Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Patrick Heren's avatar

I disagree. In fact I think this is a prejudiced, vituperative and dare I say unchristian view of the situation. The Commissioner’s investigation was unjust in that she did not want to hear evidence for the defence. She seems to have made her mind up well in advance, and may have been guided by her clearly left wing views. Paterson might well have played it differently but he chose to take the evidence of food adulteration directly to the department concerned. This is not influence-peddling, it is public spiritedness. He was not in breach of Parliamentary rules by having an advisory contract with these companies. The whole thing is a witch hunt by the press and the left.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts