Proxy Servers

The report on the Brand/Ross/Sachs 'affair' raised a question on a blog:

But how many other BBC shows are set up this way? It would be interesting to find out.
04.04.09 - 8:50 pm |

Indeed. The proxy procedure is an 'interesting', if worrying one throughout the politico-media establishment, from quangos that offer hands-off control to government, to ringers brought in by the media to 'assist' with the agenda.

This one was just, if you'll forgive the term, a cock-up, if based on a flawed system created and run by market rate talents with the mindset of toddlers with the keys to the sweetie store.

However, every time a single, sympathetic 'journalist' is 'invited' on to 'comment' (did we ever learn more about the 'Tory mole conspiracy' regarding the Cabinet 'high on the hog' expense claims CDRs, as raised by a single source and then 'interpreted' on air to little challenge by an MSM commentator?) these days, I fear the age of objectivity is long gone.

'I've done nothing wrong'

As readers may know, I am an avid archiver of 'interesting' phrases, especially from our political masters.

They are usually notable for the subtle twist in meanings often to be found, as here, to the extent of being 180 degrees the opposite of what is usually suggested by the term.

I think this one has to go in now.

I think what was/is meant is not 'nothing wrong', but 'nothing yet illegal'. There is a difference of course, which most appreciate, though others, evidently may not.

Newsnight
Newsnight
BBC - Nick Robinson

BBC - McNulty defends expenses claims - I am sure he does. Interesting way of headlining it. I wonder if other media will be so... forgiving, or offer so much balanced 'context' on other historical breaches?

BBC - Andrew Marr - I am an avid archiver of 'interesting' phrases, especially from our political masters. I think this one has to go in now: 'I've done nothing wrong'. What was/is meant is not 'nothing wrong', but 'nothing yet illegal'. There is a difference of course, which most appreciate, though others, evidently may not. However, having just watched Andrew interview one of our best banking regulation brains, 'I'l/(We'll) have to look into that,' runs a good second, especially when looking into stuff for the last decade hasn't been exactly been... thorough. Still, nice to know the PM 'likes everything'. All things to all people might seem sensible political populism, but perhaps not such great leadership.

ps: is this response feature no longer active? It seems not to be updated.

Telegraph - Tony McNulty claims £60,000 expenses on his parents' home

Order-Order - McNulty Should Pay Back His Fiddle

Guardian - Tony McNulty faces call for inquiry over £60,000 allowances - Nothing like an 'urge', combined with some 'discomfort', to really get the wheels moving. NOT.

Telegraph - Tony McNulty's expenses fiddle raises questions over ministerial position

Just walk away, Renee

Seems I am not the only one who is thinking the number of 'laws' where the definitions of what is legal or not are vague at best is getting out of hand:

More nonsense laws

No one is doubting the severity of what is being talked about, and the need to address it, where possible, but I have seen a definition of manslaughter as the following and have no reason to doubt it:

"the unlawful but not deliberately planned killing of one human being by another"

And it's hard to reconcile that with a '...but it's OK if...' in the manner proposed.

Indy - New murder laws 'may send wrong message'