Share |
The truths they don't want you to read....

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Saint Vincent the fallible

Shoot the messenger....
The Daily Telegraph has caused "great damage" to the relationship between MPs and constituents with its undercover sting tactics, Vince Cable says.
Actually, what Vince (and virtually all other politicians) want to be able to do is to be able to tell their constituents what they think their constituents want to hear, as a way of excusing the hypocrisy of their actions.

That's commonly known as 'lying' of 'talking bull' and I think you find that it is that which actually does 'great damage' to the MP and constituent relationship.

Well done to the Telegraph for exposing those LibDems who are happy to sell their souls for an official car, and are then prepared to lie to all and sundry about their position.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hello there,

While I understand it, I was a little troubled by your point of view.

Allegedly, the journalists in question misrepresented themselves. This was seemingly done deliberately, in order to induce a result which would not have happened otherwise, for the purpose of securing an advantage.

This is fraud - and there is no public interest defence, in order to protect the victim, and this in turn ensures equality between victims.

I would be suspicious if your logic led to giving the press licence to do what ordinary citizens would be unable to do.

For example, suppose I filled in the back of a prescription incorrectly claiming I was exempt from paying the fee. Instead of being punished, should I be praised if a purpose of doing this was to prove that there were failings in security procedures? By your logic, it would appear so.

I somehow doubt that this excuse would wash if I were a blacksmith. But suppose I was a journalist: it would be much easier to present this as an excuse, not least because I would be able to make up the excuse by printing the story in my paper.

This presents us with a hierarchy of offenders, which I would feel queasy with. I would prefer the law applied to everyone equally.

You may well say that these distinctions should be waved away and don't matter, because it was all to do with a politican who was two-faced. This comes back to the equality of victims point. But if that's the case, where do we draw the line?