From: mossop@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Antony Mossop)
Subject: Re: Mellor: The establishment will again rush to protect their own
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:33:39 GMT

In article <nkjk6s8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <NICKH.92Jul22085411@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU>, nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>|> In article <njhrph8@zola.esd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.esd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> 
>|>    Oh really?   It stinks when a politician who has had an affair
>|>    has his photo taken with his family, and ought to be exposed.
>|> 
>|>    Who says so?   To whom does this apply?   Just politicians?
>|>    Doctors?   Psychiatrists?    The Police?   Reporters?  Actors?
>|>    Military personnel?    Athletes?    How about people who post
>|>    on the net?
>|> 
>|> That's not what he said. What he said is this:
>|> 
>|> - David Mellor, in common with many politicians, _used_ the image of
>|> 	the `happy little family' as _propaganda_ in the general
>|> 	election campaign. Doubtless the Tory leafletting included
>|> 	phrases like `a family man,' `happily married,' etc., and
>|> 	probably also gave his wife's name, and certaily depicted the
>|> 	whole family cavorting in the sunshine or whatever.
>
>So what?   My dentist sends me leaflets containing pictures
>of his wife and family.   Many people have bosses who keep
>such pictures on their desks.   You can't open a newspaper
>without seeing some happy sportsman/film actor/businessman/
>whatever being portrayed in a way that inplies that they 
>have a happy and stable family life.   These days, such people
>even employ media consultants to help them maintain the image
>that they would like us to have of them. 
>
>However, I expect that at least some of them are actually
>enthusiastically polygamous.     So does this somehow make
>it morally acceptable for the newspapers to go after such
>people?
>
>These people project an image of marital bliss because some
>of the rest of us are stupid enough to think that's a good
>thing.   So what are we saying here: the Public, having 
>been stupid enough to demand this entirely irrelevant image
>from its public figures - an image which actually has very
>little to do with their performance in their jobs - is now,
>ipso facto, entitled to violate someone's privacy in order
>to enforce it?
>
>I can't think of any better way to reduce public life to
>a bunch of people sneaking around, with another bunch spying
>on them, while public service goes to hell.
>
>jon.


Jon,
    I thought that the gist of the problem some people have with Mellor's
infidelity is that he is minister in a party that proclaimed if not even
actually stuffed down peoples throats, suppossed family values. Whilst
the Conservatives may habe toned down this line since ousting their
previous leader, many of the faces remain the same. These Tory 'family
values' generally included not commiting adultery as well as actual laws
against some other bits regarded as 'moral' issues (remember clause 29 
legislation from the past). The problem is the hypocrisy, when a minister
takes a stand (or the party as a whole and no argument from said member
is publicly raised) on an issue and then goes and does the exact opposite
people become pissed off, it further increases the feeling of one rule
for the masses another for those in charge. As I remember it there were
no cries of privacy when the shady financial dealings of supposed man of
the people D. Hatton were being exposed and rightfully not. The same 
should go for others who stand on other foundations of some other 
pseudo moral prattle and are then found to be full of wind. They're
willing to point the finger at others (and to even legislate against
others morality) they deserve to get it back.

Tony Mossop, Stanford Geophysics
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,soc.culture.british