Another case of 'do as I say'?

Only a few days ago we had the case of a naughty policeman being a hypocrite when he was caught speeding and turned out to be something of an anti-speeding fanatic:

In the past Chief Constable Merydydd Hughes has been robust over the issue of speeding. He has warned of "anarchy" on the roads, and said he is amazed people disregard the safety limits.

Not as amazed, perhaps, as the anti-speed camera campaigners who were gleeful yesterday when it emerged that Mr Hughes has been accused of driving at 90mph in a 60mph area. The chief constable of South Yorkshire has been sent a notice of prosecution for an alleged offence in north Wales. Mr Hughes is the Association of Chief Police Officers head of uniformed operations, whose responsibilities include roads policing.

Article continues
Mr Hughes told RoadSafe magazine this year: "It has always amazed me that people are so disregarding of speed limits when they obey other laws. We accept compromises in other parts of our lives for the greater good of society and yet many people carp at one that is most likely to save their life."

Although obviously not fanatical enough to not be a hypocritical bastard. Want us to slow down, then perhaps lead by example, you accelerator-happy turd.

Well, something else which bothered me was David Miliband and this adoption malarkey. Now, I've got no bother with people adopting of course. It's great that there are people who will take in a child and give them a better life than living in a childrens home. No, what bothered me (which one is barren? Which one!?!)was that they went to the US to adopt a child when there are, according to the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, 60,000 children wanting to be adopted in this country.

Why were they too old? There is no official upper limit in British law, although the oldest one can be is supposed to be 40-45. Miliband is now 42 and his wife Louise is 46 I think. One can see that it may have been difficult to adopt, but if a Minister of the Crown disagrees with British law then maybe it should be changed? After all, they make the bloody things.

In addition, did the Milibands got to America to adopt to avoid the long and bureaucratic process of adopting in the UK? Once again, it would point to a government official registering his disagreement with a British legal process? At the time of his first adoption he was working in the Department of Education who have to grant an eligibility certificate for anyone wanting to adopt a child from overseas. Between January and October 2004, only 9 were granted for couples wishing to adopt from the USA, so one can assume that they knew they were dealing with a Minister of their department. Convenient for him, I would imagine.

This might seem a bit nasty of me, but something just doesn't seem right to me. It does seem like he's not having to go through the processes other couples would to get a child and also he's avoiding the time-consuming UK process of adopting a child, even though he is an MP. I think it's good they've given a child a loving home, even if he is only just out of short trousers, but if they tell us what to do, then they should lead by example.

Well, I think so.