Rank Hypocrisy.
Should these people, politicians, journalists, even be allowed to breed? Should we insist on castration as an essential qualification for the job?
They have between them afforded themselves the right to engage in eugenics, to decide who can have sex, who can breed, who can live, who can die.
‘Between them’, 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 husband’s 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 ‘villain of the piece’ for failing to mention that she had taken another lover within her child’s gestation time frame.
“Even if it was ‘only’ 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.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but Marr had a 100% chance of preserving normal married life – by remaining faithful to his wife.
Marr is apparently ‘a gentleman’ according to the Daily Mail definition of ‘gentleman’ – ‘a DNA test, one that a lesser gentleman might have demanded from the outset, showed the child not to be Marr’s after all.’
Has Marr demanded a DNA test on all his children? After all research shows that in one child in five where the ‘husband’ 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 ‘remembering his children’s names’ – a witticism which has been removed from the current biography.
Those legal children are now grown up; his mistress’s 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 ‘Marr may have made a mistake, but it was hardly one unique to married men.’ Of course, neither was the mistake that his mistress made ‘unique’. Then again, His Mistress didn’t flog an exclusive to the Daily Mail, so no special whitewashing for her. His Mistress didn’t 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 – the Houses of Parliament – should curb the means by which our judiciary contrive to keep all this from our sight.
The BBC continue to pay Marr £600,000 a year to give a pathetic imitation of ‘holding our politicians to account’.
It is a disgraceful farce. Never has the sheer hypocrisy of the media and the politician’s 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:
“Now, perhaps, it’s 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 – journalism.”
We, at least, should be withholding our BBC licence fee until he is fired. I doubt that many of us buy the Guardian anyway.
-
April 27, 2011 at 10:26 -
Nobody comes out of this with any credit. Except perhaps his wife who took him back?
-
April 27, 2011 at 10:44 -
-
April 27, 2011 at 10:45 -
Indeed…
-
-
-
April 27, 2011 at 10:27 -
No one should even have a television licence, then we might see the back of the BBC and what it represents. My television and licence were both terminated a couple of years ago. Life without television is far more rewarding. No more brain washing.
-
April 27, 2011 at 10:39 -
Ahem, what’s this should be witholding the TV license fee ?
-
April 27, 2011 at 10:54 -
“. I doubt that many of us buy the Guardian anyway.”
No need to, when they publish their bile and bulls**t for free on t’Internet!
-
April 27, 2011 at 11:06 -
…..and then the BBC kindly broadcast it for them.
-
-
April 27, 2011 at 11:01 -
Well here we have at least one super injunction which should never have been considered – even by Marr’s own admission.
How many more are there ?
How did the BBC think his position as their Inquisitor in Chief could be reconciled with his own sordid behaviour ?
Double-think on their part – as usual.
-
April 27, 2011 at 11:05 -
It would come as no surprise if Marr quietly disappeared from the screen and airwaves, and after a discrete period, a small notice to the effect that he had ‘moved on to pursue other interests’ appeared somewhere. However, the arrogance of the BBC lefties is such that they may consider one of their own immune to the standards of public conduct they expect of others.
It’s hard to see how Marr can ask a politician trying to evade straight questions, “Minister, are you trying to conceal something?” without half the country falling about laughing.
-
April 27, 2011 at 14:24 -
No chance – what happens is they get the offer to go off and front documentries about subjects they have stuff all knowledge on. Ho hum, situation normal in beeboid LaLa land.
“We get from time to time people saying you’re biased in favour of the Labour Party. Every time I ask people – show me a case of that bias, explain to me where we got it wrong and why what we said was so unfair – they seem to be unable to do so”,
Andrew Marr May 11th, 2001.
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”,
Andrew Marr
-
-
April 27, 2011 at 12:23 -
Harsh but fair.
Send ‘em along for the snip
And don’t let ‘em give any lip
And as for the Snotty
Use snips that are grotty
And snip him from toe to his hip -
April 27, 2011 at 12:52 -
My most recent blog post on the BBC’s part in this:
So here we have at least one Super Injunction which it appears should not have been imposed – I reiterate, by the subject’s own admission. It’s the injunction which has brought him – as an interviewing journalists – within reproach, not his affair.
My point is this: Marr proferred his resignation to the BBC – he recognised correctly that this was a resigning matter. They responded with clemency and refused to accept it. Good for him. Good for them too.
I have no judgment on how good the man is to do his job because of an affair. But how was the BBC’s leniency rewarded ?
Marr went out and got a Super Injunction and gagged them (though other news outlets were the target.)
Or is it the case that the BBC were in cahoots with Marr and cooperated with him in doing this ?
I strongly suspect so. They could have forced him to resign without breaching the injunction if they were unhappy with the restrictions that he’d enforced on their industry. They didn’t. Therefore we can conclude that they must have approved of his position.
So much for purity of journalism at the publicly funded BBC. And now that we’ve seen one – how many other Super Injunctions have been imposed that conflict with democratic process ?
-
April 27, 2011 at 13:08 -
It was interesting that someone mentioned the biological drive to spread the genes as widely as possible yesterday. He didn’t actually quote The Naked Ape or The Selfish Gene, but they explain why the drive has evolved. However, knowledge of the likely consequences should be enough to act as an override after marriage.
Years ago I talked to someone who knew Burma in the colonial times. The tradition was that Burmese women would take their role as a wife very seriously, but if the husband committed adultery it was unwise for him to sleep without hiding all knifes… -
April 27, 2011 at 16:30 -
There are 29 super injunctions according to McGuire (spelling) of the Sun
-
April 27, 2011 at 22:19 -
Anna wrote:
neither group care one wit about the causes they pretend to espouse.And I was going to correct it to ‘whit’ until I realised there was indeed no wit in either party!
-
April 28, 2011 at 05:20 -
One might be tempted to forgive Marr if he was more of an individual and a live human character like the late Alan Clark, instead of a tedious whiney preachy self righteous metropolitan ‘elite’ PC anti-free-speech Stalinist sh1t.
-
April 28, 2011 at 17:33 -
Sociopaths are a plague across humanity. I say sterilize them all so that the cycle can be broken.
-
April 29, 2011 at 11:49 -
I suspect the Mail’s definition of “a gentleman” is a man they pay a substantial sum to in return for a story.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }