Saturday, 12 March 2011

Let him without sin cast the first stone

Jenny McCartney, a 'journalist' who writes comment pieces for the Sunday Telegraph, has an excoriating article on the behaviour of the Duke of York.

She questions that an Eastern European paid £3million over the asking price for the Duke and Duchess of York's Sunningdale home - to which I have to ask: So? Do not hundreds, if not thousands, of property transactions take place where properties are sold over the asking price? Have those transactions been queried, hinting at 'wrong-doing'? It is extremely easy to build a case against an individual that 'convention' dictates cannot be publicly refuted. Who amongst us could truthfully say that they would have been glad to be born into the Royal Family - a section of our society that is continually 'under the spotlight'?

Anyway, that is not the subject of this post. What did strike me was the following:
"Britain is respected as a country in which public figures cannot routinely be bought, and corruption is not endemic. Such a rare reputation should not be endangered lightly."
"Businessmen and crooks will always yearn to put British officials in their pocket........but they won't respect them, or Britain, afterwards."
Why this vilification of the Duke of York, when it must be obvious that our politicians have been 'bought' - if not financially then ideologically - more than likely with the promise of future earnings? Have not MPs been 'bought' with the carrot of higher earnings as Secretaries of State or Ministers of State, with the resultant neglect of their duties to their constituents? Why else would politicians agree to sell the right of their country to govern itself? Why else would politicians sell our status as "free men and free women" to what is no more than a foreign totalitarian state?

There are few in the world of journalism that can hold themselves up as one who actually writes what they believe. I would venture that the greater percentage write that which they do because it earns them money.

Unless, of course, Jenny McCartney can prove otherwise?

Well Jenny?


john in cheshire said...

WfW, don't you think that the Crown has also sold us to the highest bidder? The Queen could have refused to sign the treaties, if my understanding is correct, and she chose not to. So, Andrew may be in thrall to mammon, but Her Majesty has also betrayed us for whatever reasons. No one is exempt from culpability as far as I am concerned.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

jic: A difficult one this. HRH is 'advised' by her government and really has to 'go along with it'. She is not the ruler of our nation with autocratic control. She is nominally the leader of our nation - but isn't.

My condemnation is against those who 'advised' her so incorrectly!

Tarka the Rotter said...

WfW - constitutionally you are spot on. HMQ is obliged to accept teh adviice offered to her by the PM on behalf of the government. Her powers are residual and are, in practice, exercised by the PM. She can however advise and warn her PM. We do not know whether she did or did not over the EU treaties. I met the Duke of York once and he came across as a decent enough chap doing what must be a tedious job to the best of his ability. The media love a good anti-royal story and do there best to whip it up into something more than it is. They are only interested in selling papers.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

TtR: Thanks for your confirmation of my view re HRH.

Everything else you wrote is unfortunately too true!