Month: June 2009

In my industry gifts and gratuities are strictly controlled with clear guidelines. Not only do valuable gifts corrupt at the very least they give the appearance of bias.

What I would like to know is how the PM justifies the gift of a vehicle? By what possible standard does he think that this is acceptable? Maybe he did, maybe he did not make representations, the question is not his actions so much as the appearance of corrupt behaviour. If a public servant accepted such a valuable gift he would be instantly dismissed. One rule for the goose and another for the gander.

US politics has been plagued for many years by the gross corruption that accompanies the lobbying process in Washington and ewe have more or less been spared the larger excesses here in Australia, not that lobbyists have not corrupted politicians but in the US it has become an art form and corrupt politicians are notable for the rule rather than the exception. This incident is an indication that we are travelling down the same slippery slope.

We should accept no lower standard of behaviour than we would expect of anybody else. Not only should politicians be above reproach but should have the appearance of being above reproach. Politicians should be subject to the same rules and every one else. I view the acceptance of such a valuable gift as bribery and corruption and is totally unacceptable. If it is private then he should have paid for it himself. It was for business purposes then it should have come out of his parliamentary allowance. The only acceptable path is for him to return the vehicle.

In any case I doubt the character of a leader who would allow himself to be so compromised to accept such a valuable gift. He is no statesman and he is no leader. He should make way for someone who has the self control to no be corrupted by his avarice.

There seems to be a recurring issue with judges making rulings on subjects that are beyond their understanding. I know there is the principle of the “reasonable man” and that this hypothetical “reasonable man” does not necessarily have specialist knowledge in a particular field. This is what makes the “reasonable man” a good forensic test. The problem is that a judge is not necessarily a good model for a “reasonable man”.

This court case and judgement  to anyone who has any understanding of how search results work (or the English language) for that matter wonders how much a “reasonable man” this judge was. The consequence for this judgement beggars belief. It is just one more example of how ignorant judges are failing the IT world.