 |
| Whatever your political stripe: DEMAND TURDS ON 22nd MAY |
With the European elections little more than a week away,
the parties will be trying their hardest to secure your vote.
In the normal scheme of things, your friendly neighbourhood
blogger might be making a few posts hoping to tell you which way to vote. You
are wrong, because you should be voting for [PARTY NAME REDACTED].
That was a joke.
You see, in the early days of these pages, I could get away
with telling you to support [PARTY NAME REDACTED] and not [PARTY NAME REDACTED]
because my job was not in the public sphere. Now, however, I am employed as a
journalist, and ethics demand that I report neutrally, and that means
publishing no political opinion in either a personal or professional capacity
in the run-up to an election, especially when it comes to my opinions of
[POLITICIAN'S NAME REDACTED], who I believe to be the most enormous shit.
That's by-the-by because I have strong opinions on [POLITICIAN'S
NAME REDACTED] (nobber), [POLITICIAN'S NAME REDACTED] (bell-end) and [POLITICIAN'S
NAME REDACTED] (wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire) as well, which shows that I would be an
equal-opportunities political commentator given half the chance.
Of course, I can be equally scathing of the policies held by
[PARTY NAME REDACTED], [PARTY NAME REDACTED] and [PARTY NAME REDACTED] – not to
mention [PARTY NAME REDACTED] who should be denied the oxygen of publicity as
far as I care. Also, actual oxygen.
However, I love my job, and it would therefore be an act of
spectacular folly if I were to tell you for whom to vote.
So, being careful not to abuse my position of trust, I urge
you to use your hard-fought democratic right and get out and vote on 22nd
May for whoever the hell you like. Just as long as it's not for [PARTY NAME REDACTED].
Or [PARTY NAME REDACTED]. And especially not [PARTY NAME REDACTED].
11 comments:
Dear Sir, I wish to complain!
On behalf of the well-known 'REDACTED' party I believe you are showing your political bias...
yours, etc..
Brigadier Mavis Redacted, DCM and Bar(subsidised by the taxpayer)
Tunbridge Wells.
If you don't vote then you have no right to complain at what you get.
If you think they're all [EXPLETIVE REDACTED]s, then write "No suitable candidates" on you ballot paper. This at least sends a better message than just not bothering. Protest by all means, but do it positively!
In a national newspaper's online forum, I recently commented on a dilemma I was facing on May 22nd, as my ex-wife was standing as a candidate in my ward. I supported the party's policies, but it was my ex-wife for God's sake! I received a true gem of a reply which I shall share for you now.
"Well, once more in her box won't make any difference."
"You might very well think that, Scary, but I could not possibly comment."
--Francis Urquhart
"Whatever your political stripe: DEMAND TURDS ON 22nd MAY"
I believe that would make your political stripe...brown...
/coat
Why did the sound of something that appeared to be Gloria Estefan and then some young chaps discussing touring in a rock and roll band appear from nowhere and start playing when I opened this page?
Richard: If your speakers aren't switched on, seek help.
p.s. Don't vote for winner because you'll lose.
Boutros, boutros Ricky. No hay mal que bien no venga. Love, Glors
"...ethics demand..."?
Ethics don't demand, people do - by imposing their ethics.
An individuals belief of what is right or wrong is his or her moral principle. The believed correct "moral principle" (singular) is the ethic. That people identify with you and have the same ethic is now agreeing what is a right and wrong. Other right or wrong beliefs might also have this agreement between people. The believed correct "moral principles" (plural) are the ethics. So ethics are moral principles that will govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
To penalise others that have different moral principles to your own is enforcement control. Example: A media company has an ethic of impartiality and penalises journalist employees that publish biased opinion. This is demonstrating how ethics can take the moral high ground.
The media company moral principle can govern (control) the journalist's activities and behaviour. That the journalist agrees with the media company ethic is his or her same moral principle right. That the journalist disagrees with the media company ethic is his or her right to have different moral principle. Neither should undermine the others freedom to speak by imposing born out of belief ethics. Censorship or obscurement of opinion as redact in journalism would then not happen.
For the greater good of all, some people should get off their moral high ground horses.
Richard, Your hat is tuned to Panama City. Don't buy a Tyrolean one unless you want a yodelling tosser.
Dearest Jules,
Ethics demand that I inform you that Mr. Duck has long ago been hoisted by his own quasi-ethical petards - he has well and truly dismounted his high horse for good.
Now if only we could disengage him from that alluring Shetland pony of his, all would be right with the world.
Post a Comment