I don’t buy a newspaper very often but last Saturday I bought the Daily Telegraph. A wild, spur of the moment thing, you understand?
I thought previously that the Telegraph and the Mirror reported ‘the news’ to reflect the likely views and opinions of their readership, but now I’m beginning to think there isn’t anything much to choose between them.
Frontpage Telegraph headline: Hancock faces sack if affair turns into a ‘Barnard Castle moment’.
“….. Lawyers said Mr Hancock was “likely” to have broken the law, not just Covid guidance.” Well, lawyers would, wouldn’t they?
“….. The Health Secretary apologised for breaching social distancing guidance…” Well, if it was only guidance . . . .!
“……. One Cabinet minister privately said that Mr Hancock’s behaviour reinforced a feeling of us and them, with ministers failing to abide by the rules.” Well, his behaviour would reinforce that feeling, wouldn’t it, if rules is rules? Government by feely-feely, hey?
Confusing, isn’t it? Law? Guidance? Rules? Take your pick but take a good look at who is doing the talking. Then we might understand whether or not we are lawbreakers, or just lads and lasses with differing opinions.
It is my understanding that ‘the law’ applies to everyone equally. (Be ye ever so high, the law is above you, kinda thing). So, it seems reasonable to me to believe that if there are exemptions, we aren’t discussing law. We’re talking about interpretation of guidance or rules. If we’re talking about guidance, I would have to ask how patronizing (politician or policeman) can these public servants be? And rules? Aren’t they the framework of clubs and associations? As in, follow the rules or leave the club. OK. Fine by me.
Later I came across a quotation by Robert Heinlein. (Robert Anson Heinlein was an American science fiction author, aeronautical engineer, and naval officer.) He also made good use of multiple pen names!
“Do this. Don’t do that. Stay back in line. Where’s tax receipt? Fill out form. Let’s see license. Submit six copies. Exit only. No left turn. No right turn. Queue up and pay fine. Take back and get stamped. Drop dead— but first get permit.”– Robert A. Heinlein
Do you suppose that paragraph is the work of a precision-minded aeronautical engineer or latent lawbreaker, or merely a lad with different opinions? As a naval officer? No wonder he used alternative pen names.
By Sunday, there was no other story except those about hypocrisy, one rule for them and another for us, and the supposed ministerial code.
A text came to mind from some ancient writings about a woman ‘caught in adultery’. In those far off days the law of the land decreed that a woman (but not a man, apparently), could be stoned to death for her deeds, if found guilty as charged. “What do you have to say about that?” the lawyers and bar room lawyers of the day asked the new teacher of the day. Turned out that the new teacher thought for a little while and then replied: “Let any of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” And the crowd melted away fairly quickly. Good answer, don’t you think? Clearly, they don’t like it up ’em, Captain Mainwaring, even allowing for changes in moral standards over the centuries. The prohibition hasn’t changed; only the legal (manmade) penalty has changed. And that’s what governments and authorities do; they change the law to suit themselves or to pander to public opinion in an effort to maintain their popularity and they call each other ‘the Right Honourable member’ as they debate it.
“All initiation of force is a violation of someone else’s rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it’s supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals.” — Ron Paul
The late George Carlin made a lot of money by telling people they/you have no rights ‘because you are owned’. As far as I know he never made clear whether or not he considered himself to be owned, too. Maybe he was simply laying down the law. Pun intended. If we are owned, then we are not free. If we are not free, then it is difficult to believe that we are responsible. We may do only that which we are allowed to do. The ‘allower’ carries the responsibility.
I began this short essay with the headline: Truth? It depends on who you ask! If truth doesn’t change then it must be our own interpretation of what truth is that changes. But surely, truth isn’t circumstantial, is it? It seems to me that it is if we rely on and depend on whoever it is we ask. And now I’m thinking about ‘to thine own self be true’, William Shakespeare, Hamlet.
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man”.
Seems to me that this is heavy-duty stuff. Perhaps we should think about it more often.
Very Good Michael Dunn.
Actually anarchists are right in saying there is no justification for anyone to rule over us.
Err . . . That doesn’t work either! We shouldn’t have eaten from the tree of knowledge.
For the last 18 months, Mutt Hancock has been telling us to be afraid, very afraid and to follow the rules, or else. Well, he didn’t seem very afraid of his bogey on May 6th, did he? Which makes me ponder……has he been gaslighting the nation all along?
Playing up the fear, doctoring the data, using overwhelming saturation of our comprehension so that most people have not been able to grasp what was going on?
If so, was it power play or vested interest.? …….After all, he appears to have had some dubious connections and influence so that his chums could profit massively from his big scare.
Office philandering and cheating wife and family are indications of his moral turpitude, so would he hesitate at taking kickbacks in return for ministerial influence, I wonder?
Charles. Same with Neil Ferguson wasn’t it. His ruddy doom modelling scared Billy Bunta into locking the country down. Meanwhile Ferguson’s married lover travelled across London to him for a tryst or two. That would have put their partners, the children and themselves in mortal danger would it not?
Agreed!
Charles I think ….yes he has been gaslighting us all along and has been obedient to his ‘handlers’ (whose identities we may speculate upon!).
Was it power?….yes I think it was. He seems the type who would have been a rotten person to ‘fag’ for in public school!
Would he hesitate to take kick-backs? …..well I wouldn’t put it past any of them these days if it meant they could benefit personally and be given the chance to climb up the ‘greasy pole’!
I’m just thankful that he has fallen off Fortune’s Wheel at last ! A throughly egregious personage in my estimation!
Well said.
In at least one newspaper (news-my Aunt F***y) today, Boris Johnson is claiming that he did in fact sack Matt Hancock, whereas Hancock says he resigned and earlier reports stated that Johnson had said Hancock had apologised and the matter was closed. So what is the truth? My guess is that Johnson, the buffoon that he is, has seen that the whole affair might actually backfire onto his continued premiership is trying to change the story so that it looks better on him. As we all know he dithers on just about everything and cannot make a decision to save his life. Very definitely time for him to go as it will be better for all concerned…………
Surely Colin Hussey there is no difference between B.J. sacking Hancock and Hancock resigning. There has not been for yonks. That’s the way our ‘government’ works.
If enough people, from P.M. down to lowly lobby fodder, from press barons to lowly journalists, say he should go, he goes.
Good riddance anyway.