Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
Judges do take into account intentions and character when sentencing. In fact other intent helps decide what crime people are charged with. Intentions are very important.
|
Still makes it a crime. And they are still held to account for their actions. That's why Laws was right to resign, refer himself to the standards committe and face the music.
Quote:
For someone complaining about people using the homophobe card you sure do seem keen to use it yourself. Yes, it does apply to heterosexual conservatives as well! I resent this constant attempt to portray my argument as "He is gay so it is ok", honestly that is out of line.
No one can deceive and cover up and then say it's ok. But seriously there is a difference between someone doing it because they want to commit fraud and someone doing it because they are insecure about an aspect of their personal life. It's still wrong but it is far more understandable.
|
I didn't start this. When the news broke I don't recall anyone bringing up his sexuality in any negative way until the Lib Dems and his supporters tried to hide behind it. He/they were the ones that brought it into the public debate. It was the Lib Dems supporters on this forum and off of it that have to tried excuse his actions by wrapping it in a blanket of his sexuality.
Peter Tachell was on TV earlier and even he said his sexuality wasn't an excuse. And he's normally the first to claim everything is a homophobic conspiracy.
And you say it does apply to heterosexuals but I can't see it happening. Imagine the same thing with an old man and a younger (16-18 year old) girl? Or a man with a black girl fearing a racism backlash? Would people still be so eager to say its OK for him to deceive the public to protect their privacy? I doubt it. If it is OK, where's the line? How much are elected officials allowed to decieve the public in the name of privacy?