Monday 10 October 2011

Future casting...

So Mr. Fox will get away with it, so much for caring what the people think. When you look at it from the out side it just stinks, but when you look at it from the inside, and the "rules" nothing is wrong with having your friend tag along and give out cards with your name on telling people you are a "special advisor".

No money changed hands so that is ok. The cards, well that was naughty he has been told it was a bad boy, which makes that all go away. Security, well we cannot prove anything  so that is all ok, so really nothing wrong  then.

Now, in the political world the above doesn't look bad at all, but when your living in the real world the above looks like "Fraud".


fraud/frôd/
Noun:
Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
Synonyms:
cheat - deceit - deception - swindle - humbug - fake

Thus the card, it says he is, yet, he isn't, thus Fraud, dictionary definition.

The general public only have their dictionaries to go by in regards to definitions of words, yet it seems there is this entire other world where words mean something else.

It troubles me that we have Lawyers who are willing to fight for peoples rights on the wildest of ideas, and they win, we must remember that, they win. Yet we don't have any Lawyers who are willing to challenge thing of the idea that the dictionary definition of a word is... Thus I assume that when someone says "A" yet he isn't "A" he is "B" that is the basic dictionary definition of Fraud and thus could/should easily be jailed for such.

I see this as an easy win, because in order to show otherwise they need to redefine the word fraud as it is explained in the dictionary.

You can argue that he did not intend to deceive others, then why accept the cards because they must have been given to you. If he had them printed then he had the lie printed, and thus the definition states "A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities." is true.


If the card have been printed and handed to him, and of course he didn't read them, and thus question the fact that in is knowledge he would be lying to people because he knows he isn't a "special advisor", then the person who printed the cards is guilty, again the same logic, the dictionary definition is solid.

P.S. I know I got the Chris Huhne thing wrong, but I have heard from my friend its already been dropped, Chris has an agenda which is pretty special, he wants to bring the entire Tory/Libdem thing tumbling down, we have no idea why, but any man who can lie like him deserves a shot..

1 comment: