I don't know if it's spin; if it is the whole of the media seems to be complicit. Every time you hear about the Home Secretary's claim for adult movies as expenses they make it clear that they were not watched by her, but by her husband, who is employed by her and trousers £40,000 a year.
The veracity of this might be a job for an investigative journalist, although she might claim that, whilst in the same house at the time the movies were being played, she herself was not watching but working on some new scheme for restricting our individual freedom, with more ID cards or CCTV or whatever.
But the point is, I don't care. She does not need a subscription to Sky Movies for her job (Mr. Speaker, has the Home Secretary seen the latest movie with Jennifer Aniston?) and I don't want to pay for any of her family viewing, regardless of taste and of who was watching at the time.
Lastly, and it should scarcely be necessary to say this, she it was who applied for this to be paid for by the taxpayer. She it is who must take responsibility for her employee (in this case her husband) who has been flagrantly abusing a position of trust.
It really, really isn't enough to say she didn't see the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment