In the televised PM Questions yesterday Boris apologised - possibly. He also provided the excuse that he thought the party last year that he admitted attending, (with bring your own booze), was actually a "work event", and so within the rules. Boris said that with hindsight he realised the rules had not been followed.
In his statement he used language like "I regret" and "I apologise", but he also used language like "We didn't get it right". Watching a re-run of his statement I thought he looked like a schoolboy who had been caught breaking the rules, and who had been forced to apologise when he didn't want to apologise really.
Given the public's view that his familiarity with the truth is distant, many commentators thought his apology was a non-apology. And that his "work event" excuse was an insult to those members of the public who had followed the rules.
One definition of ethics is that it is the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour.
So what are the moral principles that govern his behaviour? From the statement yesterday, and events before that, I'd suggest the following as a started for ten:
1) Assume rules don't apply to yourself or your friends.
2) Work on the assumption that you'll get away with breaking the rules.
3) If people query your rule breaking then follow these steps:
a) deny you have broken the rules;
b) if a) doesn't work try to get the rules changed so your behaviour didn't break them;
c) if b) doesn't work get somebody to rule that you did, in fact, follow the rules;
d) if c) doesn't work appoint somebody who works for you to review what went on;
e) refuse to discuss any alleged rule breaking till d)'s review has concluded;
f) if in the meantime you are pressured to apologise try not to;
g) if e) & f) don't work and you have to make an apology do so but:
i) use "we" more than "I" in your apology;
ii) claim at the time it wasn't clear you were breaking rules;
iii) get friends to cite your rule breaking as a minor sideshow to your achievements.
No comments:
Post a Comment