Originally Posted by London Orbital

Bear - I knew you weren't a wrong 'un, which is why I was taking a bit of care not to step into your various traps. However, leaving aside the emotive nomenclature of uber- and underclass, there is undeniably an element of moral consistency in the way a person lives and behaviour that might - or might not be - expected of that person.

Fair enough, we shouldn't leap to mistaken conclusions which are merely based on our prejudices. But what if you really had been “not looking for work” & seeing “no reason why I should” at a much younger age - content to live on the dole and whatever you managed to knock off from time to time?

You could still argue the same point, of course - that you weren’t necessarily a truly bad person, and that people who thought the worst of you were mainly being snobbish, smug and self-satisfied. And in a strictly limited sort of way you might even be right. But what would we think of you?

In my local paper recently, an old Kray associate - in the process of complaining about a gang of young hooded street muggers - pointed out that in his day he had only engaged in a bit of house-breaking, which of course wasn’t the same thing at all. The argument obviously made perfect sense to him. But many people must have blinked at his letter and thought - why on earth are we getting lessons in morals from a convicted burglar?

To further illustrate this point, you didn’t happen to enlarge on the ways in which you break the law when it suits you. No doubt, I suppose, you break it fairly harmlessly. Or at least do so in the sort of ways the rest of us tend to break the law on the odd occasion.

However, what if the way it actually suited you to break the law was to drink down three or four bottles of Scotch at the weekend, and then drive your car at twice the maximum speed limit merely because you enjoyed these sensations and anyone who condemned you for it was just being ridiculously snotty, snobby, smug and middle class and should just get themselves a life, eh pal?

My point is that no-one’s behaviour can be totally factored out of the moral equation.

Originally Posted by The Bear

The bottom line remains to be openly judgmental about Mrs McKeown based on biased reporting in trashy newspapers and especially ones own prejudice is simply WRONG.

To be suspicious or cautious based on experience and probability is one thing, to go “off on one” without KNOWLEDSGE and FACT is another thing entirely and especially so when the result could RIGHTLY result in legal action being taken against not only the author of such rubbish but worse yet against then innocent vehicle that was used in the process.

In any case, how do you KNOW that I'm not a "wrong 'un" as you so disgustingly phrase it?

How do you KNOW that my employer was not a crime syndicate boss? Or that my role was not that of his accountant? That would account for my pension and for my membership of my professional Institute. It would also account for where and how I live.

I suppose some people simply will never see the plank in their own eye.