Another day, another faux-fact gloss job.
This time, it was the turn of inveterate liberal sock puppets to plunge in with a proxy hatchet job via an eye-wateringly pricy court case to gain judicial support for two out of three points about which nobody frankly gives a toss.
Now, without a doubt, this Government is propelled by egregious shizzle-jockeys whose arrogance is surpassed by only their incompetence. And this week’s judicial review found that Secretary of State, Matt Hancock had acted ‘unlawfully’. Cue breathless clamour for his resignation for ‘law-breaking’ and cries of shame for his ‘illegal’ acts.
Yes, the excuse for posting contract details 17 days after the deadline was somewhat pisspoor and nothing more than the latest airing of the now-familiar lazy lurch to COVID as the catch-all offering for instant exculpation that has become the favoured first refuge of the scoundrel. How much work is really required to fill in a template and press <upload>?
So simple, even a cabinet minister could do it.
But this is not illegality under criminal law, so any notions that Matty-boy is about to be shanked in the yard can be swiftly dispelled.
This is ill-discipline over process, a staple of UK Government departments, which preceded not only COVID but also the Boer War. At worst, this impacts on governmental reputation though in fairness, this administration has little rep worthy of salvation.
On the facts though, conflating this with ‘law-breaking’ is akin to placing a runner who steps out of lane into the same bracket as a drugs cheat.
Being a day late with a mortgage payment is unlawful as per contract law. Do it, and you will receive a salty letter reminding you of your responsibilities, but you won’t be dispatched to the Scrubs in a white panel van. Even the claims that The Cock had ‘refused’ to publish were elastically overstretching an already tenuous point. And even if he had, that would not have been a ‘crime’.
In other news, clowns from a not dissimilar self-righteous liberal coterie are hurling shade at Prince Charles for his hospital visit to his father, Prince Philip. To them, this is a cut-and-dried case for a collaring and a prosecution, but far from the visit not being illegal, it is specifically allowed under the COVID regulations.
In both cases, loons don’t let facts get in the way of a rabid agenda. They layer on the crap in the hope that it might stick because they either have no bona fide arguments or it is too much effort to build a case. If these hacks could present a case that £billions had been handed out to cronies in exchange for over-priced contracts that delivered nothing, we would all be applauding like the (NHS) clappers.
This case was never about that, but read through the sludge and guff that the truth-twisters have propagated, and you would never know.
Instead, we get overblown court cases, with overstated claims, and a political opposition conspicuous by its silence. Why are they not pursuing these matters in Parliament?
Amazingly, a gaggle of depressingly inept MPs did attach themselves to the court case instead of speaking up in the House, which was as bewildering as it was unsuccessful. The judge ruled that these gimps had no standing in the court, which was arguably the only titillating point that made the case seem remotely worthwhile.
The case was however a microcosm for all we need to know about the terminal decline of our current political class.
What a colossal waste of money when Starmer could have taken them to task in the Commons. While they may well feel that the crap fits, nobody is wearing it.
But the salient take-away is as with Trump. If you do not take them cleanly, you do not take them at all because you then end up damaging the credibility of both your cause and the system.
That is where we are, and that is why the current descent into the political abyss shows as much chance of being arrested as Matt Hancock.