[Benipete]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Sorry , have to disagree with you both on this .........I dont think either of you would approve if you knew your childs teacher was a ' recreational' drug user (or would you?) so why is it okay for someone who has an influence over your childs mind thru the TV set to be a druggie . Don't think you would approve if your local GP was a recreational morphine user would you? and say "Well it's ok , he's only doing it when he's not seeing patients"
Willow , whats wrong with taking employee blood/urine samples ? , if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear , right ? How is it anymore of an intrusion into personal privacy than the present situation .......100% of the population of the UK are followed daily by CCTV cameras , how many of them are doing wrong ? . Over 25% of the UK population are on a DNA data base without ever being convicted of a crime, you want those records tossed out , never mind that they have solved many 'cold cases'.
Mani , drug usage by professional football "stars" is down to their clubs as private employers and the F.A. to ensure they are clean , I'm sure you dont approve of the UK olympic team being made up of steriod boosters like some pro wrestling freak show ,

The point of my earlier post was to point out that this guy was a 'public' employee , paid for by your TV license fee ,
My thinking is ........ if I'm paying anyones wages either as an employer or indirectly thru taxation I have the right to expect that they will be 100% clean .

Sad to say I agree but I would add that I also agree that what people do in their own time is up to them.So if someone in a privalaged possision wants to sniff coke and hang themselves it's no buisiness of mine.There are more important issues.