Moralization of political life: And hop, already 1 minister in the trash basket

[Did67]

There, you talk about crimes (presumed - in the case of DSK, it is even more complicated; the use of whores is not, a crime - the question is to know who paid and in what interest -; the non-consent in some cases seem to have been "borderline", some young ladies having perhaps played the celebrity thus acquired).

I do not (intellectually) defend these cases !!! In no way. I come back to what made me intervene at the start: in the Ferrand "affair", at this stage and to my knowledge, there is none of that. Neither hidden account, nor denial of the facts, nor sexual abuse, nor a priori personal enrichment (the famous "abuse of social goods"), nor fictitious employment or "fictitious service" ... Be careful not to slip semantically. A match is not a beam, even if there is wood and a rectangular section.

Always try to be clear.

Still in testimony mode: I made an information under section 40 against a colleague, whom I estimated, whose facts which had been reported to me might suggest that there had been sexual abuse.

What to do ??? Not easy !!! Not easy at all !!! I don't wish anyone to be in this situation. In general, indeed, cowardice prevails! "We never really knew", "it was only a rumor ...", "it wasn't sure!" ... Well yes, it's rare that we attend the scene! !!

If justice worked well, we would be quiet: we would say to justice to decide. But we know how much it can pass by and "set up" a bazaar (I am referring here to Outreau). So we say to ourselves: a) I hope that the colleague does not defeat! ; b) I hope that justice will work properly. It's very hard as a situation!

There too, yaka, it's quickly written! Especially when it's the others. Izavaika !!!

[Grelinette]

What to do ??? Not easy !!! Not easy at all !!! ...

"Woe to him through whom the scandal will happen!"
It is undoubtedly the sentence which guarantees the best protection of the crooked politicards. (see what journalist Denis Robert, whistleblower of the Cleartream affair experienced, ditto for the butler of Bettencourt, and many others ...)

Another example, the Balkany, in recent months things have changed on their untouchability, but the corruption and the notorious frauds for which they are responsible have been a Polichinel secret for a long time and all the media have been talking about it regularly; I imagine that many were those who tried to report them, to no avail.

If justice worked well, we would be quiet: we would say to justice to decide. But we know how much it can pass by and "set up" a bazaar (I am referring here to Outreau). So we say to ourselves: a) I hope that the colleague does not defeat! ; b) I hope that justice will work properly. It's very hard as a situation!

Certainly, but how many victims have defenestrated themselves anonymously?
Abuses and frauds in French politics still have a bright future ahead of them.

When I think that in the countries of the north, a politician resigns for having paid a chocolate bar with public money, or because he improperly benefited from the reimbursement of an expense report (taxi, meal, ...).

In France we are still very far from it, and this is completely normal and legitimate, and even a counterweight (*), that the media and the public grumble at the slightest suspicion.

(*) In Sweden, there is the Imperative Principle of Transparency, in France, it is the Principle of the Presumption of Innocence which prevails: 2 diametrically opposite values.

[Did67]

When I think that in the countries of the north, a politician resigns for having paid a chocolate bar with public money, or because he improperly benefited from the reimbursement of an expense report (taxi, meal, ...).

In northern countries, citizens find it perfectly normal to pay taxes, sometimes even higher than ours! In France, it is normal to defraud, sometimes legally (by using and abusing tax loopholes) ... Perhaps we have the politicians we deserve?

[Ahmed]

Or is it perhaps the opposite? Would the aforementioned "citizens" not contest the compulsory deductions if they were certain that they would not be misused?
This question of moralization remains however at the level of a immanent critic which, if it were resolved, would not change the substantive questions that remain pending, in particular that of democracy and that (very closely linked) of a real political project, very different from what takes its place * today.

* Growth for growth, while the conditions of what more or less worked at a given time, become more and more impracticable.

[Did67]

Or is it perhaps the opposite? Would the aforementioned "citizens" not contest the compulsory deductions if they were certain that they would not be misused?

Still to be defined abusive: abuse of corporate assets? Let us say, that then, for the citizen who does not think much, that perhaps plays. But we must see that the "abuse of social goods" by politicians, all the politicians together, are insignificant with regard to the "frauds" of citizens ... So it comes back to the question of the match and the beam...

But of course, the match ignites! It gives a magnificent pretext to take refuge in extremes from which one can imagine what they would produce.

Something else, very serious, is the "political" question in the original sense of "management of the city". There, in fact, the "abusive", inaugurable "projects" which flatter the politician, and allow him to be re-elected, this figure, throughout the whole of France and at all levels (town hall, department, region, State ...) ... But this is not illegal! Just a wobbly democracy, for lack of anything better ...

[Grelinette]

and 2 ... it didn't drag on!

Political News
Suspicions of fictitious jobs: Marielle de Sarnez pleads legality
An investigation was opened for "breach of confidence" on suspicions of fictitious jobs of around thirty parliamentary assistants of MEPs.

The government of Emmanuel Macron sees the fear of business arise. After Richard Ferrand, it is Marielle de Sarnez who is indicted. The Minister of European Affairs on Monday denied any irregularity in the employment of an assistant paid by the European Parliament, while Le Parisien on Tuesday reported the opening of an investigation into the subject. According to Le Parisien, the Paris prosecutor's office on March 22 opened a preliminary investigation for "breach of trust" on suspicion of fictitious jobs targeting MEPs' assistants.

The line of defense remains the same: "It is not moral, but it is not 'illegal', and there is no personal enrichment"

In short, we can divert public money but move on, there is nothing to say!

[Janic]

The line of defense remains the same: "It is not moral, but it is not 'illegal', and there is no personal enrichment"

In short, we can divert public money but move on, there is nothing to say!

did probably gave the best answer:

Maybe we have the politicians we deserve?

a popular saying asserts that: "birds of a feather flock together" and it is the same in politics, in economics, in social, in religion. the large panel that exists in these various sectors leaves everyone the possibility of choice and adherence to what he considers his ideal. Legal or not because few of us are "little saints" and that one of us who has never tried to deflect the law (overtaking on the continuous line, exceeding the authorized speed, trying to blow up a fine, telephoning while driving, etc ... for the simplest laws) throws the first stone to others.
In addition to want to moralize (in a culture that has demoralized this society) is to put a sword in the water. An American city has found a simple and effective way to limit crimes in its city. After judgment (not before as we tend to do in our country) the sanctioned individual is condemned to wear a sign on which is written his offense and he must wear this sign on the most important passage of his city during a period determined. and as if by chance, delinquency fell abruptly there.

[Remundo]

there is nothing illegal about the Ferrand case.

on the other hand, there is personal enrichment since he uses the mutual fund as a piggy bank to pay himself (or else his wife's SCI, I believe), and that he managed the mutual fund himself.

afterwards, if the price is low and everyone is happy locally ... he also made a son "work" for 4 or 5 months ...

It is not dramatic, the problem is that after you come to open your big mouth on moralization ... while you are a vacuum cleaner of public or shared money.

If we wanted to sum up, Ferrand is a very small Fillon.

[Janic]

ferrand has just been interviewed on France inter where he provides his own explanations. Before spreading apriori or assumptions, why not wait for a real, legal judgment?

[chatelot16]

I see things differently: some big companies prefer to rent, and not to buy

So call for tenders and someone who buys and does the work is necessary to respond to the call for tenders!

and whoever does this work does not do it voluntarily ... it is risky work ... it is paid for ... it pays big when it works ... it can lose a lot if there are problems

if the real estate market were a little less complicated there could be a little less shenanigans like this ... but that's how it is and there is still work to do to improve things

no relation with fillon who did not defend himself ... it would be enough for him to say that penelope was ironing his shirts so that it would not be a fictitious job ... and if in addition she was taking care of her costume what heavy responsibility given their price ... what is frightening is that he did not defend himself ... which almost proves that the accusation was true, that any defense could have been proven untrue ... or even cause the revelation of worse

ferand is not under investigation ... as long as there is nothing we must not let some newspapers decide on the life or death of politicians

finally the majority of french people do not allow themselves to be manipulated ... the ferand affair does not lower the polls