Well this story looks like it is going to be rumbling on for quite a while, one area I am going to cover is this:Prior to publication he told the newspaper that the story was 'absolutely groundless'. He also declared the photographs had been fabricated.
Well in that case he needs to get onto his legal folk and sue the paper, unless of course our champagne socialist has been caught with his pants down and has slipped into Bill Clinton denial mode.
But wait whats this, he has announced today on the BBC Pravda site that he is "ashamed" about cheating on his wife inside the House of Commons.
Really? He expects us to believe that. Lets see he takes a woman to his place of work, has sex and aside from being an amoral John Prescott style rat in cheating on his wife; then claims that its all a bit blurry.
Oh? So either he is forgetful and his memory is going or he was pissed as the proverbial newt.
Like many a person who has been caught his main regret is that of being caught in flagrante delicto.
Now MP's shagging about are 2 a penny, just look at the late Tory Alan Clarke who cared not about what the press said about him. If anything he took an Oscar Wilde view that is better to be talked about than not talked about.
Some say this is a "private matter" and a non-story, but it is not. If an MP is passing laws often on moral subjects that affect us then their behaviour is not a private matter. They want to snoop on us via e-mail, CCTV and snooper laws, yet hate it when they are caught.
The main issue is that this MP has been caught lying stating that it was groundless when he knew it was in fact not. He has since addmitted his behaviour had "fallen below acceptable standards", now he has shown he has broken the code of conduct:
The MPs' code of conduct reads: "Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.''
.
3 people have spoken:
Plus this from The Daily Record on his decent and honourable past behaviour.
In 2002, a Commons standards committee found he had been claiming £10,000 a year expenses, since 1997, for rent on an Edinburgh office that he owned outright.
Griffiths also failed to disclose a £227,000 fortune left to him by his late father.
Lovely friends our Snotty has!
Something you might care to ponder is how the woman in question entered the premises.
Surely she can't have been signed in by Griffiths or did she have a pass already?
Cato, maybe she is employed on his staff in some minor admin role.
After all they claim everything else so why not put sexual services down.
If she was a "lady of night" for example she could be put under "sundry expenses" or maybe "entertaining clients"
Post a Comment