GREEN, FALLON, PATEL : WHO'S NEXT ?

Damian Green, First Secretary of State, has lost his job, not because he molested anyone or downloaded pornographic images, but because he told a few fibs. Such is modern politics.

It seems that Mr Green did not quite tell the truth when asked what he knew about the discovery of pornographic, though entirely legal, images that were found on a computer in his offices in 2008. This untruthfulness breached what is known as the Ministerial Code and so he had to be sacked, and Teresa May's cabinet suffered another serious blow.

Mr Green is the third Cabinet Minister to be sacked, or asked to resign, in recent weeks, following Sir Michael Fallon and Priti Patel out of the door of Number 10. Both Messrs Green and Fallon were key allies of the Prime Minister, long established figures and very senior politicians; that they have both fallen by the wayside as a result of failures to behave as is expected of people in such high office must be a matter of some concern. In the case of Ms Patel, she simply went awry and seemed to get carried away with her own self-importance, also a matter of concern.

Politicians are representatives of the people or, at least, that is the theory. Sadly, it seems that too often they are people who will do anything to climb the greasy pole and will then lie, cheat, cajole and threaten to stay there. They see themselves as being above the law and codes of conduct don't really apply to them unless, that is, they get caught. Too many see political office as nothing more nor less than a doorway to honours, further opportunities and fortune.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mr Green's actions, or those of Mr Fallon or Ms Patel, that three senior ministers should be caught out in such a short time makes one wonder what else there is that we don't know about the activities of those in high office, now and in the past. I shudder at the thought.

HARASSMENT OR FLIRTATION ?

We seem to be in the middle of a witch hunt.

Since the revelations about the shocking behaviour of Harvey Weinstein, people have been popping up left, right and centre to claim that they have been harassed by various public figures. While some of these claims relate to fairly recent incidents others refer to supposed inappropriate activities decades ago. This has horrible echoes of the claims made against Edward Heath, Leon Brittan and Lord Bramall.

There is no doubt that harassment, particular sexual harassment, is abhorrent; unwelcome physical contacts which amount to assault and can even culminate in far more serious events such as rape should result in the perpetrator finding themselves behind bars. However, it is also the case that men and women have engaged in flirtatious behaviour since time began, indeed, this is how relationships begin. The question that has to be asked is "When does flirtation become harassment ?"

Michael Fallon has been forced to resign from his government post and Labour has suspended its MP, Kelvin Hopkins after both have been accused of sexually harassing women, in Fallon's case a journalist and in Hopkins a female party worker. Julia Hartley-Brewer, the journalist in Fallon's case, said that she hadn't been upset or offended by him placing his hand on her knee, although there have subsequently been claims that Fallon made lewd and suggestive remarks to, or about, other women as well. The claims against Mr Hopkins remain undisclosed making any comment here unnecessary.

Clearly, Ms Hartley-Brewer is made of sterner stuff than some of the shrinking violets who now seem to abound. Do women really dislike the attentions of men, including the occasional flirtatious physical contact, so much that men must now remain at arm's length ? Is it no longer permitted for a man to make a comment for fear of being accused of 'harassment' ?

Is "Hello my dear, you're looking particularly lovely today" accompanied by a touch on the shoulder now to result in cries of "Harassment !!!" As is usual with such matters, the media has overreacted and the Parliament has got its collective knickers in a twist. Drawing the line between flirtation and harassment is something that has to be done but indulging in a witch hunt isn't the way to do it.

And while on the subject, what about unwelcome advances by women towards men or homosexuals on heterosexuals, of which I've seen a few ? Why is it always the supposed hordes of nasty men who supposedly attack women and children who bear the brunt of such media frenzies ? Could it be because of the current liberal left, politically correct feminist attitudes which now are all-pervasive in our society ?

Instances of inappropriate, even criminal, behaviour have to be dealt with, but who will define 'inappropriate' ? What is inappropriate to one is mere fun and flirtation to another, whichever side of the coin that they're on. We are in danger of imposing standards on society which reflect the attitudes of a tiny minority of particularly sensitive people, or of people with a particular axe to grind, while ignoring the rather more grown up attitudes of the rest.

What a sad and frightened little world some people inhabit; the rest of us must not be dragged in.