Week 20-08-15 Archive

To return to the main site please close this window.

CORBYNISTERS?

Spare a thought for the agony of incomprehension of those people who wallow in the shallows of politics - the Champagne Socialists

These are are part of the so-called social elite; wealthy denizens of North London and other suburbs whose lavish entertaining in their multi-million pound homes revolves around the pretence of being Labour supporters

Their motivation for claiming to be socialists is not so much support for Labour ideals - they don't really know what those are - as dislike of what is indeed their natural party, the Conservative Party

This attitude is based on their rejection and even hatred of Thatcherism, which they developed when they were University undergraduates and have never matured enough politically to grow out of

They discovered what they believe is socialism when they became the willing victims of Blairism, not realising that he was as much a Tory as Margaret Thatcher, whom he openly admired

Now, they are confronted with the awful fact that their party play thing, the Labour Party, is in very real danger of actually becoming a truly left socialist party under Jeremy Corbyn, with real socialist aims

Will they become Corbynisters, or will they put their hands up to having been complete idiots and vote for the party which has done the most for them


YOU CAN READ ALL OUR PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED
ARTICLES ON OUR ARCHIVE PAGES


CHILCOT - BRING IN THE DPP

A great many people have found themselves having to get used to a word hitherto virtually unknown to them, and certainly not in common parlance

Maxwellisation is the term used to describe a policy adopted after Mr Justice Forbes ruled in 1969 that comments in a Department of Trade enquiry had "virtually committed the business murder" of former Daily Mirror proprietor Robert Maxwell

The Government of the day decided that, in future, anyone being criticised in an official enquiry shall be given prior notice of what is to be published, and have the right to add their own comments in advance

It is this policy that has brought about the farce of the now 6 year old Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war

What is actually going on? None of us knows. Is it simply that people need time to compose their explanation or defence of adverse comment? Or is that the enquiry is actually redacting such comment in the face of pressure from the accused, for example threat of legal action

Whilst the Government is in a hard place to do anything as it is not democratic to interfere with an official enquiry, surely the time has come for it to say that Chilcot must now present his report without further delay to avoid increasing the risk of cover up

If this is unconstitutional, then at the very least Chilcot should be obliged to deposit all documents with their original criticism with a third party, such as the office of Public Prosecutions, whether or not those criticised have yet added their arguments

The Government should certainly consider repealing that original decision to allow people who are criticised to have advance sight before publication

All properly constituted enquiries should publish and be damned and then face the due process of the law if a person has been unfairly or incorrectly maligned. Otherwise, what is the point of an enquiry in the first place?

If those criticised are to be co-authors, it is pointless

It is worth noting that, whatever his bluff and counter argument to that original report, the DTI was absolutely spot on when it described Maxwell- who stole him employees' pension fund - as unfit to run a public company, whatever Mr Justice Forbes ruled


All items on this page may be reproduced, in full or in part,
but please credit Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.