Unacceptable but within the rules
So Gordon Brown, anti-sleaze crusader since 1983 2009, says Hazel Blears’ behaviour over her expenses is ‘totally unacceptable‘ although she ‘didn’t break any rule or the law’.
Unacceptable but within the rules. How does that even make sense? Where else in life does such a moral contortion work? Is it like competing in a chess tournament wearing only a jockstrap, for example? Starting an Ian Huntley tribute website?
Needless to say, it’s this kind of thinking that leads to horrors like hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Sure, bombing civilians is unacceptable, they said, but it’s done in the spirit, and to the letter, of the rules.
Posted on May 20th, 2009 at 10:59am under Brown, New Labour, Sleaze
Apparently Blair’s war crimes broke the rules but were acceptable, so maybe there’s a ying-yang symmetry to their politics. Or maybe they’re just untrustworthy bastards – either way.
No-one can explain to me how the invasion of Iraq was legal. I think that the logic is “we’re nice poeple, how can we have broken the rules?”
I think that the logic is “we’re nice poeple, how can we have broken the rules?”
That’s right. It is exactly the reasoning Hazel Blears gives to defend it. She claims everyone in the Cabinet is a decent person, therefore anything the Cabinet has done is fine.