http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15360827 I had managed to avoid most of the 'hoo-ha' surrounding Dr Fox and his 'friend' but did notice this statement and thought there were some good points in it about the current climate in the British media. I'm not condoning the man's conduct for a moment but he does have valid points about the way the media conduct themselves.
He might have a point but I don't want to hear it from that ****. He was happy to drag his 'close friend' around the world, being paid for by rich bastards, to take part in arms deals with dodgy foreign governments and investors. He's got no right whatsoever to pontificate about the morality of the press.
The man's a prick. Ignore any sexual element to what he's done and examine it from a purely professional point of view. What would happen in most professions if you took one of your mates with you into confidential meetings and paid their expenses for business trips with the company account? Add in the suggestion that your mate may have been using the opportunity to make money from your clients as a result of these meetings and I don't think many of us would still have a job.
The people that did pay for it? Fox was representing his party to those people and he basically stole from them.
It happens in the business world every day though where business men will use every contact they have to further their businesses and make as much money as possible. This is no different.
As I said in the original post, i'm not condoning his behaviour, but I feel that the media is like a starved pool of sharks and just go bat-**** whenever something happens. The whole media just adopts this desperate style stance and attempt to make everything much more important than it actually is. It's truly beyond me why anyone would want to put themselves in the public eye these days - you have to be cleaner than the Pope just to get by.
That's not what he was doing and it's massively different due to the possibly national security concerns. If the guy was legitimately there as an advisor, then it wouldn't be a problem, especially if he'd have gone to the trouble to get the appropriate security clearance.
No, he isn't, he's German - there is a difference, look it up. ... In his 1996 autobiography Salt of the Earth, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) revealed that he was a member of Hitler Youth when he was 14 years old. The disclosure is not unexpected since during World War II, membership was mandatory for almost every teenage male in Germany[citation needed]. However, in a May 2009 trip to Israel, Benedict's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi told reporters that Ratzinger was never in the Hitler Youth, actually being in the Luftwaffe as an air force assistant.[12] According to the Pope's brother, Monsignor Gregor Ratzinger, Josef was automatically placed on the Hitler Youth membership rolls on turning 14, as was required by law, but "did not attend meetings."[13] In 1943 Ratzinger was conscripted into the Flakhelfer, teenage boys who assisted the crews of Luftwaffe antiaircraft guns; he eventually deserted and made his way to the American lines.[14] The Ratzinger family, according to those who knew them, were very religious and hated the Nazi regime.[15] As for the *****philia... well I guess you'd know.
Totally agree. This is basically the bottom line of our politics. It seems that the electorate has no control - despite the democracy in which we live. Voting seems to be futile, when the politicians ( of all persuasions ) appear to be 'in it together' - to use one of their popular phrases---- but with scant regard for the benefit of the rest of us. So, as Jack says - if it's not a financial burden to me personally who gives a sh1t.
If it wasn't paid for by the taxpayer, you should be asking who did pay for it and what they expected in return.
Like I said in my post - we have either no control ( or at best, exteremely little control ) of our fate when it come to matters relating to the money in our pockets - how on earth can we have any control of who does what for whom etc. I feel that, with limited individual influence, the pragmatic view of things is that as stated by Jack.
So we shouldn't care that the Secretary of State for Defence may have been unduly influenced? Seriously?
Thats the problem with theses twats though Just because it appears as if it doesnt affect you financially or otherwise BOOM, youre ****ed Look at the situation at the moment its affecting us all, but we all didnt create it
Well - I don't really want to get into a deep political debate. I am sure that opinions would be divided - and probably equally on ALL sides. But an honest sort of answer to your query is, in its' simplest terms, NO. However there are a whole host of influences from all over the world that messes with British politics ( and, of course Britain is very much a puppet of the USA - especially matters relating to defence ) I just wish that Britain, and its' politicians would concentrate on internal matters first - before trying to save the world - or at least where the USA say where there is oil............All of this sort of thing impacts on the money in my pocket - which is what politics really means to about 99.9% of us -hence the simplicity of my reply to JB
Thing is though most of the time its personal, but the cosequences are felt by the people even things like immigration are more about benefits to the politicians, and it gets better as it acts as a deflection or point of blame
