Following the adoption by Luciana Berger of the title Baroness Berger of Barnhill, locals have been having some fun on Facebook giving themselves titles named after local streets and landmarks.
Baroness Berger is, to put it mildly, no stranger to controversy LINK but does have Brent credentials having been brought up in Wembley.
Whether her title will have any impact on house values on Barn Hill remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, will we see a future Baroness Fraser of Chalkhill to add a little balance?
3 comments:
Prime Minister Fraser! I like the sound of this one.
The recent offensive remarks made by Andrew Gwynne and Oliver Ryan via WhatsApp have had an unavoidable negative impact, despite the fact that Ryan was not an elected Member of Parliament at the time. These comments became public last weekend, and it is reasonable to conclude that the constituencies involved, where numerous unacceptable remarks were exchanged, were aware of the potential for offense. Nevertheless, these comments were made with a sense of impunity, as if the individuals believed they could evade accountability. However, they are now more enlightened regarding the consequences of their actions.
You may be curious about my underlying message. The scandals involving (Baroness) Berger of Barnhill further reinforces the notion that regardless of political affiliation, history consistently demonstrates that individuals possess a regrettable tendency to engage in behavior that exacerbates rather than alleviates issues.
Given that this is a matter of fact rather than mere opinion, I pose the following question: Should an individual be regarded as a superior being deserving of a title and a position in The House of Lords until they can demonstrate an unblemished record during their tenure as a democratically elected member of the British Parliament, especially when their experience as an MP appears to have minimal positive and enduring impact on the governance of our country and local communities?
Putting all these cronies into the House of Lords does little to advance the position that heritary peers were bad. At least they were truely independent
Post a Comment