Holding influential figures to account.

Dr Brian Crowe is no political greenhorn. He has held influential advisory roles within the Ulster Unionist Party for several years and is widely regarded as one of the leading intellectuals within the organisation. In his current role he is a highly-paid special advisor to his party's Minister for the Department for Employment and Learning, Danny Kennedy. So it is astonishing that he now finds himself embroiled in a scandal with sexual overtones.

He engaged in lengthy conversations with a woman in an internet chatroom which were, at the very least, ribald in nature and included a boast from him that he could influence policy changes in return for sexual favours and, worryingly, had done so in the past. At the very least this was extremely careless talk. At worst it suggests something much more serious, that policies which impact on everyone's life could be open to corrupt manipulation given his influential position. We, quite rightly, demand the highest standards from our politicians -- and at this point it must be emphasised that there is absolutely no suggestion that the minister was in any way party to this sordid behaviour. Concerns have consistently been raised about the degree of influence by lobby organisations in democracies in the determination of government policies, but that does not preclude proper discussion on the merits of every case. Policies should only be implemented taking into account relevant matters.

We believe that it is in the public interest to publish the allegations against Dr Crowe. What people do in their private lives -- although why anyone would believe they can go on social networking sites or chatrooms without their thoughts becoming public knowledge beggars belief -- is their own affair, with one important proviso. When their behaviour impacts, or is likely to impact, on public affairs, then it is correct to bring that to the attention of society at large and to express the strongest concern about the implications. For it even to be suggested that government policy could be framed, or changed, for reasons other than merit is wrong and that must be emphasised in no uncertain terms.