Should these people, politicians, journalists, even be allowed to breed? Should we insist on castration as an essential qualification for the job?
âBetween themâ, yes, between them, for the politicians rely on the journalists to keep them in power, to keep quiet about their expenses profligacy, to churn out news articles slanting the mendacious laws they pass into an acceptable format for consumption by the general public and neither group care one wit about the causes they pretend to espouse.
Take the Guardian, that well known promoter of truth and transparency. It suited them to publish the Wikileaks collection of illegally obtained diplomatic gossip as though it was substantial evidence of government impropriety, yet housed within the Guardian walls was one Jackie Ashley, a woman who had been engaged in many late night conversations with her husband regarding their desire to suppress the truth, at least the truth as it impinged on her husbandâs sexual shenanigans.
Take the Daily Mail (far away, if you would please) which this morning is pleased to publish a disgraceful attack on the morals of a single woman who had an affair with Andrew Marr. The morals of Mr Marr, a married man who was not entitled to have an affair with anyone, single or otherwise, are glossed over. They claim that she is the âvillain of the pieceâ for failing to mention that she had taken another lover within her childâs gestation time frame.
âEven if it was âonlyâ one other, then that single, solitary man was the 50/50 chance the Marr family had to have preserved what amounts to a decade of normal family life … had the mistress only been honest enough to have mentioned it.â
Correct me if I am wrong, but Marr had a 100% chance of preserving normal married life â by remaining faithful to his wife.
Marr is apparently âa gentlemanâ according to the Daily Mail definition of âgentlemanâ â âaÂ DNA test, one that a lesser gentleman might have demanded from the outset, showed the child not to be Marrâs after all.â
Has Marr demanded a DNA test on all his children? After all research shows that in one child in five where the âhusbandâ is named on the birth certificate as being the legal father, they are not genetically related to the child.
Marr has three more children, children of whom he was happy to joke in 2005 on his official BBC biography that his hobby was âremembering his childrenâs namesâ â a witticism which has been removed from the current biography.
Those legal children are now grown up; his mistressâs child will be in a few years. All will be using Google to read the stories Marr has sanctioned about them. The Daily Mail tells us that âMarr may have made a mistake, but it was hardly one unique to married men.â Of course, neither was the mistake that his mistress made âuniqueâ. Â Then again, His Mistress didnât flog an exclusive to the Daily Mail, so no special whitewashing for her. His Mistress didnât decide to leave a paper trail through the Internet for her child to find, snidely detailing the many ways in which her Mother might have been a woman of loose morals.
The other Marr children must be so proud to have him named as their Father on their birth certificates; I shall laugh like a drain if they decide to have themselves DNA tested.
Meanwhile the media continue to debate whether that other hothouse of loose morals and shagging everything in sight, regardless of whether it is the same sex as you or not â the Houses of Parliament â should curb the means by which our judiciary contrive to keep all this from our sight.
The BBC continue to pay Marr Â£600,000 a year to give a pathetic imitation of âholding our politicians to accountâ.
It is a disgraceful farce. Â Never has the sheer hypocrisy of the media and the politicianâs mutual dependency been so cruelly exposed. Marr and Ashley should be fired, forthwith. I am indebted to Ms Ashley for my quote of the day:
âNow, perhaps, itâs time to shine the light on the one profession that has too often been able to work quietly, in the shadows, without full disclosure or scrutiny â journalism.â
We, at least, should be withholding our BBC licence fee until he is fired. I doubt that many of us buy the Guardian anyway.