Hacker: You know what, Humphrey? When I look back and I think of the frustration I used to feel, when the likes of you and Bernard blocked or stalled what I was trying to do... And when I decided eventually that the only way to make things happen was to clip the wings of civil servants, and the wings, for that matter, of the other institutions that wanted to keep things just as they were... And when I then consider how we positioned our chaps above civil servants and concentrated power in No.10 - because, of course, we were elected politicians - When I think about how we used that power to force through certain policies, to respond swiftly, more dynamically to certain events, to act decisively, to act sometimes ruthlessly... when I think about all of that, and I then weigh up what it actually achieved, what it made better, versus how divisive it might have sometimes been, when I see that politicians did not become better people, they became worse... greedy, grabbing, sleazy... When I consider all of those things, and recall the rows that you and I had back then, in the good old days, about change... You know, I do rather find myself thinking from time to time that... this change we introduced, this sweeping away the old orders, without creating a more moral environment... well, Humphrey... perhaps... it wasn't quite such a good thing after all...
Sir Humphrey: No... Prime Minister.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Better the devil you know - Section23a Part9
(Buckingham Palace - Elizabeth and Philip sit at the breakfast table. Phil studies the tabloid newspapers, Elizabeth stares into space.)
ER: Philip?
Phil: Yes?
ER: This Parliamentary privilege... It was designed to protect politicians from the likes of us, am I correct?
Phil: Likes of us? Whatever do you mean, woman?
ER: Kings and Queens. It was designed to stop Kings and Queens from victimising Members of Parliament.
Phil: Don't ask me, woman. I'm no King, nor Queen, for that matter. Of all people, you should know that.
ER: I know, Phil. But, it was supposed to stop us, the monarchy, from banging them up, this act. Am I right?
Phil: Suppose so. Not really up to scratch on the whole thing.
ER: Of course. Nor am I really. But, I am pretty certain that that's what it was all about.
Phil: If you say so.
ER: Yes... and am I right in thinking that my MPs are currently thinking of using it, quite unashamedly, to protect themselves from the people? From the electorate? Is that right?
Phil: Wouldn't put it past 'em. Pretty rum lot, current crop. Wouldn't be surprised if they overstepped their mark occasionally. Seem to have rather a high opinion of themselves, in my view.
ER: But that was not what it was really meant to do, was it Phil? Protect them from the people?
Phil: I shouldn't think so. Although it wouldn't stop them trying, I'd have thought.
ER: No, I'm sure it wouldn't. They're not known for their forbearance, are they? But the thing is, if they are now thinking of using it to defend themselves from the people, doesn't that mean that they are out of touch with the laws, those very laws that shifted power from the monarchy, that slowly drained our influence in the first place?
Phil: I suppose so. Why? What are you getting at, woman?
ER: Well I was thinking that maybe 'the people' who are baying for the blood of these MPs might want to, perhaps, get rid of that particular law and, who knows, other similarly self-serving laws, now that MPs are using them in this way... the wrong way, in a self-serving way.
Phil: And your point is, dear?
ER: Well, I was thinking. This expenses scandal... Do you think that if people became so completely disillusioned with these 'elected' representatives, they might, I don't know, do something about it, cut them down to size, strip them of many of their powers and privileges, and we, the monarchy, could end up perhaps taking up the slack and being.... well, like Kings and Queens used to be... Much more important, more powerful, you never know, more feared and respected?
Phil: By God, why would you want that, woman? It would mean having to be responsible, having to make decisions, and having to make some very difficult decisions at that. The kind of decisions that we don't have to make right now. Is that what you want?
ER: I don't know, really. But I do get bored sometimes. I'm not really terribly stretched. And I just sometimes wonder what it would be like to play a more active role, to feel, once more, like a proper King or Queen. Like a Henry... or a William... a Charles? Ok, perhaps not a Charles. But, I don't know, perhaps... like an... Elizabeth?
Phil: Elizabeth? Elizabeth? What? As in, off with your head, Elizabeth? Have you gone mad?
ER: Phil! Really!
Phil: I'm sorry old goose, but, but, well... it just ain't going to happen. Not a hope in hell. You really might as well drop this one now. I mean, can you imagine? Us... you and me, absolute power? An active role? The boys, idiot Charles deciding to declare war on a whim... because... because some country hasn't adopted his carbon trading strategy? Can you see him? 'Un-Enlightenment Charlie'? Having to persuade all those other nations? Making the case for war? Can't see him addressing the UN, can you? Unless the UN had suddenly been commandered by elves and pixies.
ER: Phil, please!
Phil: I'm sorry, Goosey. I really am. But you must be dreaming if you envisage anything like that. It's a fantasy, a whim. There isn't a hope in hell of it happening. Influence? Really! The thought!
ER: Oh, well... I suppose you're right, Phil. I probably am dreaming. But... we all have to have our dreams, don't we? And, you know... it's just that you can't help wondering sometimes. You know. What if? That is all I'm saying. What if?
ER: Philip?
Phil: Yes?
ER: This Parliamentary privilege... It was designed to protect politicians from the likes of us, am I correct?
Phil: Likes of us? Whatever do you mean, woman?
ER: Kings and Queens. It was designed to stop Kings and Queens from victimising Members of Parliament.
Phil: Don't ask me, woman. I'm no King, nor Queen, for that matter. Of all people, you should know that.
ER: I know, Phil. But, it was supposed to stop us, the monarchy, from banging them up, this act. Am I right?
Phil: Suppose so. Not really up to scratch on the whole thing.
ER: Of course. Nor am I really. But, I am pretty certain that that's what it was all about.
Phil: If you say so.
ER: Yes... and am I right in thinking that my MPs are currently thinking of using it, quite unashamedly, to protect themselves from the people? From the electorate? Is that right?
Phil: Wouldn't put it past 'em. Pretty rum lot, current crop. Wouldn't be surprised if they overstepped their mark occasionally. Seem to have rather a high opinion of themselves, in my view.
ER: But that was not what it was really meant to do, was it Phil? Protect them from the people?
Phil: I shouldn't think so. Although it wouldn't stop them trying, I'd have thought.
ER: No, I'm sure it wouldn't. They're not known for their forbearance, are they? But the thing is, if they are now thinking of using it to defend themselves from the people, doesn't that mean that they are out of touch with the laws, those very laws that shifted power from the monarchy, that slowly drained our influence in the first place?
Phil: I suppose so. Why? What are you getting at, woman?
ER: Well I was thinking that maybe 'the people' who are baying for the blood of these MPs might want to, perhaps, get rid of that particular law and, who knows, other similarly self-serving laws, now that MPs are using them in this way... the wrong way, in a self-serving way.
Phil: And your point is, dear?
ER: Well, I was thinking. This expenses scandal... Do you think that if people became so completely disillusioned with these 'elected' representatives, they might, I don't know, do something about it, cut them down to size, strip them of many of their powers and privileges, and we, the monarchy, could end up perhaps taking up the slack and being.... well, like Kings and Queens used to be... Much more important, more powerful, you never know, more feared and respected?
Phil: By God, why would you want that, woman? It would mean having to be responsible, having to make decisions, and having to make some very difficult decisions at that. The kind of decisions that we don't have to make right now. Is that what you want?
ER: I don't know, really. But I do get bored sometimes. I'm not really terribly stretched. And I just sometimes wonder what it would be like to play a more active role, to feel, once more, like a proper King or Queen. Like a Henry... or a William... a Charles? Ok, perhaps not a Charles. But, I don't know, perhaps... like an... Elizabeth?
Phil: Elizabeth? Elizabeth? What? As in, off with your head, Elizabeth? Have you gone mad?
ER: Phil! Really!
Phil: I'm sorry old goose, but, but, well... it just ain't going to happen. Not a hope in hell. You really might as well drop this one now. I mean, can you imagine? Us... you and me, absolute power? An active role? The boys, idiot Charles deciding to declare war on a whim... because... because some country hasn't adopted his carbon trading strategy? Can you see him? 'Un-Enlightenment Charlie'? Having to persuade all those other nations? Making the case for war? Can't see him addressing the UN, can you? Unless the UN had suddenly been commandered by elves and pixies.
ER: Phil, please!
Phil: I'm sorry, Goosey. I really am. But you must be dreaming if you envisage anything like that. It's a fantasy, a whim. There isn't a hope in hell of it happening. Influence? Really! The thought!
ER: Oh, well... I suppose you're right, Phil. I probably am dreaming. But... we all have to have our dreams, don't we? And, you know... it's just that you can't help wondering sometimes. You know. What if? That is all I'm saying. What if?
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Equalities Minister, Harriet Harman...
"Having read yesterday's faintly amusing but rather pointless attempt to ridicule my equalities bill, it is probably a good time to outline some of the proposals that we are currently drawing up for that corner of the Internet known as 'the blogosphere'.
This government is duty bound to ensure that the equalities bill applies in equal measure to 'blogs' and to mainstream journalism. And here we would include the comments sections of those blogs. It is indeed here that some of the most ill-informed and bigoted political views are currently aired causing offence to more moderate and reasonable commentators.
This government will be expecting the moderators of the various blog sites to play a major part in ensuring that there is a balance within these comments section. A post relating to gender equality for example would be required to publish a suitable amount of comments with an unbiased perspective in order to ensure that less constructive, anti-social views were drowned out.
It is important that even in this relative backwater of opinion and policy formation negative and reactionary attitudes are not allowed to spread unchecked. Therefore the onus will be on the moderators to offer a balance of opinion, even in cases where none is actually available. We will of course leave it up to these moderators themselves to decide how they go about this, as it is not our intention to interfere. We also hope to see the introduction of ground breaking 'all-women comments sections' - especially in matters such as gender equality for example where the views of women are undoubtedly more pertinent and more poignant than those of other genders.
These are exciting times and we hope to cultivate an environment within the blogosphere where equality and freedom of speech can co-exist. And we look to a future where, if we are diligent, these same entities can, if you like, be 'Harmanised'.
And when it comes to freedom of speech finally let me add this: I am capable of tolerating this old chestnut freedom like the next person. But there's one thing we all know and one thing we should always remember: Freedom of speech might well have a place in modern Britain. However it can never and will never mean that you have the right to shout 'Vote Conservative' in a cinema. Or, anywhere else, for that matter.
By Harriet Hormone, Minister for Harmanisation.
(This post is sponsored by Harmany Hairspray - Giving you firm hold and long lasting control.)
This government is duty bound to ensure that the equalities bill applies in equal measure to 'blogs' and to mainstream journalism. And here we would include the comments sections of those blogs. It is indeed here that some of the most ill-informed and bigoted political views are currently aired causing offence to more moderate and reasonable commentators.
This government will be expecting the moderators of the various blog sites to play a major part in ensuring that there is a balance within these comments section. A post relating to gender equality for example would be required to publish a suitable amount of comments with an unbiased perspective in order to ensure that less constructive, anti-social views were drowned out.
It is important that even in this relative backwater of opinion and policy formation negative and reactionary attitudes are not allowed to spread unchecked. Therefore the onus will be on the moderators to offer a balance of opinion, even in cases where none is actually available. We will of course leave it up to these moderators themselves to decide how they go about this, as it is not our intention to interfere. We also hope to see the introduction of ground breaking 'all-women comments sections' - especially in matters such as gender equality for example where the views of women are undoubtedly more pertinent and more poignant than those of other genders.
These are exciting times and we hope to cultivate an environment within the blogosphere where equality and freedom of speech can co-exist. And we look to a future where, if we are diligent, these same entities can, if you like, be 'Harmanised'.
And when it comes to freedom of speech finally let me add this: I am capable of tolerating this old chestnut freedom like the next person. But there's one thing we all know and one thing we should always remember: Freedom of speech might well have a place in modern Britain. However it can never and will never mean that you have the right to shout 'Vote Conservative' in a cinema. Or, anywhere else, for that matter.
By Harriet Hormone, Minister for Harmanisation.
(This post is sponsored by Harmany Hairspray - Giving you firm hold and long lasting control.)
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
How to achieve equality - in nine thousand easy lessons
Lesson 6b - Try not to be economical with the truth
It is impossible to achieve equality unless you are impeccably honest and view facts objectively. If you allow religious or political inclinations to influence your judgment then you might end up seeing inequality where none exists and overlooking equality where it does exist. How is it possible to guarantee equality, if your application of the truth is unequal?
Consider this scenario: Harriet criticises David's Party because last year David and his colleagues voted against a bill designed to make MPs more honest. However she does not mention that John and Margaret, who belong to her own party also voted against it. What she is trying to do is make David's party look bad, without her own party also looking bad.
This is what some in Whitehall call being 'economical with the truth'. Harriet has given an account of events that is incomplete. And by doing so, she has in effect generated another form of inequality. This is because it is still generally accepted in Britain (at least for the time being) that truth is not something that you can bestow on some and withhold from others - just because it suits your beliefs or prejudices. It must be applied equally. Otherwise what you in effect end up with is something that people like Harriet often like to call 'discrimination'.
It is impossible to achieve equality unless you are impeccably honest and view facts objectively. If you allow religious or political inclinations to influence your judgment then you might end up seeing inequality where none exists and overlooking equality where it does exist. How is it possible to guarantee equality, if your application of the truth is unequal?
Consider this scenario: Harriet criticises David's Party because last year David and his colleagues voted against a bill designed to make MPs more honest. However she does not mention that John and Margaret, who belong to her own party also voted against it. What she is trying to do is make David's party look bad, without her own party also looking bad.
This is what some in Whitehall call being 'economical with the truth'. Harriet has given an account of events that is incomplete. And by doing so, she has in effect generated another form of inequality. This is because it is still generally accepted in Britain (at least for the time being) that truth is not something that you can bestow on some and withhold from others - just because it suits your beliefs or prejudices. It must be applied equally. Otherwise what you in effect end up with is something that people like Harriet often like to call 'discrimination'.
Monday, 8 February 2010
Post-Gordon planning
Conservative leader David Cameron has been responding to criticism of his lack of preparation for the aftermath of a general election. Commentators on both left and right have criticised Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne recently for lacking a clear coherent economic strategy in the event of 'regime change'.
Mr Cameron admitted that the Conservatives had been primarily "focused" on how to deal with issues caused by the general election, but that that did not necessarily mean that the aftermath was not properly planned for.
"There has been an immense amount of Conservative post-election planning, but we must accept that the post-election situation might well be different to the one that we are currently expecting."
Standing by his intention to rid Britain of an "arrogant, incompetent leader who has deceived his people and bled his country dry," Cameron hinted that 'regime change' was perhaps in itself sufficient justification for wanting to attack Gordon. He concluded: "But if people ask me about the morality of fighting Gordon, I will state once more: His is an appalling regime. And I will make no apologies for liberating the country from his great clunking fist."
Mr Cameron admitted that the Conservatives had been primarily "focused" on how to deal with issues caused by the general election, but that that did not necessarily mean that the aftermath was not properly planned for.
"There has been an immense amount of Conservative post-election planning, but we must accept that the post-election situation might well be different to the one that we are currently expecting."
Standing by his intention to rid Britain of an "arrogant, incompetent leader who has deceived his people and bled his country dry," Cameron hinted that 'regime change' was perhaps in itself sufficient justification for wanting to attack Gordon. He concluded: "But if people ask me about the morality of fighting Gordon, I will state once more: His is an appalling regime. And I will make no apologies for liberating the country from his great clunking fist."
Sunday, 7 February 2010
John Terry - Correction
In a 3rd Feb. post on John Terry it was suggested that Mr. Terry's private life was not simply his business. It was also that of tabloid journalists, proprietors and their readers, as well as that of publicists such as Max Clifford, The Premier League and, of course, the football supporters.
There was however a serious omission which we would like to correct. Mr Terry's private life is, of course, also the business of libel lawyers. Without these brave men and women, the private lives of celebrities would be incomplete. In fact the difference that libel - and of course divorce - lawyers make to the rich and famous and their cherished private lives is incalculable. It is safe to say that their greatest contribution to date, the super-injunction, is considered a 'must-have' item for these jet-setters - and that includes those simply coming to London to sample the wonders of our celebrity-orientated legal system
Sadly, it is not possible to amend the post in question to include the specific details of the business that the lawyers undertook in the John Terry case. Our learned friends have stated in no uncertain terms that whilst Mr Terry's business might indeed be their business, their business is most certainly not any of our business. And we might just add, we're bound to agree. Totally bound.
(Shaun, are we actually allowed to say all / any of the above? Please check.)
There was however a serious omission which we would like to correct. Mr Terry's private life is, of course, also the business of libel lawyers. Without these brave men and women, the private lives of celebrities would be incomplete. In fact the difference that libel - and of course divorce - lawyers make to the rich and famous and their cherished private lives is incalculable. It is safe to say that their greatest contribution to date, the super-injunction, is considered a 'must-have' item for these jet-setters - and that includes those simply coming to London to sample the wonders of our celebrity-orientated legal system
Sadly, it is not possible to amend the post in question to include the specific details of the business that the lawyers undertook in the John Terry case. Our learned friends have stated in no uncertain terms that whilst Mr Terry's business might indeed be their business, their business is most certainly not any of our business. And we might just add, we're bound to agree. Totally bound.
(Shaun, are we actually allowed to say all / any of the above? Please check.)
Friday, 5 February 2010
Best little whore-house in Westminster
Prime Minister Gordon Brown evoked the spirit of Margaret Thatcher today as he tried to repair damage caused by the expenses scandal.
He announced: "It is fair to say that, were Mrs Thatcher around today, she could reasonably expect to be a member of my Cabinet. And it is with her in mind that I state:-
"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we vote Labour."
The Prime Minister wept briefly then added: "This speech is brought to you by MPs-R-Us - Preserving traditions and keeping Parliament 'The Mother of all Whore-Houses'."
He announced: "It is fair to say that, were Mrs Thatcher around today, she could reasonably expect to be a member of my Cabinet. And it is with her in mind that I state:-
"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we vote Labour."
The Prime Minister wept briefly then added: "This speech is brought to you by MPs-R-Us - Preserving traditions and keeping Parliament 'The Mother of all Whore-Houses'."
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Careers Handbook
No.86 Member of Parliament
Why become an MP? The common answer is, "I want to give something back to the community." And for most MPs this means generously lavishing policies generated by think-tanks and focus groups on communities that want solutions to simple problems such as crime and anti-social behaviour. In certain instances policies might be the product of long cherished beliefs, although this is becoming less common nowadays.
An important reason for becoming an MP is of course the desire for power, though this is not always possible for those MPs who languish for most of their lives on the back benches. It is generally accepted that high office is best achieved through frequent displays of sycophancy. An ability to jettison one's conscience, or better still, to have it removed before entering the House, is prerequisite as only those who vote consistently with the government are in with a chance of reaching Cabinet.
Finally, what of the financial rewards? These can vary from the large to the staggering, depending on the individual MP's greed and selfishness. Anything from pornographic movies through to duck-houses and non-existent mortgages can be claimed on expenses as are any similar items that are essential to the MP in the day to day performance of his duties. A great perk is the freedom to undertake non-parliamentary employment. Many MPs are owned by multinationals, lobbyists and other organisations that simply seek a better understanding of parliamentary business. It is generally accepted that the vast sums they pay to the MPs have no effect whatsoever on their voting behaviour. This is because these companies are totally opposed to bribery, and probably have no idea what bribery is anyway. Therefore no significance should be attached to the commonly heard cry of lobbyists, as they approach Westminster, "I'm gonna buy me a Member."
After Parliament they can continue working in industry and commerce, but, as before, not in a way that is prejudicial to the parliamentary process. Parliamentarians, both serving and former, cherish the privileges that come with the job, and will do all that they can to protect them. And it is generally accepted that they are on the whole an honest bunch of men and women, except, of course, for those who are not.
Members of Parliament are well aware of the old and venerable institution that they serve and they will always strive to ensure that its standing remains above that of prostitution, drug smuggling and other ancient practices that have similarly stood the test of time.
Why become an MP? The common answer is, "I want to give something back to the community." And for most MPs this means generously lavishing policies generated by think-tanks and focus groups on communities that want solutions to simple problems such as crime and anti-social behaviour. In certain instances policies might be the product of long cherished beliefs, although this is becoming less common nowadays.
An important reason for becoming an MP is of course the desire for power, though this is not always possible for those MPs who languish for most of their lives on the back benches. It is generally accepted that high office is best achieved through frequent displays of sycophancy. An ability to jettison one's conscience, or better still, to have it removed before entering the House, is prerequisite as only those who vote consistently with the government are in with a chance of reaching Cabinet.
Finally, what of the financial rewards? These can vary from the large to the staggering, depending on the individual MP's greed and selfishness. Anything from pornographic movies through to duck-houses and non-existent mortgages can be claimed on expenses as are any similar items that are essential to the MP in the day to day performance of his duties. A great perk is the freedom to undertake non-parliamentary employment. Many MPs are owned by multinationals, lobbyists and other organisations that simply seek a better understanding of parliamentary business. It is generally accepted that the vast sums they pay to the MPs have no effect whatsoever on their voting behaviour. This is because these companies are totally opposed to bribery, and probably have no idea what bribery is anyway. Therefore no significance should be attached to the commonly heard cry of lobbyists, as they approach Westminster, "I'm gonna buy me a Member."
After Parliament they can continue working in industry and commerce, but, as before, not in a way that is prejudicial to the parliamentary process. Parliamentarians, both serving and former, cherish the privileges that come with the job, and will do all that they can to protect them. And it is generally accepted that they are on the whole an honest bunch of men and women, except, of course, for those who are not.
Members of Parliament are well aware of the old and venerable institution that they serve and they will always strive to ensure that its standing remains above that of prostitution, drug smuggling and other ancient practices that have similarly stood the test of time.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Live by the sordid, die by the sordid - Abridged version
(Two football supporters sit in a pub discussing the fate of John Terry, football captain, and his extra-marital affair.)
Melvyn: Bloody disgrace. As long as he does what he needs to on the pitch, I couldn't give a toss. What he does with his private life's his business.
Mart: Yeah. His business... Although then, you could say, its your business now.
Melvyn: Bloody disgrace. As long as he does what he needs to on the pitch, I couldn't give a toss. What he does with his private life's his business.
Mart: Yeah. His business... Although then, you could say, its your business now.
Live by the sordid, die by the sordid
(Two football supporters sit in a pub discussing the fate of John Terry, football captain, and his extra-marital affair.)
Melvyn: Bloody disgrace. As long as he does what he needs to on the pitch, I couldn't give a toss. What he does with his private life's his business.
Mart: Yeah. His business... Although then, you could say, its your business now.
Melvyn: How do you mean?
Mart: Well, its your newspaper; you bought it. So John Terry's affair is your business as well now.
Melvyn: Yeah, well it is now, I suppose.
Mart: And its the business of that newspaper.
Melvyn: You what? How do you mean, the business of the newspaper?
Mart: That's what the newspaper is in business for. To investigate stories like that. That's it's business.
Melvyn: Well, I suppose, when you put it that way.
Mart: And it's Max Clifford's business.
Melyvn: Wait a minute...
Mart: That's how he earns an honest crust. By getting involved in stories like this.
Melvyn: Yeah, but business. When I said business...
Mart: And its the Premier league's business...
Melvyn: Hold on...
Mart: Only a Premier League gets premier publicity, premier coverage.
Melvyn: But, but, I didn't mean it in that sense.
Mart: And it's the supporters' business.
Melvyn: What? Supporters' business? You can't say that. They didn't want to hear about his affair.
Mart: Which is why they didn't bother reading about it, did they?
Melvyn: Fair enough, so once it was out there, they did read about it. But even with all that, it doesn't automatically mean he deserves to have his private life investigated.
Mart: But this isn't any private life. This is a Premier League private life. That's why you pay so much for your season ticket and your football shirt. You're up there with the best of them. But even when you fly first class, you don't get to choose which passengers you fly with.
Melvyn: You what? Listen, I'm just saying that everyone deserves their bit of privacy. That's like the most precious thing you can have. Even more precious for someone who has so much publicity in their everyday life already.
Mart: Which is precisely why everyone wants a piece of the action... Because John Terry's privacy is... big business.
Melvyn: Yes. But that's doesn't make it right. Does it?
Melvyn: Bloody disgrace. As long as he does what he needs to on the pitch, I couldn't give a toss. What he does with his private life's his business.
Mart: Yeah. His business... Although then, you could say, its your business now.
Melvyn: How do you mean?
Mart: Well, its your newspaper; you bought it. So John Terry's affair is your business as well now.
Melvyn: Yeah, well it is now, I suppose.
Mart: And its the business of that newspaper.
Melvyn: You what? How do you mean, the business of the newspaper?
Mart: That's what the newspaper is in business for. To investigate stories like that. That's it's business.
Melvyn: Well, I suppose, when you put it that way.
Mart: And it's Max Clifford's business.
Melyvn: Wait a minute...
Mart: That's how he earns an honest crust. By getting involved in stories like this.
Melvyn: Yeah, but business. When I said business...
Mart: And its the Premier league's business...
Melvyn: Hold on...
Mart: Only a Premier League gets premier publicity, premier coverage.
Melvyn: But, but, I didn't mean it in that sense.
Mart: And it's the supporters' business.
Melvyn: What? Supporters' business? You can't say that. They didn't want to hear about his affair.
Mart: Which is why they didn't bother reading about it, did they?
Melvyn: Fair enough, so once it was out there, they did read about it. But even with all that, it doesn't automatically mean he deserves to have his private life investigated.
Mart: But this isn't any private life. This is a Premier League private life. That's why you pay so much for your season ticket and your football shirt. You're up there with the best of them. But even when you fly first class, you don't get to choose which passengers you fly with.
Melvyn: You what? Listen, I'm just saying that everyone deserves their bit of privacy. That's like the most precious thing you can have. Even more precious for someone who has so much publicity in their everyday life already.
Mart: Which is precisely why everyone wants a piece of the action... Because John Terry's privacy is... big business.
Melvyn: Yes. But that's doesn't make it right. Does it?
Monday, 1 February 2010
Culture and Entertainment News
The greatest joke ever written - Martin Amis has shown that even at sixty he hasn't lost his touch. In advance of his 12th novel, The Pregnant Widow, he has written what some critics are calling 'the greatest joke ever written'. In an interview to the Guardian newspaper today he claimed: "I am probably the biggest feminist since Norman Mailer. I have been a feminist as long as I can remember. Salman Rushdie showed me what to do. And it only took a day."
The joke was so brilliant and the laughter so intense that the interview couldn't continue. Although Amis did manage to squeeze out one last utterance as he left: "Dad always said that I was probably the best writer since Kingsley Amis."
Geeks bearing gaffes - Apple Corporation has pointed out that it is in no way connected to the apple mentioned in Genesis: The Garden of Eden. A spokesman said, "One is the quintessential temptation of man and has generated billions of gullible followers worldwide. The other is just a religious parable written long, long ago."
I Claudius - The estate of Robert Graves would like to point out to anyone who knows what a book is that the Apple iPad is in no way connected to Graves' historical novel. "The Emperor Claudius lived two thousand years ago and we still know of him now. What's more, his name might still be around in two thousand years time."
The joke was so brilliant and the laughter so intense that the interview couldn't continue. Although Amis did manage to squeeze out one last utterance as he left: "Dad always said that I was probably the best writer since Kingsley Amis."
Geeks bearing gaffes - Apple Corporation has pointed out that it is in no way connected to the apple mentioned in Genesis: The Garden of Eden. A spokesman said, "One is the quintessential temptation of man and has generated billions of gullible followers worldwide. The other is just a religious parable written long, long ago."
I Claudius - The estate of Robert Graves would like to point out to anyone who knows what a book is that the Apple iPad is in no way connected to Graves' historical novel. "The Emperor Claudius lived two thousand years ago and we still know of him now. What's more, his name might still be around in two thousand years time."
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Coming soon: A debate - "The rule of lawyers"
From the role and the legitimacy of the UN through to the power of super-injunctions, we will be considering the hegemony of law. We will be asking:
- Is this the age of the lawyer?
- Do we all now bow down to just one God: The Law?
- And do politicians who think government ultimately boils down to legislation create rods for their own backs?
Is it fair to say: Live by the law, die by the law?
(Shaun, please check there's nothing libelous in the above.)
- Is this the age of the lawyer?
- Do we all now bow down to just one God: The Law?
- And do politicians who think government ultimately boils down to legislation create rods for their own backs?
Is it fair to say: Live by the law, die by the law?
(Shaun, please check there's nothing libelous in the above.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
