@RichardJMurphy insists that Richard Brooks must stop writing for Private Eye

Courageous States would stop top civil servants selling their secrets to the private sector.

That does pretty much screw over Richard Brooks then, doesn\’t it? I mean, there he was, senior tax inspector and off he goes and starts selling that knowledge to a muck raking magazine. This is selling secrets to the private sector is it not?

And John Christensen is fucked as well: wasn\’t he an advisor to Jersey or summat who then used the knowledge he gained there to turn?

It\’ll be an interesting place this Courageous State, won\’t it?

12 thoughts on “@RichardJMurphy insists that Richard Brooks must stop writing for Private Eye”

  1. But Ritchie is right; the Courageous State defintiely WOULD stop civil servants “selling their sectrets” etc.

    Unless of course it decided that this was the sort of secret it liked being sold. You know, secrets about people the Courageous State doesn’t like and has deemed EVIL.

    And the Courageous State would certainly be courageous enough not to bother with any particular law it or its predecessor had written that might theoretically prevent it from doing what it wanted. And it would be corageous enough not to give a flying fuck what anybody thought about it.

  2. I know we all think RM is very amusing, but when you actually read what he believes it is terrifying.

    The only consolation is the fact that in order for any of this to happen other people would have to take him as seriously as he takes himself.

  3. May I withdraw my final remark on the Courageous State.

    I do not think it is as nearly a courageous as it would like to believe it is and is in fact very concerned not to offend general opinion. For whenever the tax debate moves on to individuals, popular people or left -wing celebrities, well then the Courageous State (in the form of Ritchie) adopts a scruplulous silence.

    So, should HMRC apply the letter of the law to cricket clubs? Don’t look to the Courageous State for an answer. Should special (and quite explicit) exemptions be given to Usain Bolt or other Olympic athletes or the players of the Champions League finalists? Again, the Courageous State doesn’t have an opinion, doesn’t even seem to have noticed that the exemptions have been granted. And if a politician of whom the courageous State approves (Ken Livingstone) is caught with his tax return around his ankles? Well, the Courageous State will openly and shamelssly forbid you to mention his name because “it isn’t about individuals” (after all, he isn’t Bill Doswell or Dave Hartnett).

  4. Steve>

    Mussolini isn’t the best comparison. Fuhrer is more apt. Murphy doesn’t just advocate fascism, but old-school Nazism as the specific brand.

  5. I’d love to play chess against Murphy. He seems congenitally incapable of thinking more than half a step ahead.

  6. Murphy Richards > what is the point? We all know any opponent’s move you don’t like will be subjected to moderation and your opponent will be denounced as a troll and barred from playing against you.

  7. Matthew>

    I imagine playing chess with Ritchie would be a little boring. He may not be much cop at thinking ahead, but he’ll insist on making your moves for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *