By Hortensia Daniels-
The Eye of Media.com in 2019 began an investigation into the Mps Codes Of Conduct after a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over Mr. Andrew Griffiths in 2019. Griffiths 48, was an MP for Burton Uttoxeter, in Staffordshire when he was exposed for sending obscene messages to two women.
Mr. Griffiths was also Tory junior Minister for small businesses at the time. His alarming misconduct caused uproar after a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner restricted by a set of codes of conduct, shockingly acquitted him of misconduct. The Parliamentary Commissioner’s office told The Eye Of Media.Com at the time that the Commissioner acted within her remit and could not rule outside her powers. She added that her decision was not up for review. Yet, it desperately needed review, which we decided to conduct.
Griffith’s misdemenour came to light following a complaint made to the Parliamentary Commissioner, by a constituent, John Anderson.
Mr. Anderson alleged that the Burton Uttoxeter MP misused Parliamentary resources, and in so doing brought Parliament into disrepute.Central to the allegation was that by sending over 2,000 explicit and violent sexual text messages to two women-Imogen Treharne, 28, a barmaid, and her unnamed friend in just three weeks of their meeting on social media, the Mp breached the parliamentary Codes Of Conduct.
According to the Parliamentary Code of Conduct for Members, the terms of reference guiding the inquiry were whether Mr. Griffiths was in breach of any of the following:
(1)The alleged misconduct not occurring while Mr. Griffiths was engaged in Parliamentary activities (Paragraph 8 of the C of C). Not using Parliamentary resources (Paragraph 15).Or not causing significant damage to the reputation of the House of Commons as a whole or of the Members generally (paragraph 16). The Commissioner did not uphold the complaint, principally in light of the above restricted remit of the inquiry. She was not convinced that Mr. Griffiths contravened any of the elements itemised.
Apologising for his behaviour, Mr. Griffiths, the married father of a young child, resigned ahead of the story appearing in the national newspapers. He expressed gratitude to the Commissioner for dismissing the complaint and explained that he had suffered from a mental health related breakdown at the time, which led to his action and that he had been abused as a child. Mr.Griffiths told the Commissioner that at no point had he deliberately or consciously used his parliamentary network to send the messages.
Mr. Griffiths was temporarily suspended by the Conservative Party, on the rules applicable to all Tory members holding public positions.
Background
Mr. Griffiths was a former banker, before embarking on a career in politics in 2010. He served as adviser to Prime Minister, Theresa May and held a key Treasury role, before joining the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Mr. Griffiths had been a government whip from 2016 and was appointed to the business role in 2018.
Among his activities as a Minister, he led the government’s response to funding the Hampton-Alexander Review into gender equality at the top of businesses. He was also credited with launching a campaign to encourage more fathers to take paternity leave. His experience and establishment in government was unquestionably solid.
Misconduct
Mr. Griffiths sent the over 2,000 lewd text messages through his personal Snapshot account and other social media platforms. They started after he watched sexy videos the women posted on social media. He sent Imogen and her friend £700 and offered to rent a flat to meet for sex. He went further in demanding explicit photos and videos and described degrading sex acts in crude details.
The texts included messages such as: ‘I want her to tie you up and beat that gorgeous, big…..while Daddy watches.
‘The video of you spanking her was nowhere near hard enough. Can she take a beating?’
In one message he said, ‘Daddy’ has been up making speeches and running the country…’
Independent Psychiatric Report
An Independent Psychiatric report included in the Commissioner’s evidence from the inquiry said Mr. Griffiths was suffering from PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) at the time the text messages were sent. The Psychiatrist highlighted that the huge volume of text messages and this, together with their fanciful nature amply demonstrated his temporary, disturbed mental state, therefore indicative of diminished responsibility.
Summary Of Resolution Report
The Commissioner’s full resolution letter said, ‘Mr. Griffiths’ conduct had undoubtedly damaged his own reputation, as well as his health and relationships, but however damaging the events had been for him personally, I am not persuaded that the texts he exchanged with the two women had caused significant damage to the reputation of the House of Commons as a whole or of the Members generally’.
She ruled that, having found no evidence that when sending messages of a sexual nature to the two women, he was engaged in Parliamentary activity, Mr. Griffiths was not guilty of any wrong doing. She had therefore found no breach of paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct and her interest in such personal matters is limited to the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members.
Intimating that she had unusually decided that it was neither necessary nor proportionate to publish in full the evidence she had gathered during her investigation, she also decided she had described sufficient details to make her reasoning clear.
‘Most people expect and are entitled to expect that their sexual activities will remain a purely private matter between themselves and their partner(s). she said. She added that ‘they trust their partner(s) will respect their privacy. Members are no different from other people in that respect’, she said in her report.
Furthermore, the Commissioner pointed out that ‘only some’ of the messages were sent during ‘office hours’ as the majority of the texts were exchanged during the evenings and later at night, in the early hours and weekends’.
‘I have not identified sexually explicit material sent or received at times when I can be sure Mr. Griffiths would have engaged in parliamentary activities’. Ms Stone acknowledged that Mr. Griffiths referred to his parliamentary duties in the messages he sent. Also, ‘It would appear possible that the Mr. Griffiths might have used his status as MP in the relationships and that at least, one of the women involved was a constituent’, her report said.
Reasonable questions about whether Mr. Griffith had first met the woman through his Parliamentary duties and whether he might have abused a position of trust appear to have been either negligently or deliberately omitted. Ms Stone therefore did not consider whether the complainant could reasonably be expected to furnish more substantive evidence in the circumstances.
The fact that one of the women had released at least, some of the material to a newspaper and disclosed her identity, putting a private and personal matter into public domain meant that any expectation of privacy by the Mp was unreasonable. Public figures should always be prepared for their wrong doings to be made public by an affected party or the press.
An obvious flaw of the Code of Conduct for Member is that it applies to members in all aspects of their public life alone. It does not seek to regulate purely private and personal life. This excludes from the Commissioner’s remit what members do in their private and personal life.
Paragraph 15 of the 2015 Code of Conduct said that members are personally responsible and accountable for ensuring that any expenses allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is in accordance with the rules laid down. The Commissioner highlighted two breaches of confidentiality during the inquiry such disclosures being disrespectful of the process, the decision taken by the House of Commons on 19 July 2018 and risk prejudicing on the inquiry.
At an early stage, the fact of the inquiry was put into the public domain by a third party. Mr. Griffith complained about this breach of confidentiality. She said she wrote to the complainant to seek his comments and he gave an assurance of his confidentiality.
Mr. Griffith subsequently gave an interview to the Sunday Times about his traumatic childhood and the impact of these on his mental health and its relevance to the issues under investigation.
Prejudicial Anomalies
The Commissioner’s inquiry was fraught with prejudicial anomalies outlined in her report. Her hands were well shackled on every front.
It is inevitable however, that we speculate whether the unpublished remnants of the evidence gathered contained any more references to Mr. Griffiths work, and if in total, they clearly amounted to him using his Mp status to enhance his image. It is quite possible that it was loaded with lots of damaging material that could make what we know seem mild in comparison.
In addition, it is worth pointing out that verifying whether ‘at least’ one or both women were constituents of Burton merited confirmation, rather than what appeared to be a hint. The anomalies surrounding the inquiry wasn’t an obstruction in this respect. This was information that could have been easily obtained—from the text messages and from Mr. Griffiths in the first place, the electoral register, or at least, the report should have said what effort was made, if any.
In any case, without the multiple irregularities, the utmost achievable outcome of the inquiry might only have been to find that Mr. Griffiths fell afoul of the Parliamentary rules as they stand. There was then the dimension of his diminished mental health emanating potentially from childhood abuse. That would have tipped the misconduct further down the scale anyway.
Private and Personal lives of MPs (Code of Conduct 8 )
The restricted terms of reference of the Code of Conduct for Members, possibly not previously understood by large sections of the public, has began recently to gape with terrifying concerns. Unarguably, natural justice demands that Members of Parliament are entitled to their private and personal life. So does it as regards members of the police force, the enforcement Agency of the laws promulgated by the MPs, the law makers.
The Police As A standard Example
The police have some restrictions on their private lives. The restrictions are balanced against the right to a private life. Therefore, in considering whether a police officer has acted in a way that falls below those standards while off duty, due regard is given to that balance.
Both the police and MPs are aware of the image they portray, whether on duty or off duty. They are aware that ethical conduct greatly impacts public confidence. MPs in particular command a high profile status which they themselves should respect, even while off duty. They are evidently prone to exposure.
Scandals from the private lives of MPs have continued to spill over to the public arena. The difference in status between the police as ‘employed staff’ and MPs not being so—and significantly superior as an institution—does little to explain off the disparity in policy in relation to off duty misconduct.
It must be highlighted that while neither the respective Codes of Conduct, the Police nor Parliament seeks to regulate the private lives of these two groups, MPs are particularly looked up to for leading by example. That expectation comes from the values and ethical standards instilled into society through the laws laid down for years, by the very Parliament.
The Nolan principles (1995) in Public Life
Michael Nolan, a Judge (1994-97), first Chairman of the Committee on Standards instituted the fundamental principles on the basis of ethical standards expected of all public office holders, namely: the civil service, local governments, police, the courts and so forth. The Code of Conduct for MPs incorporated these Nolan ideals. All individual persons holding public positions in the UK are bound by these principles:
Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership.
The Labour Party
In view of the ethical behaviour naturally expected of MPs, off duty or not, a Labour Party MP took it upon herself to read out to colleagues the filthy texts after Mr. Griffiths was allowed back into the Tory Party, ‘She’s so cute, so sweet. I can’t wait to beat her. Can she take a beating? Not my words, Mr. Speaker, the words of the MP for Burton. The whip was given back without any due process.
What message does this send about any process here?’ This speaks for itself. Regardless of the Party, here was another MP, giving no recognition to the ‘private and personal life’ license .
The Conservative Party
The Conservative Party to which the errant Andrew Griffiths belonged, initially found him to be in breach of the Party’s Code of Conduct, based undoubtedly on the aforementioned Nolan principles, but they later decided not to take action against him, in view of his state of mental health.
Kathryn Stone who found him not culpable of breaching the parliamentary rules, revealed in her resolution letter that the Conservative Party warned in their letter to him that, ‘It would be of grave concern if similar events were ever to recur, regardless of the cause’.
Regardless Of The Cause
This gives food for thought. The gravity of the misconduct was perceived even by the Conservative Party as so strongly inexcusable that the mitigation of mental illness wouldn’t be acceptable, if the behaviour is repeated.
They were aware of the high threshold of the Code of Conduct for MPs, but would have taken him through the whole stretch of their disciplinary procedures. This infers their standpoint that cutting out serious off duty misconduct from the Code of Conduct protocols is untenable.
The anger of the hundreds of Burton constituents who took to the streets asking for Mr. Griffiths to ‘do the right thing’ and resign’, was evidence that unethical conduct impacts the public by causing loss of confidence.
The demonstrators weren’t interested in whether he was engaged in MP duties at the time he bombarded two women with thousands of violent and disgusting text messages; nor were they interested whether the misdeeds significantly brought disrepute to the House of Commons or Parliament generally.
The fact of significantly damaging his own reputation was the cause of their vexation. They were unhappy that their MP had sunk low and lost his respect. it didn’t matter that the gut-churning, sexual engagement was ‘in private’; they wanted him out.
Two points merit consideration: how does the warning by the Conservative Party guarantee there would never be a recurrence, in light of Mr. Griffiths’ mental health? Why was there inconsistency in the attitudes of the two bodies of the same institution? It would appear that the reference to the letter by the Conservative Party was intended to strengthen the outcome of the inquiry and at the same time to indirectly acknowledge the fact of the abysmal misconduct.
The resolution letter made reference to the media coverages not having been a ‘sting’; but the story was very widely covered, because it was of public interest by normal standards. The expectations of an MP were dashed, and not for the first time in recent years.
Mr. Griffiths-Parliamentarian and Sadomasochist
Sadomasochism (S & M), sadism and masochism combined. A sadomasochist is a person who interacts in a sexual activity in which one person enjoys inflicting physical or mental suffering -including gentle torture on another person, who derives pleasure from experiencing pain and gratification.
Mr. Griffiths could not have possibly only begun engaging in sadomasochism during his mental illness. An adult of 48 years with a confessed history of child hood abuse, performing parliamentary duties—including making laws, he must have been rooted in the violent sexual practice, before it broke out into the open.
Sadomasochism is an unlawful sexual practice in the UK. The Commissioner’s inquiry appears to have overlooked the seriousness of this, ostensibly hindered by the factors underscored as boundaries of the parliamentary Code of Conduct. It is worth trying to imagine who else is representing the public in Parliament and practising sadomasochism, or secretly and regularly breaking the law in other ways, while making laws for the people.
It becomes offensive to the mind if now imagine such hypocrites at the same time contributing to the management of police affairs and telling them what to do—including how to enforce the law which some MPs themselves are failing to obey..
The law and sadomasochism
In 1993, a group of professional men charged for ABH (Actual Bodily Harm) in the case of R v Brown. They appealed the ruling against them, arguing that they had taken care to ensure their sexual activities were safe, and that they had a right to engage in these private sexual activities. They maintained that no harm had occurred that had not been consented to, and that their use of code words and the sterilisation of equipment meant that there was little risk of serious injury or transmission of disease.
RULING
Their arguments were still unsuccessful. The ruling was that wherever bodily harm was inflicted, the person committing the injury has committed a criminal offence. The House of Lords ruled under Section 47 of the Offences Act 1861 that cutting of the skin, even with consent is a criminal offence and that there was no public interest in individuals to consent to injuries during sadomasochist encounters. The Law Lords were concerned that the whipping and branding to beatings could get out of control and that the resultant harm could be greater than anticipated.
More recent judgements
Although national conversations have continued, groups still campaigning for change, in August 2018, Jason Gaskell admitted gross negligence manslaughter after stabbing Laura Huteson in the neck during sadomasochistic sex.
In December 2018, Dean Wilkins pleaded guilty to ABH(actual Bodily Harm) after S & M. A neighbor called the police when his girlfriend of two months had run outside into the street wearing only her bra. Judge Easteal ruled on 28 May 2018 stating, ‘Under English law no one can consent to being seriously assaulted’.
Also, the trial of millionaire property developer, John Broadhurst for murder –later reduced to manslaughter, of his partner, Natalie Connolly who allegedly died during S & M told 999 operators he found his partner ‘dead as a doughnut’. He was jailed for three years.
Disquieting
It is disquieting that the Commissioner for Standards mentioned in her report that Griffiths said the encounter with Imogen and her friend was consensual, as if that was an admissible defence. The law is clear that it is neither reliable nor legal to use it in cases of sadomasichism, The mention of consent by the Commissioner is preposterous and has the effect of providing a further cushion for the serious misdemeanor of the shamed Mp.
Child Protection Concerns
No serious thought seemed to have been given to the laws relating to domestic violence, and risks to children and young people potentially witnessing or hearing violent sexual activity. The sounds of heinous beating and resultant pain are most unlikely to happen in happy, low tones. They would regularly jar the ears of children and cause their hearts to pound with startled anxiety, if they were to witness them. Sadomasichism is illegal for a reason, one the Parliamentary Commissioner in her highly regarded post ought to have considered.
It would appear that the convenience in dismissing Mr. Griffiths conduct under the restricted Parliamentary Standards swallowed up the staggering can of worms in the bizarre sexual impropriety.
Money For Sex
Mr. Griffiths paid £700 for the women’s sexy video and was goading them for more and planning for future sexual activities in a flat, where he would have manhandled and brutally lashed them. He was unarguably unwell to have sent them over 2, 000 despicable texts in three weeks. A man with a very high status to which he alluded, versus a barmaid and her friend. He could be perceived as turning them into sadomasochist prostitutes.
If Imogen had carried on and delayed the disclosure until after meeting up at the flat he fancied renting, and if she had ended up sustaining injuries at his hands—or got killed, Mr. Griffiths’ child hood abuse and mental health which helped to get him off the hook, wouldn’t have saved him from conviction, ‘consensual’ or not. So all of this possibility was seemingly blanked out in the resolution report.
The Commissioner’s remark about the woman ‘putting a purely private matter to the domain of the public’ is not exactly fair. It was Mr. Griffiths who took his own ‘purely private matter’ to the public domain. Social media is a public domain. The threesome was already operating in that domain, before Imogen went to the newspaper. It was Mr. Griffiths, the MP who visited her in the public domain. None of the palaver would have happened had he kept himself from what he did.
Public Expectations
Some members of Parliament are by no means, always the most benign of humanity. The House, with a male majority, in ties and suits, well-spoken, and a sprinkling of gutsy, bright women— like anyone else, often have their own secret vices—some, more monstrous than others, but carefully and safely buried away outside the security of ‘parliamentary activities’. But the public shouldn’t have to put up with MPs’ serious vices.
However, stating that ‘Members are no different from other people in that respect’, the Commissioner said, referring to the entitlement to expect privacy and trust by partners, in ‘purely private’ sexual activities is somewhat, a mistaken comparison.
Members of parliament are not exactly like other people, even in this respect. They are a very high profile group, the highest institution, second only to the Monarch in the UK. They are makers and custodians of the law, of the values and ethics of society. Even if they fail to acknowledge it, there is a burden on them to have exemplary character and set good example in not risking to disobey the law, or bring themselves to indignity.
Their positions are coveted. The public holds them in high esteem, has lofty expectations of them, trusts them and votes them for good leadership. They are expected to lay good examples. Who wants to know about their private lives, unless they are really not the image they present and paid for, while off or on duty– hypocrites making laws they themselves fail to obey? That is not what the public votes for. MPs should not be undisciplined, publicly or privately. Unfortunately, the same brush tarnishes them all, when a scandal erupts. The super image is potentially beclouded.
By the way, it’s almost surprising that people in the status of MPs would be so naïve as to generally ‘trust’ their sexual partners to keep their activities private, as the Commissioner supposed. MPs should be expected to exercise discretion and be conscious of the real world, because some day, the bubble may burst.
It’s no news that nothing can be taken for granted in life. It is as as obvious as daylight. Yet, even in the work arena, MPs were unguarded when in 2013, the expenses scandal rocked the nation. It took them by surprise! Law makers thieving chicken change! It was widespread and shocking. Some even went to jail. It meant that, constituents inadvertently voted some thieves to represent them in Parliament. How lamentable!
Comparing Public Expectations of MPs and the Police
Forthwith, the police have some restrictions placed on their private lives. MPs have no boundaries whatsoever placed on their private lives. The police have no choice. MPs puts the boundaries in place on them. MPs have a choice; they decide what boundaries to have or not.
In determining whether a police officer’s off duty conduct discredits the police, the test is not whether the police officer discredits herself or himself, but whether the police as a whole.
The test of whether the behavior of a police officer has brought discredit to policing is not solely about media coverage and public perception, but has regard to all the circumstances
Both elements of the police Code of Conduct are in tandem with the standards which MPs put in place for themselves, but for MPs, the bar stands only as far as ‘while engaging in parliamentary activities’ that is, on duty, not off-duty.
For both groups, while there may be public expectations of an individual miscreant, including media coverage and having ‘regard to all circumstances’, the off duty status of the Code of Conduct for MPs, while appearing to extenuate an off-duty culprit, completely erodes the clout of the representative factor in the democratic system.
Parliament should be able to determine the parameters of what can reasonably be specified as frivolous complaints by constituents, for instance, while giving recognition to their rights of inclusiveness. It would appear that the constituents of Burton/Uttoxeter were marginalized by the limited MP Code of Conduct. This is no straightforward suggestion whether Mr. Griffiths should have been sacked; calling him back for his vote for Theresa May, while under a disciplinary process was an indictment of insensitively to the aggrieved constituents. The system flagrantly marginalized them.
The expectations of the constituents, on whose votes an errant MP sits in Parliament, and whose specific interests the MP promotes, should be accorded due deference. This is especially in a climate of increasingly worrying MPs’ outrageous misconduct.
Mr. Griffiths’ constituency, the Burton/Uttoxeter residents demonstrated their utter disapproval of his repulsive conduct and wanted his immediate exit, because he discredited himself. They didn’t vote for the House of Commons as a whole nor Parliament, generally. They voted for Mr. Griffiths. If the Code of Conduct finds that an MP has in his private life contravened the rules carefully specified,
due regard should be given to the balance between his right to a private life, and the damage to his reputation.
The principle of proportionality would be balanced against the constituent’s future ability to engage in face to face personal interaction, in light of broken trust, in the individual who they may need to see again, one on one.
Endemic problems within the Parliamentary Community
A survey featuring 1,300 parliamentary workers in February 2018 found that 19% had experienced or witnessed sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior in the previous year, with twice as many complaints from women than men. Some government ministers resigned over scandals last year (2018) and a number of politicians on both sides of the House were investigated over claims of sexual misconduct.
Only recently, on 09 October 2019, front-runner to be the next Speaker, Chorley MP, Sir Lindsay Hoyte demanded ‘health and well being’ facilities to help addicts as he clashed with rivals. He said Parliament has drink and drug problems, and that the issue needs to be addressed. ‘It’s not just drink we’ve got to catch out, there’s a drug problem’.
A probe into drug use in Westminster in 2013 found evidence of cocaine use inside toilets at the House of Parliament including some, just yards from MPs’ offices. Traces of the Class A drug were found throughout the Palace of Westminster. However, the parliamentary Commissioner spokesperson pointed out to this organisation that the toilets in question were also open to journalists and some members of the public, making it it not so certain it was from Mps.
Sir Linsday Hoyle highlighted drugs problem in Parliament Image:parliament.uk
However, the current speaker of the House Sir Lindsday Hoyle told journalists last year that drugs was a problem in Parliament. However, a number of MPs have suffered high profile and often tragic drink problems including the late Lib Dem leader, Charles Kennedy.
Need For Radical Reform
Necessary research and radical reform in Mps Codes Of Conduct is necessary in order to maintain appropriate and fitting standards. More scandals will likely surface from the ‘purely private and personal’ full license given to MPs. Mr. Griffiths matter is closed, but the deeply running waters of secret misbehaviors of MPs will remain and over flow their banks, unless an all-encompassing approach is adopted.
It is unknown whether the issue of mental illness is also rampant, and given the rather high figures of reported bullying and sexual harassment, it’s quite conceivable that some homes are boiling over with all sorts. Parliament must be able to take the most robust, selfless initiatives to permanently turn the situation around, including crafting reasonable frameworks and protocols that balance the right to private and personal life, to ensure accountability to the public, wherever the law and dignity risk compromise. Even off duty lapses in public, such as drunkenness should become unacceptable behaviors, but the principle of proportionality always applied.
The case of Mr. Griffiths is evidence that the Code of Conduct for MPs needs to have some pegs.
Nolan’s principle of selflessness
There was an unsavory political decision by the Conservatives, which restored the whip to two MPs, Andrew Griffiths while on suspension; and Charlie Elphineke representing Dover and Deal, also suspended on allegations of sexual harassment of two women, while alone with each of them. A third woman came forward alleging rape. The two men were needed by the Party, to cast their votes for Theresa May, at a critical time when her job was facing a vote of no confidence. That action did not put the public first. It put the Party and some individuals first. That’s the problem.
Accused If Sexual harassment: Charlie Ephineke Image:news.sky.com
It follows that humans will always be humans. There’s always room for self-first. Any suggestion or demand to expand the remit of inquiries on the current, unsatisfactory self-protective Code of Conduct is likely to meet with stiff resistance; but a decision now needs to be made as to whose needs are being served by this restricted Code of Conduct for MPs. What is on the ground is incalculably weighty.
MPs hold the power
Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 which established the Sovereignty of Parliament, ensures the Parliamentary Code of Conduct is not on a statutory footing. So, being self-regulatory, Parliament also technically able to self-protect from the public when there’s an undeclared conflict of interests as with the incident of Mr. Griffiths’ misconduct and the fruitless protests by his constituents. The Code of Conduct prevailed over the constituents. The terms of the Code ruled the day. He was reinstated while suspended.
A similar ‘clamp down’ occurred when The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s partner, Carrie Symonds, inadvertently rang the alarm bell which might have damaged his chances of climbing to the highest echelon of his political journey. At midnight of 21 June, the noise created by his fiancee screaming and shouting and banging erupted onto the street. ‘Get off me and get out of my flat!’, she echoed’.
A worried neighbor knocked three times to ensure Carrie’s safety, and when there was no response, called the police. Later facing the public, Johnson moved for shelter, under the ‘purely private and personal’ clause of the Parliamentary Code of Conduct. He has the half mystery still hanging over him, but it doesn’t seem to matter; and the public has since been left wondering, as if they had no right to know the real person about to lead their country -perhaps they don’t? People obviously wanted to know, but the Code of Conduct blocked them off.
Fortunately, the Nolan principles were incorporated in the Parliamentary Code of Conduct. This could mean that crucial elements such as leadership qualities, selflessness and accountability can, to a large degree weigh against the argument of ‘purely private and personal’, wherever recognized ethical issues arise—such that enable the public to have respect, and confidence in their parliamentary representatives.
Image And Dignity
Despite his mental state, Mr. Griffiths, aware of the image his parliamentary position would conjure to Imogen and her friend, referred to his duties during their encounters. The Commissioner even suggested he might have used his MP status. So, he valued the status without its dignity.
The Commissioner acknowledged that Mr. Griffiths’ personal reputation was damaged, as well as his health and family relationships. How costly the ‘purely private and personal’ life! Undoubtedly, he was unable to take responsibility for himself. Some official boundaries put in place might have served as a deterrent, if discretion couldn’t—which was the case. Reportedly, he even became suicidal and was in hospital for a month.
This is not about regulating private lives, only putting some restrictions in place, as with police officers and police staff. This is preventive. Constituents need to have confidence in their MPs.
MPs are all familiar with the image they carry. Mr. Griffiths expressed his shame, having been caught out, and when he resigned, it must have been from his knowledge of the perceived expectations of the public—and his relationships, of course. The sheer indignity was the shame.
The Code of Conduct is a statement of the expectations that MPs and the public have of how MPs should behave. It stretches further than the work place.
MPs should be expected to think of the image they portray at all times, not only while engaging in their duties. They should consider how members of the public may regard their behavior whether on parliamentary duties or in private. Like all respectable people, they shouldn’t drop their guard unduly. It comes down to discretion and good judgement. At this level, an MP with poor judgement has no business being an MP. They shouldn’t have been elected.
Some MPs will turn out to be very costly to the government or the Party, because so little was probably known about their character and lifestyle.
Bullying And Sexual Harassment
There has been in past times a preponderance of bullying and sexual harassment by MPs in the work place. These are unlawful and uncivil behaviors, yet MPs make the laws. One wonders what else such people get up to in their private lives. Surely, not leading by example.
It would seem that complaints of bullying and sexual harassment had been previously lodged against Mr.Griffiths, both by a female colleague, a councillor, and bullying by his former male campaign manager. Consequently, the woman left the Conservative Party to become an Independent.
Drugs And Alcohol
The challenge of Class A drugs and alcohol that has ravaged Westminster for instance, is nothing less than despicable. These would probably have much to hide in their private and personal lives, which would alarm their constituents if they came to light. Already, the country is raising a generation of children and young people with drug and alcohol problems; if the people right at the top are also displaying these troubling vices, the problem is huge, because they make the laws.
These problems are not known to blight other work places in this country, as it is in Westminster. One wonders whether these are social class plagues, spilling over from affluent and troubled backgrounds. Welfare responses and disciplinary actions may be no more than mere placebo. Constituents should demand thorough screening of candidates who fit the bill in probity and dignity, as the first stage of the electoral process.
if we’re not getting it right at the top, we haven’t been getting it right at the bottom.
Future Generation Of Mps
There is a plethora of regulations, research, conferences, books and so, on relating to various aspects of the lives of the children and young people in the UK. Among them are the future MPs. Little wonder, behavior of children in schools is a major predicament that has necessitated a national call for solution. Indiscipline has become unmanageable in secondary schools. Bullying, drugs and alcohol are also enduring challenges. If indiscipline among MPs is handled with kids’ gloves, it’s not surprising that the future MPs are the way they are. Let the Leaders lead by example.