I’m not trying to be an apologist for the government. But something in the recent reports just doesn’t add up.
Take the story about Matt Hancock having shares in a company with links to the NHS. The best description I heard was that he had shares in his sisters company. The company had the right to apply for NHS contracts but didn’t. Put this is other terms – the police stop you in a 30 mph area for driving at 30 mph – and say “but your car could drive faster”. Maybe there is something more behind the scenes, but why go for a story with so little meat on it?
Then there is the story about David Cameron texting. He got turned down. Gosh. I always remember a famous cricketer talking about being prosecuted for smoking pot. He said it didn’t affect anybody else so why should he be prosecuted. I always thought “if it doesn’t affect others then nobody could prosecute you because nobody would know”. The only way these text messages are being talked about is because they were not secret private communications – they were shared.
Now DC has said Boris didn’t go ahead with an illegal plan to get Downing Street redecorated. Interesting when you really think about it – this wasn’t a bung for favours – this would have been a private company saving the taxpayers money (but still against the rules).
When you look at it you can believe one story getting traction – but there are so many non-stories one after another that you have to think this may not be a coincidence.
It made me think back to the way Jeremy Corbyn was treated. There seem to be a lot of similarities in the technique used.
Who is manipulating these smear campaigns? I dislike the attitude behind them more than I dislike the people they are aimed at.