House of Lords

Hookers upset with Hooker sting that brought down a Labour Lord

It seems that hookers have ethics far more so than the politicians they root.

They’re upset that the two hookers who ran the hooker sting on Lord Sewel have lowered the reputation of hookers in general.

Lord Sewel, eh? Or John Buttifant Sewel if you prefer. By now, we?ve all had the sight of his orange bra burned into our consciousness, seethed as we listened to his racist remarks about Asian women, shaken our heads over the fact that it?s public money ? our money ? he?s spending on cocaine and sex workers. Lord Sewel has resigned and there are few tears to be shed.

But what of the women in the coke-snorting, bra-wearing, Cameron-slagging video? Purveyors of the ?sordid sex party? as The Sun put it. Because, as much as Lord Sewel used these sex workers as props for his naughty night ? at one point, you?ll remember, he?s sniffs a line off a woman?s breast ? so too has The Sun. Their role is clear: wanton accessories in a lurid scandal.

Well London escorts are fed up with the whole affair. Perhaps none more than Lydia*, who, a few years ago, was herself outed by a tabloid as a part-time sex worker, a situation which cost her a public-sector career and lost her friends.

?Seeing someone?s personal life splashed across the paper still makes me feel sick,? Lydia confides. ?Regardless of what you think of them. When it happened to me, it turned my life upside down.? ?? Read more »

Do we need a House of Lords?

2v-Lord-Sewell-Image-Sun

The Telegraph provides us with some evidence that a House of Lords would be quite useful…at the very least for the entertainment prospects having one delivers.

Some people, such as the Prime Minister, think that Lord Sewel should quit the House of Lords after apparently being caught in a sex and drugs sting. What they do not realise is that John Buttifant Sewel was simply upholding the finest traditions of the Upper House.

Indeed his exploits look positively tame compared to some. If you really want to see a rogue in ermine, check out this list – gathered from our extensive obituaries archive – of seven deadly miscreant peers.

Snorting cocaine off of a hooker’s tits is hardly resigning material…hells teeth there is a prominent Auckland business man and knight of the realm whose son in law does that. He should be the first candidate in a NZ House of Lords.

One of the Telegraph’s naughty peers is Lord Kagan:

Kagan’s domestic arrangements were also far from straightforward; he claimed to have had 40 mistresses by the age of 60. “My wife is not interested in fidelity,” he explained. “But no-one has ever taken her place in my life. Marriage is for keeps.”

Read more »

Bishops told to bottle gay vote

Looks like the bishops are being asked to bottle the vote against gay marriage. Good.

Bishops are facing intense pressure from inside the Church of England not to use their votes in the House of Lords to block gay marriage, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

Despite vocal opposition from the Church to the Government?s plans to allow same-sex couples to marry, it is understood that senior officials have personally urged bishops to stay away from this week?s vote.? Read more »

B&D Exponents don’t like poofters

Everybody knows the English upper class are about as sexually perverted as it is possible to be, but for some reason they don?t like poofters.

Peers expect the Upper?s House debate over same sex weddings will go through the night or even into a second day, with a key vote that could scupper the policy regarded as ?too close to call?.

The former head of the British army Lord Dannatt and Lord Lothian, a former Conservative Party chairman better known as Michael Ancram, are amongst those set to criticise the draft legislation in next Monday?s session.? Read more »

Inbred and complaining about free food

You really?have?to wonder about wisdom in having a bunch of inbred Lords waffling on about anything:

First it was MPs who grumbled that their chips were not served in towers. Now Peers have claimed the quality of food at the House of Lords is an expensive ?disgrace? and they are embarrassed to dine there in front of their friends.

Some have demanded refunds on their ?awful? food – despite each being given a ?300-a-day subsistence allowance and the restaurants receiving ?1.44m in subsidies a year.
One peer told Lord Brabazon of Tara, the Lords? Chairman of Committees, he wanted a refund after the food served in one of Parliament?s finest restaurants had left him humiliated in front of a eminent friend.

He wrote: ?My wife and I were so embarrassed last night. We took a distinguished Italian guest to dine in the Barry Room.
?We all ordered the pork escallop [sic]. It was uneatable [sic]. Tough and dry and clearly cooked for hours before. It really was a disgrace. No one should be chef of the Barry Room who allows food like that to be served.?

He went on: ?We did not of course complain at the time for the obvious reason of not damaging the image our guest would have had of the occasion.

?I do not know what your policy is but I think it would be appropriate for me to receive a refund for three uneatable pork scallops.?

Another wrote: ?I am aware that one noble Lord was served ?gone off? smoked salmon in the Bishops? bar the other day. The S salmon in my sandwich today was awful. I hope something can be done.?
Lord Naseby, the chairman of the London wine society Cofradia del Vino Chileno, wrote: ?I was disappointed to discover when I had a guest from Chile the Peers? Dining Room does not offer any Chilean Red.

?I can assure you that there are a number of Chilean Reds that are exceptionally good value at every price level. Perhaps the omission could be corrected by inviting the Director of Wines to of Chile to hold a tasting or whatever.?

Most peers do not receive a salary but are paid a ?no questions asked? tax-free allowance of ?300 a day to cover the cost of attending the Lords. The system was introduced in 2010 to replaced the scandal-hit expenses regime.

It’s not just the Catholics who get it wrong

The Bishops in the House of Lords are getting in the way of welfare reform, backing those who don?t try over those who do.

Mr Duncan Smith said the Church of England bishops, who are threatening to derail his planned ?26,000 benefit cap, should think more of low-income families who try to do “the right thing”.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, he acknowledged that his plans to limit the total payments any household can receive could face defeat in the House of Lords tomorrow.

He urged the bishops, who are leading the opposition in the upper chamber, to rethink their objections, insisting they were not doing the poor any favours.
“The question I’d ask these bishops is, over all these years, why have they sat back and watched people being placed in houses they cannot afford? It’s not a kindness,” he said.

“I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don’t have as much money as they would otherwise because they’re paying tax for all of this. Where is the bishops’ concern for them?

“I would like to see a more balanced response from the bishops.

“It’s all very well for the bishops to express a political opinion, but I would love them to ask about the poor people on low incomes who are working hard, whose families share rooms, who are doing the right thing.”

At least it isn’t protecting institutional boy buggering and coverups.

A good reason not to have an upper house here

A very, very good reason not to have an Upper House here.

The appointment of a junior Opposition whip in the House of Lords should not usually warrant attention.?Ed Miliband?has enough trouble getting himself noticed, let alone an obscure Scottish peer at the tail end of the new leader?s first reshuffle. But in the Lords and in Downing Street, the fact that he chose to give a job in the engine room to Lord McAvoy has caused a minor ripple of disquiet. As a Labour whip in the Commons for nearly 20 years, Thomas McAvoy built a reputation for quiet ruthlessness in his party?s interest. Gordon Brown thanked him for his loyal service by sending him to the Upper House last year. Since then he has emerged as a leading light in a gang of recently ennobled Labour toughs who have disrupted the rarefied atmosphere of the Lords with the bully boy tactics of the Commons.

Lord Trev would be a total pain in the arse forever.