Tuesday, 3 November 2009

Hacked Off

Normally I would have 'time' for Rachel Sylvester of the Times, but on this occasion I must take issue with some of her views.

Discussing the 'expenses' scandal and the effect of the 'court of public opinion', Rachel opines:

 "But the court of public opinion, in which voters are both judge and jury, has already found the political class guilty of all charges. In the week of the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, most voters would like nothing better than to blow up the House of Commons".

And are we not justified Rachel in both our verdict and our wish for the future of the House of Commons? It is also worth noting that some of us would not stop there either - the use of hemp and lamp posts springs to mind!

The article also states:

"Britain is not like Afghanistan, where corruption means ballot boxes being stuffed to rig an election. But politics is about mood and emotion as well as reason and for the rule of law to be upheld the system has to command respect.......Once the authority slips completely anarchy looms — or the voters will look for an alternative source of leadership, such as the BNP".

Having previously made the point that 'journalists' are guilty of 'sweeping statements' without checking their facts, or even considering the words written - for example 'Britain is not like Afghanistan, where corruption means ballot boxes being stuffed to rig an election' - perhaps she does not recall this and this

Also what is the problem with 'journalists' that when writing on the subject of the electorate looking for an alternative repository for their vote, always offer the BNP as that alternative repository? Is this part of a 'conspiracy', by the Con/Lab/LibDem parties and the MSM, to ensure that those parties do receive votes? Have 'journalists' not heard of the SNP or Ukip?

Writing that: "Sir Ian Blair, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is right to raise concerns about Conservative plans for elected police chiefs — that will simply encourage knee-jerk populism." Rachel Sylvester demonstrates a lack of understanding of 'direct democracy' and 'choice' - go read 'The Plan', please! Oh, and 'knee-jerk populism' is far better than 'knee-jerk politics'!

Likewise her comment: "The verdict of the court of public opinion is too harsh on many MPs." shows a complete lack of understanding about how the public feel on the issue. Any MP who has purchased a second home, not made any claims other than mortgage interest, utility bills and council tax, and then subsequently sold that property, having paid CGT and made a profit, is guilty of personal gain at the expense of the taxpayer; and is thus guilty of a lack of moral judgement on what is right and wrong.

Which is probably why I am 'hacked off' by what appears to be 'amateur hacks'!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The expenses issue was merely the touchpaper on the truly explosive issues, like the democratic deficit and MPs exempting themselves from laws and taxes they draft/agree to.

Lack of opposition to an increasingly powerful executive infuriates people.

Rachel should pull her head out of Westminster's @rse.