I do not wish to generalise, but I'd like to think many of you are nodding along and thinking: Yeah, I'm totally with that plumber. What a two-faced twatwaffle that politician sounds. He's obviously a snake in the grass who cares only for himself.
Okay, now I'm going to tweak this scenario slightly. Let's change the profession. Instead of a plumber, we will have a young woman who earns her income as a sugar baby. The profession of her client will remain a politician. The politician does not pay the agreed sum, so she goes public. All of a sudden she's the bad guy in the scenario. Interesting, isn't it?
Of course, you're aware I'm referring to the Andrew Broad brouhaha that is clogging up our timelines and news feeds. The young woman is being accused of blackmail. All I see is someone trying to claim her agreed fee for a service. The amount sought totalled approximately $1,500.00AUS, so I can't see why that freaking fool Andrew Broad didn't just pay the damn money and be done with it, because nobody would be any the wiser.
What really shits me about Broad's decision to use the Sugar Babies dating site is his rancid hypocrisy. It's almost a cliché: married politician who espouses traditional Christian values, to the point he vigorously opposed same sex marriage on these bases, is - to use a pithy, overused, and somewhat odious phrase - 'embroiled in a sex scandal'. I don't care if people bang each other, provided they're consenting adults; I just get the shits with the hypocrisy of it all. Not to mention his nausea-inducing pick-up lines about how he wanted to caress her and whisper 'G'day'. Eeeeewwwww, I think my labia shrivelled. I remember when I was a young thing, maybe a bit younger than the subject sugar baby, and some guy said to me, 'I'm nineteen and still a virgin. What about breaking me in?' I thought was a shit chat-up line, but I think Andrew Broad cornered the market on them. If you're wondering: no, I did not take the guy up on his proposal.
Other thing that's bugging me: all the people whingeing about the Queen having delivered her Christmas message with a gold piano in the background. Couple of things: it's not gold; it's timber with gilt. Queen Elizabeth II didn't buy it; I understand it to have been bought by Queen Victoria. If this is the case, then it's been in the Royal household for quite a number of years, and so what? Something else: the Queen lives in Buckingham Palace, so her drawing room (or whatever the room in which she delivered the message - it could have been the dunny for all I know) is going to be furnished with relative opulence. You are not going to see an Ikea sideboard, atop which is a figurine of a cocker spaniel with chipped paintwork. The floor will be graced with authentic Aubusson, not a series of synthetic fire hazards from Maharajah Matt's Mats. There will not be a magazine rack from Copperart in sight. The artwork on the walls will resemble this:
Personally, I take greater umbrage with the concept of a celibate man who lives in luxury deciding the issue of contraception for Catholics in impoverished countries who cannot afford to have more children, than I do with the Queen delivering a message on Christmas Day from the confines of a tastefully furnished room. I also get peeved off with grubs like Rupert Murdoch, a scabrous reptile who pays zero tax in Australia, having his news outlets engage in welfare bashing and trying to influence our government. But the Queen sitting in front of a rather gaudy looking piano? Nah, I think I'll pick a better hill to die on.
No comments:
Post a Comment