oioioi wrote:
Gilly wrote:
Agreed, Vizier. It smacks of sacrificing some (even if it's posthumously) to satisfy those alarmed, so that others can carry on as normal.
Personally I see it as confirmation of a suspicion I hoped weren't true.
My distrust for politicians is known, even Maggie crumbled given the poll tax riots. What 'broke' me was 2 million ppl opposing the still current Iraq war descended on London. London knew it couldn't cope, the riot plod were all tucked away out of sight, there was no 'direct action ' ie. taking parliament; the subsequent decision by Tony Bliar was to ignore the biggest demonstration of any kind by a fucking remarkable margin and pay no heed to it whatsoever, from that moment onwards I was convinced that NO politician with ethics or morals could ever have influence.
The ONLY conclusion I could reach for any conscientious politician selling the idea of invading Iraq was blackmail.
As all this unspirals......
Yes, I agree. Still, so long as there's confirmation of a suspicion we (not the royal we) hoped wasn't true, woe betide the fools who would otherwise have labelled the suspicious as 'conspiracy theory nutters'. I sometimes wish these suspicions would all be disproved. I'd be happy to be thought of as gullible then.
In all honesty, I still hope Harris is proved innocent.
And I think I might be naive, because I still have some hope / faith, that somewhere in the background, there are people in positions of influence who are good and kind and honest.
