Sunday, 7 November 2010

WHAT THE PAPERS SAY: THE OBSERVE-O-FILTH ON WOOLAS


Politicians  are no better or worse than the rest of us. Official.
  • The Observer,

  • Many people were surprised to discover last week that it is against the law for politicians to tell lies about each other. A court ruled that campaign literature, in which former Labour minister Phil Woolas accused his Lib Dem opponent of cosying up to Islamic militants, contravened an old statute prohibiting "false statements" against a rival's "character or conduct". The decision, at first glance, confirms suspicions that politicians are scoundrels. But another conclusion is possible. No profession is immune from dishonesty, but politics is one where it is most conspicuously exposed and (by voters more often than courts) eventually punished. Imagine if secondhand car salesmen or estate agents were routinely held to a duty to be honest. What would happen to dating websites if users had to be thoroughly truthful about "character and conduct"? Politics can be a dirty business. Mr Woolas crossed a line and was punished. But while we relish every opportunity to remind politicians that they are no better than the people they represent, we should remember also that they are generally no worse either.     
     
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Speak for yourselves, Islingtonians. It was, of course, the tax-dodging, charitable status Guardian-Observer  -  the world's leading liberal voice - which, before the election,  urged its eleven paying readers to vote for Mr Clegg's gang of shit-eating charlatans; lawmakers slitherng into office on the basis of stirring-up hatred is also obviously cool in the New We Will Lie To You Wholesale Politics. "  Politics can be a dirty business "    and so it will remain with shit  editorials  like this one;  MediaMinster, skymadeupnewsandfilth, bent billionaire proprietors, bent millionaire editors, dreary fuckwit commentators, spouting party lines on an unattributable basis, free and independent press my arse.  The Guardian should try a paywall, like the Times, see how many people will pay for this tripe - its own version of Snotty's awful bigoted woman gaffe .

9 comments:

Gherkin said...

To be fair to Woolarse, the Graudian is a greater stranger to the truth than he.

Edgar said...

I'm looking for the evidence supplied to support the statement: "we should remember also that they [politicians] are generally no worse either [than the rest of us]. I don't see it. Consequently, I son't see the need to revise my own opinions of politicians as a class. The word 'vermin' is the nearest I can get to a single-word description of them

Edgar said...

Off topic but relating to previous, I see that the unemployed are to be made to 'work' for their benefits. Trouble is that what is proposed isn't work at all. A person gets paid to work. I don't know what it actually is, Mr Ishmael, but I suspect it is more knee-jerk, populist, authoritarian, useless, and unworkable bullshit. Never mind, though: it'll keep them from burgling our homes, I'm sure.

mongoose said...

I used to buy the Observer every Sunday. Every Sunday for years and years. It is now chip-paper - as are they all, in fact.

Mr Edgar, it is called "slavery". Compulsory work, with no pay, and with penalties for non-compliance. And it will never happen. "No, I will not go and pick up litter in the High Street. What you gonna do about it?" "Oh, well, we'll let you and your children starve." Never going to happen.

call me ishmael said...

But isn't that useless, posturing nincompoop, Ian Whatever Smith making a great fist of his comeback, as though he never said The quiet man is turning up the volume and all that shit. That the welfare system has become the reason for this knobjockey being in govament is the real insolence, not only to us, but to him, unworkable bullshit, it's what he's good at, probably learned it at that Oxford college which he never went to, or was it one in Italy? They all have make-believe roles, don't they, Duncan Smith, Redwood and that insufferable fucking loudmouth, Rifkind, loathsome braying Anglo-Scots faggot, with his big brown voice, telling everybody off, what an asrehole.

So much of this shit is in the language - as long as we call entitlements benefits we are fucked.

call me ishmael said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
call me ishmael said...

It is a terrible fate, mr gherkin, which has befallen the Guardian. Its last good editor was Alistair Hetherington, twenty-five years ago, and its worthless columnists have taken root, like old people, in their favourite chairs. Toynbee, Friedland, Gobsley, rubbish, all of them, career writers, they might just as well be writing for Arthritis Monthly.

Edgar said...

Yes, Mr Mongoose: that is certainly a word for it. However, I wonder whether the State might not have an ace up its sleeve that, given the current shower of bastards who are currently 'leading' it, it might well play. The ace being Social Services: 'Refused to work? No income? we're going to have to take your children away ...' Would you put it past them?

Indeed, Mr Ishmael, revising terminology is one of the insidious tricks that characterise political chicanery. It's a dirty word now 'entitlement', so is 'right'. It's not like any of the poor wretches that are going to have to suck up all this mischief ever paid any National Insurance nor tax, is it? Jobseeker's Allowance, indeed! Like we are children rewarded by pocket money. Fuckers!

mongoose said...

Mr Edgar, I would not, Sir. As I wrote it I despaired at that answer but took refuge in it being un-fucking-doable. I tell you though, it is the looming thin edge of something very terrible. God help us, I think that they think that they know best.