Politics again, but shorter this time.

[ouroboros13]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22035985

Why does seem familiar?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20008342

Oh yeah.

One rule for you, another rule for the little people, huh George?

Comments

[rpgdragon]

In the first case it was George Osborne's assistant who had organised tickets for the trains and had gotten into a dispute. George was unaware of it until after the whole thing had happened.
In the second case, it was not George Osborne's car, nor was he driving it. IT was a security vehicle that was picking him up, and thus solely its drivers responsibility.
Neither of these cases say anything about the Chancellor's character.

[ouroboros13]

So Osborne claims. I have some hesitation believing that and even if I did, Osborne has some responsibility for the attitude of his assistants. If his assistants are consistently thinking normal rules don't apply to the Chancellor, it says something about the attitude the Chancellor projects.

[rpgdragon]

Absolutely not. Regarding the train incident, the assistant in question took full responsibility for the matter. And it was a one off.
With regards to the parking incident, it wasn't Osborne's driver it was a driver assigned to him by the security services.
Osborne has no responsibility for the drivers actions at all (any more than say the president of the US would have over actions of individual secret servicemen) and it says nothing about his character at all.
Though on the subject of contempt for "little people" however its a bit rich of the left to get on their high horse when their MPs (labour ones) are demanding more taxpayer money to fund their dinner expenses http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9970282/MPs-complain-dinner-expenses-rules-not-generous-enough.html. One rule for them one rule for us indeed.