Should Tory Leadership candidate David Cameron be obliged to 'come out' over whether or not he took drugs as an undergraduate? Ann Widdecombe, that well known liberal on these matters, says no, he should not. She feels whether or not he has taken drugs is of no importance, but she wants to know if he is hypocritical enough for her liking and will persecute sufficiently those who do take drugs. But should it matter? Politicians like Mo Mowlam haven't found that admitting smoking a joint or two in their student days was a major stumbling block in their career. So why not Cameron.... it could even improve his street cred. with some people (although I suspect it would not help in the eyes of the reactionary old buffoons who will select their leader).
Well, if you apply for a job as a teacher, or a management job in the NHS, or a Social Worker (No, not a Socialist Worker... for them drug taking is obligatory) you have to declare to those interviewing you whether you have even received a police caution for possession of a tiny amount of cannabis. So, why shouldn't the rules be more stringent for those who want to become Prime Minister of this country? Come on Cameron... did you or did you not inhale?
Some clown wrote in a letter to last night's Birmingham Evening Mail that Peter Crouch should never be allowed anywhere near an England shirt because he "can't run, can't pass, can't head the ball and doesn't score goals." Just to avoid being entirely negative, the twerp suggested the laughable Emile Heskey as a credible alternative. Last season Crouch scored 12 goals in 27 appearances for Southampton, who were relegated. This compares favourably to Didier Drogba, who despite playing with the superstars of Champions Chelsea, only managed 10 goals in 26 appearances. As for Emile Ivanhoe (honestly, its his name) Heskey... he managed 10 goals in 34 appearances for 'sleeping giants' Birmingham City. Just think how good Crouchy will be when he learns to run, pass and score!
