If Fred and Rosemary West Had Separated, Would That Have Made Them Innocent? 7


BBC – Tessa Jowell splits from husband

The latest move in the Jowell scandal is the most cynical bit of media manipulation. Tearful Tessa, lower lip trembling, eyes welling, torn apart from the man she loves. Altogether now: Aaah! But wait – there is hope. The couple need time to “rebuild” their relationship. So they will get back together after all, in a happy reconciliation, probably just after the local elections.

Who could be so stupid as to buy this crap? Well, the BBC has been reporting it all morning without the tiniest touch of irony. Even the saintly Martin Bell was wheeled out to say that Tessa is now out of the woods.

This answers none of the questions about the money laundering and the corrupt payment she has already received, and is plainly a ploy to divert attention from the continual lies she has told about her involvement in the family finances. Her story yesterday wouldn’t stand up to a moment’s genuine scrutiny – so let’s divert the scrutiny.

It is as if Fred and Rosemary West had said: “OK, we’ve separated now. We’ll see if we can rebuild our relationship. So there is no longer any need to dig up the garden or the cellar.”


7 thoughts on “If Fred and Rosemary West Had Separated, Would That Have Made Them Innocent?

  • Chuck Unsworth

    It's an ongoing joke really, isn't it?

    I wonder what odds Ladbrokes will give me on a 'reconcilation'? As to timings, yes they'll wait for all the brouhaha to die down – probably three or four weeks I would think.

    Or is the delightful Tessa going to take him for every penny Berlusconi has got via the divorce courts?

    Nice to see all the cronies like Charlie Falconer etc lining up to express their shock and deep sympathies for the lovely couple (and her husband) over this personal tragedy.

    And they wonder why we're all so cynical? What kind of cynicism does this farce portray?

  • Michael

    I am willing to bet a ton on the following outcomes:

    a) The Sun catches Tessa and hubbie "meeting" regularly, but they claim it is part of a "reconcilliation" and that they should be given "space"

    b) She stays in her job in the cabinet

    c) Bliar goes (thank God)

    d) Labour lose the election (thank God – crooks the lot of them. What is it with power that converts a bunch of liberals to the worst sort of criminals?).

    Let's all look forward to a new government where ministers still hold deal to their ideals.

    Michael

  • Michael

    I am willing to bet a ton on the following (hell, England blew the Grand Slam):

    a) The Sun catches Tessa and hubbie "meeting" evening-wise regularly, but they claim it is part lof a "reconcilliation" and that they should be given "space"

    b) She stays in her job

    c) Bliar goes (thank God)

    d) Labour lose the election (thank God – crooks the lot of them. What is it with power that converts a bunch of liberals to the worst sort of criminals? Gives barristers a bad name…).

    Let's all look forward to a new government where ministers still hold dear to their ideals.

    Michael

  • Michael

    I am willing to bet a ton on the following (hell, England blew the Grand Slam):

    a) The Sun catches Tessa and hubbie meeting "evening-wise" regularly, but they claim it is part of a "reconcilliation" and that they should be given "space"

    b) She stays in her job in the cabinet

    c) Bliar goes (thank God)

    d) Labour lose the election (thank God – crooks the lot of them. What is it with power that converts a bunch of liberals to the worst sort of criminals? Gives berristers a bad name…).

    Let's all look forward to a new government where ministers still hold dear to their ideals.

    Michael

  • Richard

    Michael wrote: "Let's all look forward to a new government where ministers still hold dear to their ideals."

    I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you, Michael.

    After all, 1997 was the year things were meant to get better. For me, it was the year I became utterly disillusioned with politics.

    However, "Web of Deceit" by Mark Curtis <a href="http:// (www.markcurtis.info)” target=”_blank”> <a href="http://(www.markcurtis.info)” target=”_blank”>(www.markcurtis.info) helped put my disillusionment with modern politics in perspective.

    Blair was blackmailing the public at the last election: you may not like me, he said, but the Tories are far worse.

    For the British voter, it's Hobson's choice at the ballot box.

    A situation politicians ought to be made to feel is untenable.

  • Chuck Unsworth

    Agreed.

    Actually it's clear that most senior figures in all of the political parties hold dear to their ideals. It's just that their ideals are not what one expects from normal decent human beings.

    In politics there's always been a certain level of skullduggery behind the facades. But in the past some good came of the wheeling and dealing, and I suppose that was because some principled individuals were prepared to get their fingers dirty in the name of honourable causes.

    Today's politicos (and their servants) are almost exclusively involved in their own self-interests. Even political stances are determined by what's best for themselves or (at best) their cronies. This is so ingrained in modern political life that it is unlikely that this will ever change. These people are third rate managers, not inspiring leaders.

    One can only hope that the voting public becomes so sick of the repeated sleaze that it routinely throws governments out after four years. And it's time that newspapers and other media understood that their consumers are turning to other sources for real information. Newspapers have turned into comics, and news programmes are now cartoon shows.

  • Richard

    Chuck wrote: "Actually it's clear that most senior figures in all of the political parties hold dear to their ideals. It's just that their ideals are not what one expects from normal decent human beings."

    Very witty! It's one way of looking at it, I guess.

    I looked up "ideal" in my dad's 1960s "The Concise Oxford Dictionary":

    Ideal, a. & n. 1. Answering to one's highest conception.

    So, the highest conception the average politician has is self-interest, greed, and holding on to power.

    Doesn't say much about them as people, nor about the future direction of this country.

Comments are closed.