Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
I suggest you take another look at the title of this thread. It is specifically about the Paterson case. So the deflections I have been referring to certainly are off-topic.
I am giving credit to the government for being conciliatory about this but I don’t accept they did anything wrong. They did what they did for the best of reasons and to see justice done and failed. But they did not attempt to ‘let him off the hook’ as far as I can see. Delay the suspension until an appeals mechanism was established, yes, but there is nothing to suggest that an appeal would come to a different conclusion. This was just about a fair system of justice, and it was right to suggest that Paterson was given this right of appeal given the particular issues he raised.
|
Even if the government’s motives were 100% honourable and unimpeachable in any way*, the execution was so horribly inept that Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition would be close to committing treason if they didn’t put both boots in, repeatedly, for at least a week.
Government is a political process and the politics at play here have been inept. I mean, Sid of the Sunday League type inept. This was a failure of judgment on such an astronomical scale, Dr Brian Cox was already scripting the 3-part landmark series, until he got into a bidding war with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson because the government’s screeching u-turn was so spectacular he wants to incorporate it in his next film.
I’ll admit, it was so eye-watering that at first I had a hard time believing it could have been signed off at the top. But the jig is up. The high heid yins of the British cabinet actually thought this was a good idea. And that’s why a great many Tory MPs won’t even defend what you seem to think was a minor scrape that ended in lashings of ginger beer in the rose garden with no real harm done.
You really need to learn to read the room.
*they aren’t.