Careful what you wish for

What a perfect revenge on the arch snooper

It comes to something of an unpretty pass when it all boils down to media tips, 'outed' 'snitches' (interesting precedent in that not wholly less than inflammatory word when your 'report' ends up plastered all around. I presume these guys were willing to give up their names for their 15 minutes of flame), etc, when... and it may have been mentioned and I missed it... surely the police and other record holders know and have records of exactly where she was, is and doubtless will be.

I can see the last might need to stay a secret, but surely this might all have been dealt with easily and above board without recourse to the very dubious systems that are hanging our hapless home sec and her rep out to dry?

Were that some other 'friendly' media as keen to stay on top of a fairly clear case of foot in... well, across the wrong threshold, when so obviously looking at best a case of multiple laws for an ever-growing multiplicity of 'standards' between those who tell us what to do, and what they do themselves.

Thank you, and good night

Tonight from the Newsnight House of (Economic) Horrors

'Oh, what a tangled web that's spun, when saying all, and nothing, is how one, or others, have their fun.'

Ah well, rules were made to be broken.

But why do I feel my twins should still view the Menendez brothers as a bad example?

What good is a moral compass when the political one points any way the wind blows, and the media one is aiming straight through the bottom of the barrel, the cellar floor and is halfway to the PRC by now.

Apologies, for anything (from governments to employee behaviours) are not worth much more than such weasel words as 'unacceptable', 'aren't good enough' or those cited above, plus too many more.

Especially when we are in an era of no accountability despite responsibility still bringing many, index-linked rewards.

It wasn't me said it; it was Harvey

As a consequence of a series of blog posts that at first didn't make much sense, I have ended up at an explanation, namely an interesting journalistic technique.

Basically, if you want to say something but don't want to be held responsible for it, you create 'a character'.

Letter to the governor

Quite cute (agree with much), but a little ethically dubious.. and a tad morally corrupt?

And dangerous when it gets mis-reported elsewhere. That of course, is mainly down to those who chose to share only part of the story, but having got to the source I do question the wisdom of the notion or the objectivity is suggests beneath the surface.

Of course support for any agenda can be found, and shared, serving whatever messages one wishes, but at least by being a real person you can attribute some opinion to fact.

This is of course not my view, but those of my friend Harvey here. So I think I might use this again.

Lies, damn lies. What pols say. And are allowed to.

I wonder how many people will get to read these follow-ups to widely broadcast claims?

Ch 4 Factcheck - Prezza pulls his punches & Hazel's claim in shreds

These are some of the highest officers of the land at best allowed to mouth incorrect information, or plain lying.

This country's moral compass has some serious problems at the top pulling it off course. With little (bar this brief attempt) check from our media.