The Independent on Sunday carries an account of the friendship between Liam Fox and Adam Werrity, as part of its coverage of the corruption allegations being levelled against them. Tucked away towards the end of the story, 5 paragraphs from the bottom, comes this intriguing paragraph:
During the general election campaign last year, Fox's home was burgled. His laptop, mobile phone and car were taken, although no sensitive documents were stolen and there was no sign of forced entry.
Intriguing not because it is new information - the incident was well reported at the time - but because it bears no possible relation to the rest of the article. Between two paragraphs continuing the story of the Fox-Werrity relationship comes this wholly disconnected paragraph. It doesn't fit, doesn't continue the story, and sits very oddly indeed. Now why, I wonder, would the IoS see it as important to remind us all of this incident?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The retreat of liberalism goes on
As communism seemingly disappeared from view at the end of the 1980s, in a sudden and unexpected blow-out, there was plenty of triumphal...
-
As communism seemingly disappeared from view at the end of the 1980s, in a sudden and unexpected blow-out, there was plenty of triumphal... -
Hubris, it seems, comes to everyone in time, even apparently invulnerable and all conquering media magnates. Or so it must seem to anyone o...
-
#200218907-001 / gettyimages.com George Osborne doesn’t strike me as a particularly emotive or soft-headed politician, but ev...
5 comments:
Isn't it supposed to show that since no sensitive documents were taken, there is no paperwork in existence to suggest a company was registered at the address?
If that is indeed the aim of the paragraph - and it's a reasonable suggestion - I can only despair at the inability of the Indie's journalists to make that clear. A bit of re-wording would have done the trick nicely.
Could it be that it's a analogy for how lax Fox may be with his own security considering that there wasn't any forced entry? Or possibly that the Indy's trying to say that the fact no "sensitive" documents were discovered amongst the stolen items proves Fox doesn't take his work home...but does take is home to work?
At the time of that incident there were wildly unfounded and obviously entirely false rumours that rather than this being a simple burglary, the theft was committed by a man that Fox had hired to perform some work for him while his wife was away. During the course of this, or perhaps more likely shortly after, Fox fell asleep and was victim of the theft, but chose not to disclose the full details out of embarrassment at his mistake in hiring such an untrustworthy gentlemen.
The Sindy may have raised the incident in its piece this weekend to draw a parallel with the Werritty affair Fox has become embroiled in. Once again Fox has displayed poor judgement, although in this case it appears he was not paying for the services Werritty performed over the course of several years.
One feels sorry for the only cabinet minister so far to have resigned from the coalition government. Faced with accusations of wrongdoing, David Laws took the decision to come out and tell the truth then honorably face the consequences. Fox should now come out and do the same; clear up this whole mess and resign.
Of course, the way Laws was lauded for his decision will have been cold comfort to him in the months since as he has watched his former cabinet colleagues get to grips with the business of government. He is repeatedly assured of a great political future; perhaps Fox, of limited ability by comparison, feels that coming out with the full truth now and going would leave him irreparably damaged, and thus the only option is - as we're seeing - for him to cling on with all his might.
Very nicely put consultant. A masterpiece of under-stated clarity in fact. Compare your carefully chosen words with the far less polished Peter McKay of the Mail (see blog post).
Post a Comment