is a senior member of a government that refuses to listen to the many reasonable and moderate voices out there calling for a rational debate on drugs policy. He will happily see 22 year-olds today go to prison for years for taking cocaine. So if it turns out he did the same back then but was lucky enough to get away with it at the time then as far as I am concerned his utter hypocrisy bars him from office.

If on the other hand he used the opportunity to launch a national debate on the issue of drugs policy (which he could very well choose to do) calling for a proper evidence based review then I would be much more inclined to conclude that he was doing his best to address the problems.

If Osborne was on benefits he would loose them and his council house what’s the difference between no 11 and social housing – none at all HE SHOULD GO NOW and the rest of the corrupt government with him

4. the a&e charge nurse

“that despite the “tough on drugs” rhetoric, politicians actually understand that drawing a parallel between a crime like armed robbery and ingesting a powder that affects nobody but yourself is ludicrous” – that’s simply not true.

The trail from the coca leaf to a bankers nose may be a bloody one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audioslideshow/2009/mar/09/cocaine-trail-colombia-bolivia

Who would be surprised if Ozzy turns out to be a ‘class A’ hypocrite.

5. Leon Wolfeson

@2 – I completely agree.

I don’t have a problem with this kind of behaviour per-se, I have a problem with hypocrisy!

@4 – The ingesting of the powder affects nobody but the person ingesting it. I agree that there is all sorts of hardship caused by getting it from source to user but pretty much all of that is caused by exactly the illegality that I am referring to.

If it was legalised globally it would be as dangerous and harmful to import cocaine from Columbia as it is to import Vodka from Russia or Tequila from Mexico.

7. PrimusDesignia

Ah, but it’s a “victim-less crime”!

Hmph. Cocaine decisions at the ehart of government. It all starts to fall into place…

Well exactly, it’s like when politicians preach homophobia then get caught cheating with a gay lover. It’s not that it matters whether they’re gay or not, but it matters that they hold other people (us mere mortals) to different standards than they hold themselves to – and that is a serious problem in itself because it also extends beyond drugs to holding benefits cheats to different standards than tax evaders, and so on.

Why is it that politicians always think they have a right to make mistakes and learn from them, but they never trust us, the public, to do that?

Anyway the real story is the Coulson link. If anything is proven there it is a million times more serious frankly.

Given the crap he comes out with, if I was Osborne I’d positively YEARN for people to believe I was on drugs :-)

BB

@6 – “The ingesting of the powder affects nobody but the person ingesting it.”

Er, really? Just like the drinking of alcohol affects nobody but the person drinking it? What if said person gets behind the wheel of a car?

I’m all for a more liberal drugs policy (actually, I’d legalise everything), but that doesn’t mean I’m ignorant of the consequences of substance ‘abuse’.

@ 9:

“It’s not that it matters whether they’re gay or not, but it matters that they hold other people (us mere mortals) to different standards than they hold themselves to”

Osborne may have taken cocaine when he was younger, but unless he still does so, it’s not hypocritical for him to argue that people shouldn’t take cocaine.

politicians actually understand that drawing a parallel between a crime like armed robbery and ingesting a powder that affects nobody but yourself is ludicrous.

I agree with this, and any rational person would.

However, it is quite clear that the Great British public are as irrationally afraid of drug use as they are of everything else our politicians and media have chosen to scare them with.

For that reason, supporting legalisation of drugs would be instant political suicide and condemning Osborne for not doing so is…….disingenuous, at best. I’m afraid this reads like party political mischief dressed up as principled thought.

I think this article is a bit hysterical. While the maximum sentence for possession of a Class A drug like cocaine is 7 years, the actual sentence that someone prosecuted for possession of a very small amount would face is much lower.

The latest draft sentencing guidelines can be found at http://bit.ly/p1WsqO

At page 77 you will see that the starting point for sentencing for possession of up to a gram of cocaine is a Band C fine. The top end of the range is a low level community order. Sentencing might have been a little stiffer in the early 90s when Osborne is alleged to have taken the drug (although from personal experience as a drugs prosecutor at the time, this varied – Dover Magistrates’ Court were willing to accept that up to a kilo of cannabis was for personal use rather than intended for supply if the defendant was suitably addicted and would give non-custodial sentences for it!).

Of course it would still be a conviction for a serious offence, but with a sentence at that end of the scale it would not be prosecuted that often and the sentence would cease to be disclosable other than in jobs requiring an enhanced CRB after only a year. I would expect that a current Cabinet Minister would get a much heavier sentence if prosecuted for possessing cocaine while in office but a 22 year old nobody would face minimal sanction.

If there is a resignation issue here it is more on the basis of lying about having taken the drug in the dim distant past. I suspect that hounding out a Chancellor on the basis of such slim, yet salacious allegations would not overall be in the best interests of the country, whatever one might think about the qualities and policies of that Chancellor.

I’m afraid this reads like party political mischief dressed up as principled thought.

What? On Lib Con? Perish the thought.

If Osborne was on benefits he would loose them and his council house what’s the difference between no 11 and social housing – none at all HE SHOULD GO NOW and the rest of the corrupt government with him

Name someone who is currently denied benefits for using drugs decades ago.

17. the a&e charge nurse

[2] “as I am concerned his utter hypocrisy bars him from office” – sadly some of our politicos don’t do irony – look at Tony B earning £400k a pop on the international lecture circuit, dispensing wisdom about “peace” in the middle east – honestly, you couldn’t make it up.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6037174.ece

@11 – It is right that drinking and driving is a crime because you are endangering other people. In the same way as if someone gets drunk and then beats someone up, beating people up is also a crime. The things can be punished separately without criminalising the taking of the drug itself (alcohol) which need not harm anyone else per se. There’s no reason why a similar approach could not be taken with other drugs.

@13 – I would say the same about Labour politicians or any from my own party (Lib Dems) trying the same hypocritical line (indeed I included Clegg in my list above). Supporting legalising drugs straight off the bat might mean the end of Osborne’s career but calling for a more open discussion and questioning whether current policy is right need not. I think the country is ready for such a debate and is waiting for a senior politician to lead it.

@14 – You may well be right about the practical ramifications of the current sentencing guidelines but the fact remains that 7 years is the maximum offence for cocaine posession (not for supplying – that’s even longer). It is not hysterical to draw a comparison between the two crimes and the similarity of maximum sentences whilst this remains the case.

I think the country is ready for such a debate and is waiting for a senior politician to lead it.

I thought that in the ’80s. My dad thought the same in the ’60s.

The reason it doesn’t happen is precisely the puritanical hysteria we are seeing here just because Paul Staines – for fuck’s sake! – is peddling gossip.

Ah, but there is something even more fundamental than mere hypocrisy regarding his personal drug use. Osborne et al at part of a Government who are on a moral crusade! You cannot cite the use of illegal drugs as either a symptom or cause of ‘broken Britain, when you yourself are a user, but there is more to it than that. This isn’t Ken Clarke being Minister for Health with a healthy paunch and a cigar habit, nor is it say, a Minister for Transport getting speed trapped, we are all human and we sometimes fuck up. This is fundamentally different. I am far more interested in the morality than the legality of his actions.

The Tory Party are going round announcing that ‘feckless people’ are indulging in substance abuse (legal or otherwise) which is helping bring down society and such action is to be punished, the loss of treatment from A&E and benefits being mooted from time to time. However, the implied assumption is that the ‘rich’ can do whatever the fuck they want and as long they keep the money rolling in, it matters no a jot. Osborne and his mates in the city are ‘allowed’ to indulge in a bit of nose candy because as long as the bacon is being brought home, it doesn’t matter. They care nothing about the signals it sends out to the wider society about drug use (illegal or otherwise), because there is one rule for one strata of society and another for the lower orders. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way, either you disapprove of the damage drugs (legal or otherwise) do to society or you let it slide. You do not get to call substance abuse of a young teenager ‘immoral’ and turn a blind eye to cocaine use of the rich as just rewards.

I do not have a problem with Ministers who claim to be human, just extend that assumption to everyone else. Osborne is lucky he has a rich father who could bail him out of problems when he was young, but no fucking does that give you the excuse to moralise over the unemployed alcoholic who was unlucky enough to succumb, yet had no trust fund to save his life.

Osborne and Cameron have always refused to admit or deny having taken illegal drugs when they were younger. I do not accept this is an acceptable position for them or any government minister to take. Whilst the premise of ‘no smoke without fire’ is not necessarily sound, one suspects in this case – bearing in mind their age, opportunity, the times – that both Osborne and Cameron indulged in criminal behaviour in taking illegal drugs like cocaine.

Now, they may have both regretted and renounced their earlier drug use and if so this would not be incompatible for pursuing a drug policy of punishment for offences related to illegal drugs. However what they should have done – and I would want them pursued and bothered about this – is to either come out and say ‘yes I took illegal drugs when I was young. I haven’t done so for many years and I regret my behaviour etc etc'; or come out and deny having broken the law. Of course if evidence was later produced that showed they were lying then they ought then to be hounded out of office for being unfit to wield power over us. (I personally think they should not be in office anyway given their policies and brown nosing the wealthy who are clearly not in this together with the rest of us).

Mark Thompson is taking a very laissez faire approach to the taking of harmful and dangerous drugs and the morality of brazingly breaking the law does not appear to occur to him. Those people who bring misery into other people’s lives through importing and dealing in drugs which lead to tragic consequences are committing a real crime. Suggesting that by legalising it would make the import of cocaine no different to importing vodka from Russia does not wash – and I suspect would not wash with the grieving family of Amy Winehouse. (regardless of whether drugs killed her, it certainly blighted her life).

@19- I’m pretty sure Paul Staines wants to see drugs legalised as much as I do. But of course salacious gossip is his stock in trade and Osborne’s hypocrisy has left an open goal for him.

If other politicians were not so quick to leap down the throats of any of their colleagues who dare to suggest a more sensible approach then the press would struggle to find as much traction for their “tough on drugs” campaigns. It is at least as much the fault of the craven political classes as the media.

I remember hearing Nigel Farage (not a politician I am naturally apt to agree with) on Any Questions a couple of years back make a credible and principled call for a Royal Commission to look into the subject of drugs including the possibility of decriminalisation as an option. The next panelist was Peter Hain and he said in the most supercillious tone imaginable, and I quote:

“There we are ladies and gentlemen. A vote for UKIP is a vote for drugs.”

And then went on to pillory Farage ad hominem without any recourse to any of the sensible suggestions he had made.

When cabinet ministers respond to any attempt to even discuss changing things in a more sensible direction like this (and I have seen it time and again from all sides of the political spectrum) then calling them on hypocrisy is absolutely fair game as far as I am concerned.

@21 – The law is an ass on drugs. Millions of people regularly ignore it and take drugs anyway. It needs to change and it eventually will. The fact that so many “brazenly” as you put it break the law shows just how broken it is.

When alcohol was made illegal in the US during the 1920s racketeering and organised crime soared on the back of it. It is exactly the same now with drugs on a global scale. Of course people taking drugs are currently contributing to this misery but that is all the more reason to get the law changed sharpish. Your logic leads to the conclusion that instead of trying to change things we should just stick with the current regime and shout at people to try and make them feel guilty for taking substances that per se do not harm other people. It hasn’t worked for 40 odd years, drug taking is more widespread and prevalent than ever.

And of course grieving families of victims of drug abuse will be devastated and my heart goes out to them. It doesn’t alter the fact that if those same drugs had not been criminalised then there would be more predictable purity leading to many fewer accidental overdoses, there would be no (or very few) impurities in the drugs leading to fewer illnesses and deaths and of course if someone has a problem with drugs, as with alcohol currently they could go and seek help without fear of getting dragged through the entirely inappropriate criminal justice system.

Throwing Amy Winehouse at me does not mean you win the argument.

24. the a&e charge nurse

[22] “The next panelist was Peter Hain and he said in the most supercillious tone imaginable, and I quote: “There we are ladies and gentlemen. A vote for UKIP is a vote for drugs.” – indeed, and don’t forget Johno felt it necessary to sack Professor Nutt, presumably because the prof’s findings (on estimating actual drug harm) did not fit easily with the more traditional Daily Mail approach to pronouncing on drug problems?

Other top medics like Sir Ian Gilmour suggest we need a complete overhaul of the current approach to drug use (hardly surprising given the unrelenting appetite for popping pills, injecting smack, or tooting white powder through a rolled tenner).

Sir Ian endorsed a recent article in the British Medical Journal by Stephen Rolles (from the think tank Transform Drug Policy Foundation) which argued the policy of prohibition had harmed public health, encouraged organised crime and fuelled corruption – the sort of talk likely to result in the sack if the political class continue to have their way?

Surely the simple issue is that if he has lied to the public, he should resign (looks like his constituency is for the chop, albeit the Cheshire boundary review proposals are particularly fragile, so that would be convenient for all involved (sorry – something else that Guido has available for us)).

If not, the logic of the article seems wrong. I got into the odd fight when I was young, but now I abhor violence apart from as a last resort – does that make me a hypocrite or someone who has grown up? It is possible to change your mind you know.

Despite all that, I still go with the legalising drugs as a good idea. But for this argument to work, you would need to prove that Mr Osborne is still taking cocaine – if he did something illegal when younger, that does not explain his views now, any more than my habit of allowing violence to happen when younger would mean I cannot condemn assualt now.

Still it’s a moot point – if the accusations are true, Mr Osborne is toast (which from my point of view might be a good thing – a reforming chancellor would be nice).

@25 – I don’t buy the argument that he would have to be doing it now for it to have any effect. He wants 22 year olds to go to prison if they use cocaine. If he used cocaine when he was 22 and was never caught/punished for it then he has flouted the law he himself supports and never been held to account for it. Hence his position becomes untenable.

If he’d been caught, fessed up, served his sentence (whatever that might be) and *then* started spouting about how evil drugs are he would be on firmer ground. But that isn’t what we are talking about.

@ 26:

So, since as a toddler I occasionally threw a tantrum, I’m a hypocrite for thinking that parents should discipline their children when they throw tantrums?

28. Leon Wolfeson

@27 – If you were trying to maintain that throwing tantrums was a criminal offence and that you’d never thrown one, yes. Otherwise, no.

29. Just Visiting

Please, please: order, order.

Is the fact that Osborne is in the other team…..raising temperatures.

In Northern Ireland we have Politicians who used to be Terrorists – are murderers for goodness sake.

They are given a second chance it seems.

The OP wrote:
> But Osborne is one of the most senior members of a government that supports punitive measures against people who take cocaine.

So are you saying that no labour or LibDem Mps as youths ever took drugs that were imprisonable under the last labout govt?

30. Just Visiting

Or Mark, what about this politician: German: Joschka Fischer:

German politician of the Alliance ’90/The Greens’. ….. Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor … from 1998 to 2005. ….according to opinion polls,the most popular politician in Germany for most of the government’s duration!

Was a leader in several street battles … Photos of March 1973, show him clubbing policeman Rainer Marx

Cut Osborne some slack, yeh :<)

“If Osborne was on benefits he would loose them and his council house what’s the difference between no 11 and social housing – none at all HE SHOULD GO NOW and the rest of the corrupt government with him”

For God’s sake, please learn to spell. I’d be embarrassed to spell “lose” as “loose” when I was eight years old. Childish stupidity convinces no one.

32. Leon Wolfeson

@30 – Er, does he deny doing it? Because THAT’s the kicker. *Lying* about it.

@ 28:

“If you were trying to maintain that throwing tantrums was a criminal offence and that you’d never thrown one, yes. Otherwise, no.”

If I claimed that I’d never thrown a tantrum, I’d be a liar, but not a hypocrite. If I said to a child “Look, throwing tantrums is very naughty, and you mustn’t do it,” then the fact that I’d thrown tantrums in the past wouldn’t make me a hypocrite, it would just make me somebody who’s more mature than I used to be. I don’t see why the same doesn’t apply to Osborne.

Vust Visiting @ 29

In Northern Ireland we have Politicians who used to be Terrorists – are murderers for goodness sake.

That is correct and no doubt some people will judge them on that.

So are you saying that no labour or LibDem Mps as youths ever took drugs that were imprisonable under the last labout govt?

The point is that the Tories have attempted to paint substance abuse as part of the mailise that contributes to ‘Broken Britain’, that is fair enough, if that is what you believe, BUT you better have a spotless life if you are going to moralise on everyone else’s life.

35. Leon Wolfeson

Sure, denying having thrown them would make you a liar, what would make you a hypocrite is the “maintaining it’s a criminal offence” bit.

You really can’t see why honesty and consistency are important attributes for a politician?

36. the a&e charge nurse

[32] I’m not sure the Sinn Fein MP for Mid Ulster was entirely candid about his role with the IRA?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/13/saville-inquiry-bloody-sunday-mcguinness

XXX @ 33

Er, I think we have firmly established that we are talking about adults making adult choices, we dont need to draw up analogy, because the facts are in front of us. It is alleged that Osborne took drugs as an adult, so does that mean he has the Right to pontificate over other people’s moral behaviour? He holds that drug abuse is a major factor in declining morals, therefore, it is reasonable to question him on his drug habits?

Just visiting @ 30

Cut Osborne some slack, yeh :<)

How much slack, though? I think we should cut him the same amount that he and his party would cut anyone who suffers from drug abuse, i.e. no slack what so ever. This is a Party who want kids to have their lives ruined at sixteen for a single moment of madness a couple of weeks ago.

People with jobs or apprenticeships are being tossed aside, the Tories are not a ‘slack’ cutting party..
…unless the slack is for a rich little kid snorting daddies money.

You do not get to walk away from mistakes when your central ethos is about punishing mistakes of others.

39. the a&e charge nurse

Apparently there will be a kiss & tell on Ozzie …… on Ozzie telly!
http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/sex-worker-tells-all-on-george-osborne-and-cocaine/

40. Dick the Prick

If she had evidence she’d have dished it. This is just a whore from a dodgy photo.

I suppose we should forget speed limits on the basis everyone has gone too fast…duh

42. Just Visiting

Jim

> you better have a spotless life if you are going to moralise on everyone else’s life.

I think you (and many others here), have a curious view of the what a politician should be.

As Paul Newman just said – do you think that politicians who have ever, even as young men, driven too fast: hypocrites for allowing our speeding laws to stay i place? Or as young men drive after 2 beers? because you know that penalties for drink driving can include prison?

So, to conclude: your misunderstanding is that politicians have to be sinless.

They are in fact mere mortals. And as young adults will on average sown as many wild oats as the general public -which is a good thing: that they represent the general public in that way.

Any psychotherapist would have a feast day with some of you guys!

I picture see them asking you, in a funny German accent:
> I vonder – vere you shocked when you first discovered that your parents were not sinless? That they broke the speed-limit, smoked secretly when granny wasn’t there, got drunk sometimes, told white lies? Fell out with your uncle becasue one of them lied about something. Tell me Jim, how did zat make you feel…

43. Just Visiting

the a&e charge nurse

36 – yes, you raise a valid pont there.

But it just highlights again that LC is occassionally rather petty and tribal, when there are many bigger wider issues that need a bit of grown-up Liberal discussion.

Just saying.

44. Leon Wolfeson

@42 – So you think it’s fine to lie and conceal your past when you go into public service? Nice.

The lying and the moral posturing on the basis of that lie is the problem, not the original action!

Don’t you just love it the way the brownshirt trolls get all high and mighty when these stories come out. These are the same knuckle draggers who where on here like a rash when there where allegations about Brown on drugs.

What this once again demonstrates is that there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING that you can do that will get you the sack if you are a member of team brownshirt. There is no more tribal organisation than the English tory party.

It’s one thing to take drugs while in your early twenties, then from that experience believe in the correctness of the current drug laws and to admit that it was your experiences that guided you to your current position and you regret having to find out the hard way etc.
It is quite another to take drugs, not really give much of a fuck either way, then deny everything while playing the grand moraliser about ‘the evil of drugs’ for political expediency.

Would you trust an ex-junky ? Why should we have one pushed on us ?

The key point here is neither the specifics, nor any generalised claim of hypocrisy, but the fact that Osborn’s story was soft-pedalled by the News of The World.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-12/murdoch-osborne-dominatrix/50371806/1?csp=34news
Rowe’s lawyer Mark Lewis has claimed that if the News of the World had taken a tougher line against Osborne, his career would have been finished.

I’d agree that if they had pushed the story the way they pushed others, he would have been presented with his resignation. And it’s hard to see that decision as one that would have been taken by any Murdoch executive below the level where they are attending meetings on TV rights and mergers.

Thing is, the power to sack senior government ministers is something the monarchy lost sometime between Anne and Victoria. Which is about the time historians would start seriously talking about this country as a democracy.

So if we want future historians to maintain a consensus about that classification, something needs to change.

So nice to see these posh wankers lecturing the youth of to day on morality and knowing right from wrong.

50. Just Visiting

Cylux

you make it sound so easy…

Let’s hold up a mirror and see if it helps.

You have some political views,and some motivation that that they are right, and you obviously think they are worth talking about in public (on LC a least).

That’s cool.
Then an aunt of yours wins the lottery – offers you £1M – but only on condition you follow up what she thinks is your caling – to go into politics.

You quit your job and you do that.
You join a party, get elected.

You speak out in the House for some radical changes – you get traction there for some new politics – just what you always wanted.

But…. with the new attention…. the media are on your case and dig up all sorts of minor misdemeanours (sp?) from your past: speeding tickets…disqualified from driving…pre-drugs articles written at uni…

Nothing much really, but it is distracti9ng from your political message.

The message is becoming ‘you’ not your politics.

Then some girl-friend from way back says you took drugs / punched a policeman / claimed dole for 2 weeks than you should have one Uni summer…or whatever…

Choice -do you come clean – knowing that you will be accused of being a hypocrite on all sides and your effectiveness asa politician is shot.

Or do you lie, knowing there is no evidence to catch you out..just one word against yours.

Your call Cylux

@50 Why wouldn’t I have been honest about my past from the get go? ‘Reformed sinner’ carries a fair bit of punch on the campaign trail. It got George W Bush into the White house after all…

52. Dick the Prick

@Sally – how’s the genocide going for you? Oh no, that’s right – it’s fine to kill arabs and even better to kill Israelis in your little world view – certainly no need to be sacked, censured or voted against. Blair, complicit in torture; Osborne, bagged a whore. Great relativism there.

@ 35:

“You really can’t see why honesty and consistency are important attributes for a politician?”

I can, it’s just that (unlike some people, it seems) I can also appreciate that people sometimes change their minds about things, and that expressing their new opinion doesn’t make them a hypocrite.

I have attacked Blair on here many times. The man is delusional, and should be at the Hauge in handcufts and an orange jump suit.

Of course you would know this if you knew what the fuck you are talking about. See, I don’t care what tribal badge they wear. Unlike the brownshirt tories who are drilled to walk in lockstep with their party.

55. Dick the Prick

There’s nothing wrong with using hookers or snorting coke at college – the problem is if Osborne hired Coulson to shut the story down. Mind you, Murdoch surpressed Mandleson’s crimes when he was in office so…..they’ve all got more in common with each other than any of their voters. Hell, George Robertson got thrown out to NATO to hide his crimes.

Moving from Osborne to Cameron: If Cameron didn’t take cocaine when working in PR for a TV company during the 80s, then I am an airbourne Vietnamese pot-bellied piglet, currently flying loop-the-loops over the Houses of Parliament.

The hypocrisy argument really is the last refuge of the feeble minded. Firstly, am I obliged to go through adult life with exactly the same opinions I held at 22? Secondly, is a politician who gets a speeding ticket therefore obliged to vote to abolish speed restrictions? The notion that a politician is forbidden to support any law he may once have transgressed is is based on no discernable logic whatsoever.

No he shouldn’t have to resign , buy neither then should people have a criminal record for possession.

The hypocrisy argument really is the last refuge of the feeble minded.

No, the absolutely last refuge of the feeble minded is ‘this raises questions over his judgement’. When you see that one coming out, you know that it’s an entirely empty attack.

So now people must ask the question: how bad was George Osbornes cocaine habbit ?

Was the amount of cocaine that George Osborne took enough to mess up his mind ?

Is a medical examination required to see if he is fit to hold such a vital and important post as Chancellor for the Exchequer because of his past drug taking ?

Should a police investigation take place to look into George Osbornes past involvement with protitutes and their associates to make sure that George Osborne is not vulnerable or associating with people that may try and take advantage of his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer ?

What has been exposed raises some very important questions regarding security of public office and possibly national security.

It is a bit like Ali G has really landed himself a Top Job in Downing Street !

Is a medical examination required to see if he is fit to hold such a vital and important post as Chancellor for the Exchequer

If it wasn’t required for Gordon Brown, who was flat out bonkers, then it’s clearly not necessary for George.

Of course all politicians and members of the commentariat should be exposed to this type of thinking. We know that all posters on this site at least have never done anything illegal, even 20 years ago. No-one in their right mind would even think of committing a criminal act if they had any thought of becoming a journalist, politician or guardian of the public morals would they?

I mean, Will Straw has kept out of this so well hasn’t he? What’s he doing now? Engineer, social worker. Must be putting something back into the community with an experience like that.

Jim @ 38

I think we should cut him the same amount that he and his party would cut anyone who suffers from drug abuse, i.e. no slack what so ever. This is a Party who want kids to have their lives ruined at sixteen ….

Labour’s approach to drug addiction was based on keeping heroin users perpetually in the queue for daily doses of methadone….. i.e. keeping them perpetually dependent both on the drug and on Nurse State.

By contrast, the Conservative approach shifts the emphasis to rehab….i.e. setting individuals free of their addiction.

There is no moral high ground for the Left in drugs policy, sorry.

Tim jerk proves again how tribal the tory party is. They are more like a cult than a political party. Nothing matters but thd cult. There is nothing more hypocritical than the English tory. So no surprise to see Tim defending sanctimonious hypocites, because that is what all tories are. But we will have no criticism of labour p0liticians for hypocricy now you explained how much you value hypocites in your party (sorry cult)

65. Leon Wolfeson

@57 – And strangely enough, you’re justifying yourself based on not having read any comments and realising that the problem is his lying, not what he did at 22.

@59 – Yes, please do explain why you feel lying to the public in that fashion is acceptable in a political figure…do you argue, then, that the MP’s who fiddled their expenses did nothing wrong?

So we have hookers cocaine, and jobs for the boys, a typical tory scandal and these are the low lifes, who lecture on right andwrong. What was call me Dave going on about the other day about a sickness in society. Broken Britian.he wants to look at the chipping norton set,if he wants to see broken britian.Oh, wait he is a member of the set.
So funny to see the little tory butler trolls flying out from troll central to defend their tory masters. Suddenly all their lectures about morality is glossed over as they have their talking points, about how breaking the law is no big thing. HA HA HA Fucking priceless.

After brown envelopes for PQs in the mid 1990s, none of this should be surprising.

Recap: In the last Parliament more than half of the MPs had to repay expenses – according to a report in the Telegraph.

I keep asking about when was it that Britain wasn’t broken but can’t get any response.

I changed my views on drugs between the ages of 22 and 40.

The change of mind was not entirely unconnected with having kids in the meantime.

And reflecting on what had happened to some of my contemporaries who had had abruptly terminated/wasted lives.

Is it hypocrisy to learn from experience?

@68: “Is it hypocrisy to learn from experience?”

Be reassured: sinfulness is wrong and virtue is stiil good.

Btw when was that wonderous time when Britain wasn’t broken – or has that been a more or less permanent state of affairs?

Yes, please do explain why you feel lying to the public in that fashion is acceptable in a political figure

That’s quite a stretch, given that I haven’t ventured any opinion on this, other than that while ‘hypocrisy’ is a junk argument, it’s a poor second to ‘questions about judgement’.

Actually, if it’s proven that George Osborne did take cocaine with Natalie Rowe, then I think it’s a reasonably big deal, because he has specifically denied doing so in the past. I know that the last Government ignored the old convention that lying to the House was a resigning matter, but I’d hope that the new Government measures itself against higher standards. That said, a drug-using prostitute is not the most credible of witnesses, so absent physical proof, I doubt that her word on it is going to be enough.

The real reason that this story is being covered here, of course, is that it’s fabulously salacious tittle-tattle. No shame in that, but a little honesty over motives is always welcome.

Pardon me, dearest friends, but isn’t a Tory being friends with a black, drug addicted prostitute quite progressive thinking for someone of their ilk?

Tim J

I know that the last Government ignored the old convention that lying to the House was a resigning matter

I don’t recall Osborne ever saying anything to the House on this matter. So, the worst they could get him on is “lying to a tabloid journalist”. While it would be nice to think our politicians would always and everywhere tell the truth, I don’t think most reasonable folk would deem lying to a media reptile a hanging offence.

I see the 2 tory lords who fiddled their expenses have been let out of prison after serving only 25% of their sentence. So much for tory law and order. Steal a bottle of water and get 2 years,but steal thousands and get less tha 2 months. Tbis really is the new guilded age. Govt of the rich for the rich. These people have no morrality, or principle at all. One tory mp has both his wife,and his mistress on expenses. Funny how the media have no interest in tory scandals now

They lie about all their policies. Rember how Cameron lied about being green. Yet we now see their planning reforms as green light to build anyware the rich want to.These people have no decency.They are the real scum of this country. The lie dems must be mad.

Dave,

Pardon me, dearest friends, but isn’t a Tory being friends with a black, drug addicted prostitute quite progressive thinking for someone of their ilk?

Forty years ago perhaps – they would have been limited to white prostitutes, not obviously drug-addicted (and not asking any questions). See Christine Porfumo for exhibit A.

But the victory of the social liberals is pretty complete nowadays – unless you live in sally fantasy world – so the young and idle rich will take their cocaine (allegedly) with a much wider range of people. Because they don’t care about labels – other than perhaps whether you are well-connected or fun or something…

To be honest, I do not think the sins (hah – I’d legalise both drugs and prostitution, so I can’t say his actions were wrong can I) of the past should be held against anyone now (criminal investigations etc withstanding – and no, no-one is going to investigate any one for drug consumption in the distant past). The sin of lying to the public and to parliament (if Mr Osborne has made any statement to parliament) is however not something I’d be prepared to accept. So is Ms Rowe credible enough (without a partisan point of view) to accept her account as true, just because it is oft-repeated?

As to Mark’s original theses, I still can’t see the hypocracy in perhaps changing your mind. Is it hypocritical to have first voted Conservative but now to vote Labour? Because the same logic applies – the values you have as a young adult are those that you will have to apply and answer for in later life to avoid hypocracy, even if you happen to change your mind due to useful things like experience (or unuseful things like a desire to keep the tabloids happy).

Just Visiting @ 42

I think you (and many others here), have a curious view of the what a politician should be…

..do you think that politicians who have ever, even as young men, driven too fast: hypocrites for allowing our speeding laws to stay i place?

Nope, none of that applies. I do not have a problem with someone who was caught speeding or was merely speeding and never actually got caught ever becoming a Minister directly or indirectly responsible for speed limits. Hell, I would even forgive a bit of shoplifting in the right circumstances. People make mistakes, people still make mistakes even when they are older. I do not have a problem with people making mistakes in their lives and would forgive almost anything of a minor issue, but that is not the problem, no-one wants our MPs to be perfect.

I have a problem with politicians living their life one way and then pontificating against other people who happen to indulge in the same acts that you did.

If Osborne believes that substance abuse gives the State the right to visit life destroying penalties at the drop of a hat, then that is fair enough. However, for him to claim that an allegation against him of substance abuse shouldn’t count then that is sheer fucking hypocrisy.

If the cocaine use destroys the life of a pontificating scumbag who would advocate that an addict of any description should be thrown out on the streets or denied benefits then that is poetic justice.

76. Just Visiting

Jim

> I have a problem with politicians living their life one way and then pontificating against other people who happen to indulge in the same acts that you did.

That is just saying the same again, but different words.

You’re circling.
Either say that a politician may not ever vote or speak on a law that is one she has broken in their youth.

Or admit this thread is a storm in a teacup.

Just visiting @ 77

Either say that a politician may not ever vote or speak on a law that is one she has broken in their youth.

Why is so difficult for you? Why are you so determined to ‘misinterpret’ what everyone has said? You and the other Right wingers on this thread are attempting, albeit not very convincingly, to convince yourselves that this issue think is about Osborne’s law breaking, when clearly no-one has ever said so. Everyone from Leon, myself, Sally, Linda Davis, LouM, Botozerilli,A&E charge nurse, Mark Thompson have all mentioned it is the hypocrisy that damns, Osborne not his ‘crime’. Nobody has suggested he be arrested and charged over this, have they? So why do people like you persist in suggesting the issue is the illegal acts?

Most people here have suggested that if he and Cameron came out and told the truth about these allegations and said ‘it’s a fair cop, g’vnor’ then the matter would be closed, so why pretend we want him to swing for this ‘crime’, when clearly to anyone who has read the contributions knows it is clearly not the case?

Perhaps the incomprehension by the Right comes from the fact that among your culture, pontificating to the masses regarding how they live their lives, whilst living your life to the moral code that you condemn is fair enough?

Or admit this thread is a storm in a teacup.

The Tory vultures were quick enough to pounce on Jackie Smith when she was caught on a mobile phone while driving, she was even subjected to questions on ‘Any Questions’ to her fitness for the job on that basis. Your people couldn’t stop yourselves.

Watchman @ 74

I still can’t see the hypocracy in perhaps changing your mind. Is it hypocritical to have first voted Conservative but now to vote Labour?

People are allowed to change their mind, people are allowed to make mistakes and people who break the law should not automatically be barred from office.

The issue here is whether or not Osborne and Cameron can change past behaviour. The wonderful thing about ages is that they run consecutively. George Osborne is not ‘Dr Who’ travelling through time in a completely random fashion. It is not like he announces something one year and then ‘finds out’ retrospectively that he did something contrary in a previous decade. He KNOWS what he did in his twenties, he KNOWS why he did it and he KNOWS how much he enjoyed it. For him to pretend that he has done nothing of the sort whilst he pontificates on the morality of others makes him the worst kind of hypocrite.

Of course, it goes further than that because his actions imply that a small elite of super rich scions get to act in anyway possible, and are allowed to ‘have a private life’, but everyone in an a&e, benefit office or council house have to present their underwear for presentation to be inspected by the Tory moral police.

Remember the era that Osborne et al where at Uni? Poor little rich kids snorting , destroying and fucking their daddies money away, greed is good and take what you want, when you want it and how often and fuck the rest of us? The rise of the yuppy culture? Perhaps that has something to do declining morals and not people scrounging benefits.

The Tories need to know that if you are going on a moral crusade you better have a good moral background.

He KNOWS what he did in his twenties, he KNOWS why he did it and he KNOWS how much he enjoyed it. For him to pretend that he has done nothing of the sort whilst he pontificates on the morality of others makes him the worst kind of hypocrite.

Two points to raise in response to this. The first is that Osborne has specifically denied these allegations before, and the only evidence is the word of Natalie Hayes. He said, she said and all that, but this really doesn’t have the status of a revealed truth. Pontificating about the implications of this story, on the basis that it is true in every particular is to be a bit silly.

And the second is, as I think I’ve said before, that George Osborne is probably the most socially liberal (in the old fashioned sense) member of the Government. He doesn’t pontificate about moral issues. I’d be surprised if he’s ever said anything about drug laws. He bust a three line whip to vote in favour of gay adoption. So the (already junk) hypocrisy argument rests on the fact that he hasn’t spoken out on a matter outside his ministerial remit. Which is lame in the extreme.

But then, this isn’t a rational argument. It’s salacious, curtain-twitching gossip. The fact that I think Guido does it better should be seen as a compliment to LibCon rather than the reverse.

Mark Thompson would have a point if Osbourne was leading some sort of campaign against drugs. As it happens, he’s not, he’s just not objecting to the same flawed policy the UK has stuck to for 40-odd years. It’s a sin of omission, the same sin that a high proportion of the government has committed for decades now.

As others have said here before the Coulson angle is probably the one that has most political risk for Osborne.

Tim J @ 79

Well Tim, he can deny until the cows come home we will never know if he is telling
the truth, will we? I do accept that that it is difficult to prove a negative for him, but if the allegations keep coming from a credible source and within the context of this story, she is reasonably credible or at least plausible, then these are legitimate questions. I can find it entirely plausible that a young, rich, student living at the top of that era would engage in a bit of immoral shagging and a bit of nose candy, now and then. I bet he isn’t alone in that department among the Tory Party, or any of the other Parties too for that matter.

As I said before, we should not hang him up to dry on that score.

So the (already junk) hypocrisy argument rests on the fact that he hasn’t spoken out on a matter outside his ministerial remit. Which is lame in the extreme.

He is part of a highly moralising Government though. He is a member of a cabinet that talks about substance abuse in scathing terms and is more about punishment rather than rehabilitation of the individual who indulges in drugs by the most draconian fashion. You wouldn’t need to go too far away from the higher echelons of the Tory Party to find people who would deny hospital treatment for alcoholics, or housing benefits for junkies. The Tory Party are not a ‘second chance type of Party’ when it comes to people who fall by the wayside, normally.

Now that he and Cameron have got to the top of the tree, they feel their past miscreant behaviour (of whatever nature) should be shrouded, as ‘they should be allowed to have a private life’, well that is great, but what about the person who is about to be made homeless? Do we look at their background to find any dirt? Does the Tory Party want to take something out of their lives and post it on the forehead of a benefit claimant or a protester or a campaigner? Yes they do and frequently too. Goose and Gander, Tim.

BTW, there are certain members of the Labour Party who have similar authoritarian streaks how I would simply LOVE to see hung out of the window by their toenails if anything like this came out about them. Again cut from much the same cloth (perhaps not a rich, but still) Christ almighty nobody does breathtaking hypocrisy better than most of New Labour.

I do accept that that it is difficult to prove a negative for him, but if the allegations keep coming from a credible source and within the context of this story, she is reasonably credible or at least plausible, then these are legitimate questions.

Drug-taking prostitutes aren’t usually considered desperately credible as witnesses. Especially those selling their stories to the media. That’s why these allegations failed to cut through last time. I suspect it’s why they’ll fail to cut through this time. It’s like when Peter Foster claimed that Tony Blair was the father of Carole Caplin’s baby – explosive allegation from an unreliable witness.

He is part of a highly moralising Government though. He is a member of a cabinet that talks about substance abuse in scathing terms and is more about punishment rather than rehabilitation of the individual who indulges in drugs by the most draconian fashion.

I’m afraid this simply isn’t true – at least by any relative standard. The tone of the Coalition policy has always been explicitly on rehabilitation. As in “There are no quick fixes,” said Brokenshire. “Today’s focus is clear: simply focusing on reducing the harms caused by illicit drug use is no longer enough – we must focus on recovery as the most effective route out of dependency.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/08/coalition-drugs-strategy-abstinence-recovery

You wouldn’t need to go too far away from the higher echelons of the Tory Party to find people who would deny hospital treatment for alcoholics

That needs a bit more than assertion. I’ve never seen anyone advocating any such thing – from any party.

“The Tory vultures were quick enough to pounce on Jackie Smith when she was caught on a mobile phone while driving,”

So when they do it they’re vultures, but when you do you’re making a serious point?

I think there’s a word for that isn’t there?

I’m sick and tired of all these terrible rumours about our beloved Gideon – I can’t believe that such a fine young man would have ever indulged in anything like this! Just to put the record straight – we’ve compiled a list of ten other things, that George Osborne definitely hasn’t done!
http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2011/09/george-osborne-is-not-ozzys-love-child-and-9-other-things-george-osborne-has-never-done-and-could-never-be-accused-of/

Jimmy @ 82

So when they do it they’re vultures, but when you do you’re making a serious point?

Jesus fucking wept. Every time, why do we need to drag these things out every fucking time? When Jackie Smith was seen with having used a mobile whilst driving she was treated the same as any other member of the public. She even admitted it the time and went through a process. She made a mistake and was punished.

The charge against Osbourne is not merely that he ‘took cocaine’. The charge is that he attempted to lie about in the public domain. The clear subtext is that he feels his cocaine use is at odds with his role in government.

Tim J @ 82

Drug-taking prostitutes aren’t usually considered desperately credible as witnesses.

Not in a court of law perhaps and if I was judging this as a member of a jury, I would take this with a pinch of salt (not that would like to see this ever go to court), but in a social setting? Is it possible that these two moved in the same circles? Very possibly and is it beyond the realms of possibility that she is telling the truth? It is plausible that she was at parties he was at and if he was at the same type of parties/gatherings as a drug taking prostitute, is it possible or merely plausible that he indulged? It is certainly plausible, if it is not provable.

That is the point I am making, Tim, not I that unquestionably believe this story, but merely that it is ‘plausible’. For me, I would say these allegation may have an air of plausibity about them, far more than the Willian Hague thing, for example. If these allegations against Osborne are ‘plausible’ then the questions are legitimate.

I’m afraid this simply isn’t true

You don’t think so? Too many times in the recent past I have heard Tory spokepeople go along the lines of withdrawing benefits/housing and treatment for people with addiction problems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/20/drug-addicts-refuse-treatment-benefits-withdrawn

When Jackie Smith was seen with having used a mobile whilst driving she was treated the same as any other member of the public. She even admitted it the time and went through a process. She made a mistake and was punished.

Are you sure about this? I thought it was Jim Murphy with the mobile. Harriet Harman was pipped for driving without due care and attention too. In any event, in both cases criminal activity was admitted by the culprit. In this case, criminal activity is strongly denied. It would be positively sinister for accusations to be seen as carrying equivalent weight as confessions or convictions.

Too many times in the recent past I have heard Tory spokepeople go along the lines of withdrawing benefits/housing and treatment for people with addiction problems

You may have missed the bad guys in that report – unaccountably the Guardian doesn’t spell it out.

The Labour government intended to carry out pilot schemes this year to get drug users into work. Under the plans, addicts who failed to attend a treatment awareness programme would lose welfare benefits.

And the evil Tories?

The coalition government scrapped the pilot programme.

A consultation paper in this context would be the civil service trying to reactivate the plans they’d already spent months working on for the last lot. I note that it doesn’t seem to have got anywhere, although I could well be wrong.

87. Leon Wolfson

@86 – Sure, but the consequences must be different as well. On the side of admitting it, the legal normal penalties. On the side of having denied it, being fired (not allowed to resign, fired), as well as the penalties (obviously the CPS won’t chase a drugs case that old, in this case, which means “just” fired).

And yes, again, it’s the LEFT and health professionals condemning those plans, not politicians in parliament.

Sure, but the consequences must be different as well. On the side of admitting it, the legal normal penalties. On the side of having denied it, being fired (not allowed to resign, fired), as well as the penalties (obviously the CPS won’t chase a drugs case that old, in this case, which means “just” fired).

If it’s proven, then I’d have thought he’d resign before he had a chance to be fired. But it isn’t proven, and I doubt it ever will be, so hysterically calling him out for hypocrisy and lies is more than a touch premature.

And yes, again, it’s the LEFT and health professionals condemning those plans, not politicians in parliament.

On current evidence, politicians in parliament have scrapped those plans. Coalition ones anyway.

89. Leon Wolfson

Actually, I’m arguing against the British “tradition” of resignation. I believe that lying to the public and/or parliament over these issues should lead to a firing, not a resignation.

And yes, they’re scrapped…because they’d cost money to implement. Even the worst plan can occasionally have good side effects!

Tim @ 86

Are you sure about this?

Well there are a few up before the beak for minor driving offences, none of which are sacking offences in my view. There is nothing hypercritical in getting caught driving badly and getting fined and paying up, subject to a death on the road or a serious crash. Being a bit of a bell end behind the wheel and getting caught* doesn’t kill your career.

Chris Huhne on the other hand, well there are things that do require a bit on honesty and if found guilty of perverting the course of justice, that is different, the dishonesty is the issue rather than the speeding that is the problem.

*My own personal view is that Drink driving is one driving offence where you hand the keys to the ministerial office.

Well it doesn’t take long for some to come out of the woodwork screeching about *whores* does it? And then you’ve got the sad little men who find it all so hilarious that Natalie Rowe is not a skinny stick like posh women are (supposed to be).

So on the one side we have a black woman who used to sell sex for money, and on the other we have a baronet, educated at St Pauls and Oxford.

So she’s just a whore but he’s the fracking Chancellor of the Exchequer, well I wonder how that happened! So why isn’t Natalie Rowe Chancellor – well that’s a stupid question isn’t it?

In the present Strauss-Kahn affair, there she is, a black woman, stuck as a chambermaid, and there’s him, rich, well-connected white male, has a plum job. So of course, she must be a liar and a cheat.

See a pattern?

It’s built in to the system. The system’s beyond bent.The political classes are utterly morally bankrupt. Everybody knows that, so arguing about the petty little details is like arguing about how many devils can dance on a pinhead.

“The clear subtext is that he feels his cocaine use is at odds with his role in government.”

Really? Not that clear to me. I would interpret it as “what I did in private at age 22 is none of your business”. Not an unreasonable position to take I would have thought.

93. Leon Wolfson

@93 – Really? So you want to legalise drugs then?

94. So Much For Subtlety

91. birdie

So on the one side we have a black woman who used to sell sex for money, and on the other we have a baronet, educated at St Pauls and Oxford.

Right. We have a dispute between someone who habitually broke the law for money – and may well have been paid for this story – and an upstanding pillar of the community. If a bit thick. Sure, this won’t take long to figure out.

So she’s just a whore but he’s the fracking Chancellor of the Exchequer, well I wonder how that happened! So why isn’t Natalie Rowe Chancellor – well that’s a stupid question isn’t it?

It is. Really it is. How many countries have former prostitutes running the country? As a general rule, no matter what the political system used or the underlying ethical or religious basis of any society, the sort of people who end up working as prostitutes rarely have the set of characteristics needed to run the nation.

In the present Strauss-Kahn affair, there she is, a black woman, stuck as a chambermaid, and there’s him, rich, well-connected white male, has a plum job. So of course, she must be a liar and a cheat.

Helped, in no small part, by the fact that she is a liar and a cheat. That much is a matter of fact. It is not open to dispute. Whether or not she was raped.

See a pattern?

Sure – people with poor education, no skills and dubious ethics rarely make much of their lives. What’s your point?

It’s built in to the system. The system’s beyond bent.The political classes are utterly morally bankrupt. Everybody knows that, so arguing about the petty little details is like arguing about how many devils can dance on a pinhead.

Sure. It is them. Not you. They are out to get you.

Come on. This has nothing to do with race or gender. It is simpler than that. It must take a lot of hard work to ignore that reality.

92. Jimmy

Really? Not that clear to me. I would interpret it as “what I did in private at age 22 is none of your business”. Not an unreasonable position to take I would have thought.

It is the position I would take with, say, Prince Harry dressing as a Nazi when he was just 20. But that is not a crime. Snorting coke is. So it is a little more complex than that. I just would not expect LC to debate those complexities.

“It is the position I would take with, say, Prince Harry dressing as a Nazi when he was just 20. But that is not a crime.”

I believe it is in Germany. Is that the test?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Duncan Hodgson

    This is why the Osborne cocaine allegations matter | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/0SX4xtH via @libcon

  2. jbw

    This is why the Osborne cocaine allegations matter | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/0SX4xtH via @libcon

  3. Chris Lawler

    This is why the Osborne cocaine allegations matter | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/lUUYB8b via @libcon

  4. DJE

    Not the first time #Osborne cocaine allegations require No10s `discretion machine` to earn its keep! http://t.co/AmHC3W9 *WD40 at the ready*

  5. Jennifer C Krase

    This is why the Osborne cocaine allegations matter | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/0SX4xtH via @libcon

  6. Debbie Jolly

    RT @libcon Osborne cocaine allegations also highlights his hypocrisy on drugs http://t.co/wc3SMJQ

  7. James White

    Allegations of Osborne taking cocaine DO matter – he pushed for hard sentences against offenders http://t.co/K2P8JWF

  8. Ciaran McNulty

    Osborne cocaine allegations also highlights his hypocrisy on drugs http://t.co/totrIkl

  9. Kris Holt

    Bring back the good old days when MPs resigned over this sort of thing: Osborne the coke-head http://t.co/oSc3nm7

  10. eleanor

    RT @libcon Osborne cocaine allegations also highlights his hypocrisy on drugs http://t.co/wc3SMJQ

  11. Mark

    Allegations of Osborne taking cocaine DO matter – he pushed for hard sentences against offenders http://t.co/K2P8JWF

  12. Natacha Kennedy

    http://t.co/DPuB8MF Why top Tory coke user should be forced to resign if they are found to have snorted, even when young… #Osborne

  13. Alex Braithwaite

    This is why the Osborne cocaine allegations matter | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/NII6TJL via @libcon

  14. Orangeo

    http://t.co/DPuB8MF Why top Tory coke user should be forced to resign if they are found to have snorted, even when young… #Osborne

  15. No, this is why Osborne’s cocaine allegations matter « Left Outside

    [...] can understand the impulse to call for George Osborne’s head. Hell, I admire the self-restraint required not not ask for it on a silver platter. But I think it [...]

  16. Rhian K

    Allegations of Osborne taking cocaine DO matter – he pushed for hard sentences against offenders http://t.co/K2P8JWF

  17. The Tory succession « Representing the Mambo

    [...] that I’m accusing Osborne of being a coke-snorting hypocrite, [...]

  18. Chris McCray

    @lisaansell3 @matofkilburnia He was: http://t.co/csn4rWs9 & http://t.co/5pIUTJY9 Don't know if he still is.





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.