Faceboook and ministerial expenses – our common enemy 1
8th Jun 2009
Hello lovely people
I have found a way to do exactly as I please and get away with it. It is so simple that I cannot believe I have never used it before.
All I have to do is point to someone who may be remotely associated with me, and say “They made me do it”.
I have excellent examples of where this has worked. The first example is the parliamentary expenses system in the UK. Ministers who are entrusted with the welfare of people were caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar. Their claims for expenses range from a church donation for a Battle of Britain memorial service (attending the service was part of the job) to a floating duck pond (essential for impressing constituents) to a bath plug (that one is obvious) to an antique fireplace (returning to grassroots politics?), and the saga continues. So far seventeen government ministers have resigned as a result of the expenses saga.
Why did these politicians claim expenses for items that one could only shake one’s head about? Because they could. Because they tried and got away with it. Because nobody was looking – or whoever was looking chose to turn a blind eye.
If those politicians were shop workers and they were repeatedly taking money from the cash register, would they have been able to apologise and pay some of the money back? Hardly likely. They would have been prosecuted and ended up with a criminal record. But these ministers blamed the nature of the expenses system for their actions. They never even considered their own moral compasses. Of course the public were justifiably outraged. Some of the ministers also appeared outraged and accused the press of blowing things out of proportion. Were they outraged because they were caught out, or because they realised to what extent they handed their personal control over to other people?
Then there was the volunteer charity worker who joined a charity so that she could help young people to get home on Saturday nights after they had been binge drinking. She felt so sorry for these children that she is making a career out of helping them because “it is not their fault”. They turned eighteen years old and were legally allowed to go to the pub and get drunk, and they used the opportunity. Apparently these young people had no proper guidance on how to drink alcohol, and that is the motivation behind the charity. The issue is not that the young people had a choice and the opportunity to act responsibly. They are not expected to act responsibly in the first place, and that is why the charity exists – to take them home safely rather than to teach them about self-control.
To be continued.
Please leave a comment if you feel inspired.
Love and Light
Elsabe
Keywords
Categories
