Politicians lying and getting away with it

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:40 am

I think it is very strange that politicians constantly lie and get

away with it. Think about all the lies Tony Blair has said during the

course of the Iraq war, not to mention lies concerning internal

matters....he has not been forced to leave office despite trying to

deceive the British public. The pressure from the media is not

enough...most politicians manage to shrug off this pressure without

having to face any real consequences...

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:53 am

Hi green elephant.

I think it is because many of us, me certainly included, are a bit apathetic. We struggle to keep up with life and so see all the wrong around but just get our heads down and slog on. To fix some of society's problems seems to me to require attending very boring meetings sometimes commandeered by less than wonderful people and to learn how to communicate with people who would lie ; and keep our temper when we feel like slugging someone!!!!I believe I would be a better citizen, more powerful, if I had had a good education - but this could be me deceiving myself.

I remember when in Britain, Edwina Currie made mention of the dangerous aspect of egg eating years ago when the Salmonella issue was breaking and she got the sack from her post!! If you are in the politics biz I imagine you are a sitting duck if you ARE honest. Sad..

I think Tony Blair has advisors around him that have I guess as much power as him in a way and I don't think he operates alone.

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:34 am

I'm not just talking about Tony Blair really, but all politicians. Take a look at this:

A dossier was published on 24 September 2002 which claimed that (this was one of the claims) "the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so". The dossier was supposedly based on the intelligence agencies' assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. However, David Kelly (one of the weapons inspectors) claimed that this information was added by Alasdair Campbell. The government has been officially cleared in relation to Kelly (by its own ‘Hutton Inquiry’), except for Lord Butler, who admitted that the Government's presentation of the intelligence evidence had been subject to a degree of exaggeration. However, many people still aren’t satisfied with this conclusion, and Kelly ended up dead (he supposedly committed suicide but the circumstances have been called suspicious by many, i.e. the paramedics who found him etc etc).

Concerning the government’s efforts to fabricate reasons for the war, it is also worth considering the case of Lord Goldsmith, who initially argued that the war was illegal, before inexplicably changing his mind. Accusations of pressure from the top of the government are supported by the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, who claimed that her department had consistently argued against the legality of the war, but that Goldsmith suddenly reversed his opinions.

Also, in a similar vein there is the example of Colin Powell who addressed the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to argue in favor of military action in Iraq. He claimed that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.", but went on to retire in 2004. He appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" and stated that "It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading," and “for that I am disappointed, and I regret it.". He has called his misleading testimony before the UN a ‘blot on [his] record’. This undoubtedly echoes what has been happening in British politics surrounding the war.

In February 2003 there was another UK briefing on Iraq’s supposed WMD. It has turned out that much of the paper’s content was taken from a PhD thesis – a thesis that hypothesized about the existence of WMD but the paper presented it as fact.

Another document (the infamous ‘Yellowcake forgery’), was relied upon by the US administration, as it claimed that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. The document later turned out to be fake, and documents have since emerged showing that the US were aware of its dubious nature, but used it anyway.

No weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq.

The supposed links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have remained equally elusive.

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:43 am

The reason why it bothers me so much at the minute is because I found this website the other day:

mo-truth[dot]blogspot[dot]com (replace [dot] with real dot)

there is a really interesting documentary on it which states that there currently isn't a law to prosecute politicians for manipulatig the truth, they are trying to get a law passed

I couldn't believe that there isn't a law like this already...it seems so fundamental

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:12 am

Yes, green elephant. I remember feeling surprised/hurt/disgusted when the news said the WMD document had been " sexed up" to ...well my take is..to give the case for " going in" more credence. I have a family member very interested in politics and I think she'd need medication/an armed guard to protect her sanity if she stepped up to the plate as she seems to want to do. My favourite expression for how things like this makes me feel is " I feel like rubbing myself with a cheese grater". But my feeling is not enough people want to step into the muddy water, in their busy stressful lives and deal with things. Actually, after all the war protests we had I believe less in people power, or rather good things take a looooong time to be pushed through and there are periods of seeming failure in the long haul: sufferage,exposing crooks in high places,outlawing slavery etc.... I'm in the place where I fight the battles I feel I can take on and keep an open mind to support others who are more involved than me.

I bet there would be other like-minded people somewhere who are thinking like this green elephant and who would have good answers for you i.e. pressure groups etc.

It seems in this world it is a hard seach for Truth. So many sides to the arguments.

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:26 am

I know (sigh). Did you manage to take a look at the documentary?. I believe that we have the right climate at the minute to push for some reform in the law (like that suggested in The Misrepresentation of the People Act), a lot of people are completely fed up with all the dishonesty, corruption and manipulation which seems to have dominated our politics for quite some time now. Thus, I feel quite optimistic (but not deluded! I realise how difficult it will be to get the law passed in reality). I have tried to start a discussion on the webpage I posted above so if you have any suggestions I would be grateful for the contribution :yh_blush

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:46 am

green elephant;555065 wrote: The reason why it bothers me so much at the minute is because I found this website the other day:

mo-truth[dot]blogspot[dot]com (replace [dot] with real dot)

there is a really interesting documentary on it which states that there currently isn't a law to prosecute politicians for manipulatig the truth, they are trying to get a law passed

I couldn't believe that there isn't a law like this already...it seems so fundamental
I don't know why you're surprised. I'd be surprised if such a law made it past the campaign-promise stage. After all, it's those self-same lying politicians who you're trusting to make the law.

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:53 am

No, haven't yet had chance to absorb the web page - it looks cool though and I certainly will, right now I have to spatula myself up from this comfy chair and away from the screen. I will look out your discussion. I had an experience I would rather forget(!) of trying to get help for a family member and boy I didn't enjoy it. More power to the C.A.B. but they aren't what you'd feel are adequateley equipped or strong enough. We have the wonderful law in this country of course, but only if you have money, or sooooo little that you qualify for Legal Aid. Yes, I've been down the route of " writing my M.P,." and having a face to face talk in his surgery - oh boy what an eyeopener as to how the " movers and shakers " do things - they don't!!!!!

Keep up with the old optimism

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:55 am

well perhaps if the documentary filmaker can get enough public support then politicians will be pressurised into taking it seriously at least

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:59 am

back again briefly......this feels like slightly deep waters ( can you HAVE slightly deep...)to me, but I'm taking bite sized chunks. Did all the people in the first vid. know they were being filmed? Can you spoon feed me and point me in the direction of the discussion - apologies if it's very very obvious.:-3

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:02 am

Yeah, I think the website can get a bit convoluted!

I haven't fully navigated it yet myself, but a pretty good intro seems to be this link --

mo-truth[dot]blogspot[dot]com/2007/01/beginners-guide-to-ministry-of-truth[dot]html (again, obviously [dot] = .)

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:19 pm

When I had been rumaging around online a year ago I found one in the U.S. that I really liked the flavour of :Sunlightfoundation.com. I find politics to be a difficult subject because I don't have a lot of patience, don't suffer fools gladly and haven't much appetite for opinion airing as opposed to a genuine desire to bring about change.

I think the previously mentioned site is not really my cup of tea, if you will pardon me saying this. It feels a little like wandering into a new town without a map and I only want to get to one shop and out again.

I am aghast at the tone we use about our politicians though. I think it's perfectly in order to call someone on a broken pledge and we all remember the J. Paxman interview don't we with Mr Howard ? Screamingly funny in a way. I was shouting at the T.V. " Yes, go ON he STILL isn't answering you!" but, and I find the same sneering, vicious tone used towards celebs, I think we go too far in our attacks as if we want to destroy people. I read a book on modern politics in Britain and it was stated would-be politicians these days go rather into journalism if they fear they may have something they don't want coming out about their past. We have problems to address, definitely but if we compare our freedom with some systems in operation now in other parts of the world we should exercise a little restraint or restrain others. Or c an you be too " nice" for this world?

Surely we as a nation are beyond the speechifying though. It's moderately interesting listen to but we don't swallow it- we really want answers not assurances.

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:33 pm

Hey there, sorry about late reply I've been up to my neck in DIY today! I'm not actually sure if the MPs know what they are being interviewed for...I get the impression they do. I've posted comments at the bottom of the 'Beginner's Guide' page under the name 'whatswrongwithworld'...someone called 'damfino' has started to argue with me. Basically, most people I discuss this with believe that it will be impossible to prosecute a politician for lying because 'lying' is so difficult to define. Also, a lot of people seem to believe that it is necessary for politicians to lie/limit public knowledge when it comes to national security etc. Another problem people have with the implementation of this law is that it would be difficult to find an impartial jury and it would be overused. Have you got any ideas?

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:03 pm

Hmmmm, ideas? Not ones that you could fire at the problem and solve it.

We people living in the U.K. know how to carp and complain but the fixing is harder.

Personally I am cynical, even if someone were to promise a better future I wouldn't believe them - it's easier sometimes to not trust then you can be right when the baddies surface!

If you try as a member of the public to delve deeper into issues it can be frustrating. I come up against strange attitudes and a lack of motivation of people to " go the extra mile" or bother themselves to break with the minimum effort of doing their job and actually take the effort to do something extra for a person to make a change happen or to let them find out information. Trouble is I can see it from their point of view; they maybe had a headache that day, or hate their job or have been in it too long. so, although I know where they are coming from ( I have been the same - if I'm having a bad life day I want the world to go away not expect extra of me) I feel like this country is a bit like a badly run secondary school at times, needs improvement, but how? Things didn't spring out of the soil this way, bit by bit the good intended was chipped away at. Perhaps a good journalist can have the power we need?

Wish I could encourage you more. I know, I'll speak to my daughter she has passion about the subject.

The internet could be a great, great forum for change. I remember once I was being driven scatty by having a nasty long break in our connection going down at home and the ISP who i'll not name now because the problem is past, had a huge lot of posts about them and their own technicians came on and posted pretty straight answers quite humbly really and didn't honestly offer a huge improvement on the way but a small explanation of how things were going to be somewhat fixed and how they saw the problems their end. I really respected that they identified themselves. Didn't stop some customers frothing at the mouth at them though!! Leaving aside the very obvious blogs of speechyfying we could get from some politicians the internet could help us link with the honest, decent ones perhaps.

What DIY have you been doing?

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:15 pm

I also think the internet will make it easier to gain support for change because people don't have to leave their homes to have a public voice. I've only recently started to write my opinions on the internet and I've been taken aback by the passion and knowledge people have about politics and current affairs. I really hope the documentary filmakers manage to make a change because it is so discouraging when you can't change events even if you feel passionately about them...this happens too often.

As for my DIY escapades today...well my family visited and decided I needed a few more shelves up etc so we all mucked in!

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:51 am

Thought I'd just get back to you with my daughter's comments on trying to expose lies in politics properly and her response was " MY...they'd ALL be locked up!!"

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:38 am

Haha! She's probably right, although I think it would prevent politicians from lying in the future...in my view this would be the primary benefit of the act

sharkie · Post by **sharkie** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:00 am

Hey, I've just gone through the thread and checked out the website you posted...interesting, very interesting. Could this law be used to prosecute Blair over the Iraq war?

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:08 am

Welcome to the discussion Sharkie!I'm not actually sure if the law could be used to prosecute Blair over the Iraq war...there are sometimes problems when trying to apply laws retrospectively. Nevertheless, the law would probably prevent something as disasterous as the Iraq war from happening again (given that it was 'justified' with lies). Actually, just taken another look at the act and I don't see why it couldn't be used to prosecute Blair..although, it wouldn't make a difference to his career since he's about to retire.

Burlesque · Post by **Burlesque** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:33 am

Blair has lied about things other than the war – just look at Monday’s post on the Ministry of Truth blogspot (I would post a link, but Forum Garden won't let me until I've made more than fifteen posts!).

He lied about how he voted on the fox hunting issue, and he repeatedly claimed the bill had been blocked by the House of Lords when it hadn’t. This is exactly the kind of trivial, unnecessary lying that destroys public faith in politics.

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:55 am

I know, it's terrible! Just watched the interview with Peter Bottomley, he's very critical of the No.10 gang. Have you got any ideas as to whom they should approach for support of the 'Misrepresentation of the People act'?

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:11 pm

This looks interesting. I don't suppose the course is open to members of the public though.

http://www.nujtraining.org.uk/page.phtm ... g=&strand=

Burlesque · Post by **Burlesque** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:47 am

Thanks for the link, it looks like a great course – shame it’s £120 for non-members!

I’ve been reading the debate on the Power Inquiry website recently (makeitanissue.org.uk) – lots of insightful commentary on Lords reform and issues of parliamentary democracy.

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:27 am

This also looks interesting. .http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=147.

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:35 am

I've copied the " makeitanissue" site to myself to read at home. Am in tired mode so text is swimming a bit!

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:40 am

Hey you two! That's a very interesting site, sharedfastlane...they seem to have a similar sentiment to the MoT page. It's good to know that people who care about preserving democracy actually manage to change things for the better:)

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:41 am

Sorry, didn't mean to blank you - had an early start for work so was running on empty by mid-day and got busy.

Do you see yourself getting involved where you live, or perhaps you ARE? My husband has always been keen and is currently attending around a meeting every 6 weeks or so if he's well enough. He's quite a patient guy and " likes" people in general so has made comfortable relationships down the years. Personally I could only bear it if I had a specific knotty problem. I'm a " let's find out if I can get above a few levels and get a satisfactory answer to this" and then move away again kind of person.

If I were looking to quit keeping my head down and actually try to have an effect on things I'd be quite picky about who I would sign up with, I'm quite suspicious of ANYONE who would want to tell me they have fashioned the best way to do things. I read things from Private Eye once in a blue moon, budget won't stretch to mags,and love it when they can use their legal power and money to get justice for an individual against large companies. I want something in the centre; not being too fringe, so touched with " drop outs" ( I was one at 18) and not being too far right as to despise and misunderstand the poor.

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:58 am

I feel the same way, I'm usually reluctant to ally myself with any particular movement simply because I'm very indecisive and not particularly dogmatic when it comes to issues such as these. I can never bring myself to fully support a manifesto because I always feel that I'm accepting things I'm not convinced of just for the sake of belonging to a group etc. I'm interested in the Ministry of Truth because they are exposing a fundamental gap in the law

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:34 am

Yeah, I'm fed up with our 2 horse race in this country and they have it the same it seems in America just now. I feel guilty, as a woman, not voting but the last 2 times I haven't. Some changes seem to take decades to come, but at least they do come! I so agree with you on the " toeing the party line" front. How can a person " be " , for instance, Labour through and through? I suppose it's not about having your equal say so much as rooting our corruption though and the snidey ways of politics where the decent folk who go in to it to change things for the better and help people are dwarfed or outwitted by the other players. Traditionally, coalition govenrments are weak though , so they say.

What paper do you like to read? I like the Guardian but I read a comment somewhere once on having " a Guardian reader mentality" and am not sure therefore that I am cool to do this. I used to like the Times, but the Editor changed.

What do you think of Michael Moore? He scares me. I would feel suffocated to know about corruption that I alone was powerless against or ignorance that needed correcting and I couldn't do it. I would hate to know what he knows but that's his path I guess, allowing for possible exagerations and personality failings on his behalf. I would just feel suffocated to know of corruption that I alone couldn't expose and get fixed or ignorance in the public arena that I couldn't help or even just what could happen to someone who was prepared to put their head above the parapet. Guess we have to carefully pick our battles or we'd burn out later; or something would give. They do say " they again" that there is a dearth of volunteers in the political meetings and other community meetings in general as people are too tired out by their work/time managmement and daily chores/family commitments to come forward and that increasingly it is the retired folk who keep filling the bill.

Is there any politician you wish you could have a coffee/water/walk with?

Burlesque · Post by **Burlesque** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:53 am

I’ve often thought about getting involved in politics, I just can’t imagine making it my whole life (and I partly disapprove of the notion of career politicians). I’m willing to lend my support to individual causes that appeal to me, such as the Ministry of Truth, but I find it hard to identify strongly with any of the major political parties. Of the three, I’d be most drawn to a rehabilitated Conservative party: it seems to be re-branding itself as a Green Party for people who care about more than just the environment.

I would only consider going into politics once I have enough experience to feel that my opinions carry any weight. While it’s lamentable that so few young people are politically engaged, I don’t think it’s any bad thing that pensioners dominate local community meetings: as you say, other people just don’t have the time, and those who are retired have so much to contribute!

For pure entertainment value, I’d like to have coffee with Boris Johnson, as he would e bound to say something amusing

I enjoy the Guardian’s arts pages, but find its political commentary too woolly. I prefer the Telegraph to the Times, but most of the time I read the Economist (easier to carry around with me!)

I only recently got round to watching Bowling for Columbine: I thought it was an interesting documentary, but I felt little sympathy with Moore himself. I found him unnecessarily confrontational at times, but I suppose that’s necessary to generate dramatic conflict. I do think documentary film makers are in a position of great power: they have the ability to strongly influence the way we see the world (Al Gore’s film certainly seems to have persuaded people about the dangers of global warming).

What I like about the Ministry of Truth is that even if the bill doesn’t get passed, the documentary should encourage people to think more seriously about the issues of accountability and transparency in government. There’s a new draft of the bill up on the website, by the way: mo-truth.blogspot.com/2007/03/misrepresentation-of-people-act-mk-2.html. I’m a little wary of the fact that they are allowing recklessness without intent to count as an offence equal to malicious deceit, but at least disqualification from running for office is no longer a mandatory punishment¦

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:59 am

I'lll have a look at the Telegraph. Don't think I could digest the Economist though.

I worry that young people are put off politics by the reputation key figures have. I think they feel somewhat ignored but if they were at the table more then their interests could also be thought of.

I have always found our class system in this country to be divisive. I don't understand really how the two sides can be reconciled, although it happens more these days than days of yore I guess. I have no money and none in my family and Iwent to a disaster of a school, I can't honestly hate those who DO come from families with pots of the stuff and have already attended a school which will set them up with all the right contacts, but the help that was supposed

to be set up to help children from poorer backgrounds get a first class education seems to not expand at much of a pace and the schools in my location make me sad, really sad, they don't seem any better than those in my day,. I just expect things to improve but as always money is given as a reason for standards slipping owing to not enough extra support teachers; and I read parents should unite to demand improvements but I think some parents feel excluded from the picture at the Secondary School stage. It doesn't feel like an even ground.

green elephant · Post by **green elephant** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:05 am

I agree, sharedfastlane. Young people shouldn't be daunted by politics but should be encouraged to get involved - it is important that they realise they can make a change. Have you heard about the school lottery system? I think it is only used in certain areas but it basically means that final year primary school children are placed in their local schools at random (as opposed to being able to choose the school they want to attend) so as to lessen the problem of parents bying houses close to a certain school, house prices going up and excluding lots of potential students. I was lucky because my local comprehensive school happened to be quite good but I know lots of people who had no choice but to attend a bad school simply because it was the closest to them...it shouldn't be so hit and miss.

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:26 am

Yikes.......the Lottery system sounds an awful solution to, admittedly an awful problem. I have known of people giving their child's Grandparents address, purporting to be where the child lives, to be considered for a good school. Speaking of lying; when I was visiting schools, I have 4 children now aged 15 to 24,, I was asked once by a " good" school if that school was to be my first choice and I lied and wasn't very pleased at that but if I'd said "No, you are my second" , my child would not have been considered for a place.I read a book by the now resigned Head of Ofsted, Chris Woodhead written I think soon after he had left the Post He seemed to have a lot of sympathy, if I remember correctly, (it was 3 years ago),with the pressures teachers are under and , whilst not damning his whole office , could see the pitfalls of the the system. He is now Professor of Education at Birmingham University and seems a little bruised by what he went through. He's here at www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,148 ... e_continue. I can't honestly work out if he is trying to recover from his maligned position in his previous job; or just being honest. It sounds a bit irresponsible to wish the system to collapse, but sometimes new is better than trying to restore something rotting from within. I feel for politicians who are lambasted in the press for electing to send their child to a private school. "I " say, what kind of a parent would they be if they knowingly sent their child to the school on the corner if it had less to offer than they themselves received as a scholar? Of course a free decent education for all is to be applauded but the reality is ....some schools are not places anyone in their right mind would either attend or work at. Home schooling is a choice for some.

Burlesque · Post by **Burlesque** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:35 am

Thanks for the link to the article – it’s interesting to see that Woodhead is now chairman of a chain of private schools! Having been to both public and state schools I’ve seen the difference, and you really can’t blame parents for wanting the best for their children. My mother was a teacher, and has been a school governor for many years now: she’s seen the Labour government swamping primary schools with red tape and bureaucracy, even to the point that the local head master actually had a nervous breakdown!

What worries me almost as much as the school system is the pensions fiasco perpetrated by Brown. I was reading about it on the Ministry of Truth site the other day (http://mo-truth.blogspot.com/2007/04/br ... stuff.html), and found a good article about it in the Times by William Rees-Mogg (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 599770.ece):

“The desperation with which he has fought to prevent the publication of these papers is a sure sign that Mr Brown knows how damning they are¦ At every stage there has been prevarication and concealment¦ The damage that Mr Brown has done to the pension system was done by stealth — there appeared an attempt to conceal at almost every stage.

That is not criminal, but equally it is not transparent. It would be cynical to suggest that this is just the normal practice of politics. As a consequence some £100 billion has been drawn out of the pension system. However one thinks that huge sum might have been distributed, it means that many millions of people have lost money, and that tens if not hundreds of thousands are likely to have imposed on them an old age of poverty.

sharedfastlane · Post by **sharedfastlane** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:53 am

Hey Burlesque,

So, this is PRIVATE pensions that have been, in a sense, devalued? The message has been going out for a decade or so now that we must not rely on a state pension alone to provide a living for us when we retire. The notion has even been floated that the State Pension cannot be thought to exist for ever. I got the sense though that the idea to wean people off the idea of a State Pension lost heat when we had one or two scandals such as The Mirror Pension part vanishing and the shock that rightly caused. I am not very comfortable with the aspect of news reporting that condenses the issues down into a damning headline when exposing people. " If " we are all members of the same human race, supposedly roughly aiming for the same things , I'd prefer less of a judgement day style of finger pointing but of " honest " evaluation of why bad decisions were allowed to be made and a concerted effort to avoid pitfalls in the future. I think truth is a shy little violet that gets trampled on when a person is attacked. If my character is insulted in an aggressive way and in front of others, I defend it and the important query would , I think , get lost in the quagmire of the fight. Having said that, I think I side with many in that I would put Politicians near the top of the list of being in a profession I would be least likely to trust and as being, for the most part, very skilled at lying and trying to patronize members of the public.

One off-putting thing I have read is that the very people who have a little extra from a works pension, not enough to be way above needing support, often are just a few pounds above the cut-off point for getting help so find their extra income having to pay for what others get free. Discouraging. But when I read the projections of how much a month people should be putting aside towards their old age I am staggered. Many people can barely get by on what they need to spend for THIS year never mind go without even more so they can live it up after retirement.