The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has branded Google “evil” for failing to pay its “fair share” of taxes in the UK, but how does she stack up herself in the morality stakes?
First, no concessions to political correctness much less to the feminazis; if the chairman is a woman she is addressed as Madam Chairman. Margaret Hodge is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, in which capacity she has clearly left her feminine wiles at home. She has also been an MP for nearly twenty years, so she is no neophyte. Yesterday she branded the company whose motto is “Do no evil” precisely that because it does not pay its “fair share” of taxes in the UK, according to her sources.
What does fair mean, precisely? As everyone reading this knows, Google is a ginormous company that operates worldwide. Unlike many such companies, it does not ask us little people to put our hands in our pockets, and this is not the first time it has been lambasted by a senior British MP over this matter.
Google should pay more tax in the UK why, precisely? So this money can disappear into the black hole of the Treasury for the benefit of the banksters, the people who brought this country and almost every other to its knees? Or maybe it could be used to help fund the projected HS2 rail link that Miss Hodge has herself as good as branded a waste of money?
We all know the benefits Google brings us, so to claim this magnificent company is evil is quite frankly silly, but what would Miss Hodge do if she were Empress? If past performance is any kind of guide, she would do quite a lot of evil. Here is what the people who are monitoring our MPs say:
She is said to have voted moderately for a smoking ban.
If you see a bloke standing outside your local corner shop, cigarette in hand, heís probably the owner. Thanks to people like Miss Hodge, he is committing a criminal offence if he smokes in his own shop.
She voted strongly for Labourís anti-terrorism laws.
Of course she did, who wouldnít vote against terrorism? It is not clear from this report though if she endorses waterboarding, detention without trial or extraordinary rendition.
She voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
Hmm, so if you forget your wallet you are committing a criminal offence? Perhaps the way around that would be for us all to be microchipped, but letís not put ideas into her head.
She is said to have voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
So she has innocent blood on her hands, as well.
Finally, she is said to have voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
In other words, financial transparency for Google is of paramount importance, even though the company benefits Britain in all manner of ways, but transparency for government actions that led to untold suffering for millions and massive loss of life is a different thing entirely.
Clearly somebody has been doing evil here, and just as clearly, it sure ainít Google.
[The above op-ed was published originally May 17, 2013.]
Back To Digital Journal Index