Cherie 'exploits PM job for cash

Former Member

.

Former Member

What's the difference between this and a subsequent autobiography?

I have no objection.

Former Member

I have no problem with her doing it once he's left No 10, but it does seem dodgy to make money out of him being PM when he's still doing it.

Former Member

It's unethical, but then she's a lawyer so that isn't a problem

What else do you expect from this money grabbing crazy frog look-a-like. Has everyone forgotten the £100k she [allegedly] took from a Children's Cancer Charity, for doing a talk?

Former Member

I guess you can't really stop her. It does make her look cheap though. Like blagging free holidays in Egypt.

Former Member

I really cannot see the problem. At least this is out in public. If only those who work for imperial tobacco would do their "work" in full public view.....

Former Member

The Blairs' are serial spongers. I'm sure that their summer holidays to Tuscany are free, paid for by Silvio Berlusconi. That's when they aren't going to Barbados to crash at Sir Cliff's place. I don't blame Cherie for it, by all accounts she had quite a poor upbringing and I don't think many of us would be that different if we could get away with it. That said I think most of us could sense when we were pushing it and stop, I don't think she does - remember when she cleared out an Australian department store? They said she could have one or two freebies for the kids as a VIP and she loaded up thousands of pounds worth of stuff like it was Supermarket Sweep!

But it's by no means unusual for politicians to cash in on their jobs, been happening for decades; when all the nationalised companies were privatised a lot of senior Tory cabinet members got themselves some plum directorships; former PMs flog their books and give lecture tours...

then they all ask why joe public think they're in it for the money!

Former Member

Well she's as bent as her husband, and both of them would put African leaders to shame with their blatant and unchecked corruption.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

It's unethical, but then she's a lawyer so that isn't a problem

What else do you expect from this money grabbing crazy frog look-a-like. Has everyone forgotten the £100k she [allegedly] took from a Children's Cancer Charity, for doing a talk?

It's not unethical at all. She's a private person talking about her private life to people who consider her to be a public personality and who cause her and her family considerable problems as a result.
If she can cash in on the celebrity obsessed zombies, good for her. I'm sure her family have paid a considerable price for the strange way our culture treats the famous.

Former Member

morrismarina wrote:

She's a private person talking about her private life

From story - "She is giving an inside account of life in Downing Street"

Hardly private life...

She is using her position as the wife of the PM to make some cash for her family on the back of the public role.

I'm sure her family have paid a considerable price for the strange way our culture treats the famous.

I'm sure they have, indeed if rumours are true their duaghter has developed a serious depression problem. However, when you talk about the way we treat "famous" people, you forget that Mr Blair is PM and scruitiny of his life is part of the role. He uses the press to portray a certain persona. It's not like she is a shrinking violet either. If she didn't want publicity, she wouldn't seek it.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

From story - "She is giving an inside account of life in Downing Street"
Hardly private life...
She is using her position as the wife of the PM to make some cash for her family on the back of the public role.

She isn't a public figure - it is her private life.

Yea, she's using the goggle-eyed celeb obsessed wierdos whose insatiable desire for gossip has made her life less happy - to make some dough.

It's not unethical, it's a little victory. :hyper:

It would be especially ethical if she told them all what idiots they were for paying her so much for absolutely nothing.

Former Member

morrismarina wrote:

She isn't a public figure - it is her private life.

She is a public figure, because her and her husband have made her one. They cannot milk their strong marriage for political gain, and milk their children for political gain, and then complain when people call them up for their disgraceful and immoral behaviour. If she had never actively seeked the publicity she wouldn't be a public figure, and if she never dragged her family into the publicity she wouldn't be a public figure, but then again, she would be left alone too. Norma Major, for instance, was left alone and- guess what- that's because she wasn't a morally corrupt attention-seeking bat.

It's not her private life either. "Behind the scenes at #10" won't be a tale of how "supermum" has to do everything by herself (and her huge army of nannies). Or if it is, it is not being marketed as such. She is offering a talk on life as being a self-styled "first lady", and that is morally and ethically corrupt whilst they are still in office.

Not that the Blairs know the meaning of the word "moral".

It would be especially ethical if she told them all what idiots they were for paying her so much for absolutely nothing.

I agree with this, though. Except change "ethical" to "hilarious".

Former Member

I have no problem with her going off and selling herself for money, but what really gets me is that she will be given loads of security while she does it, as out expense, if it was a state thing then fine, but its a private gig so she should pay for her own damm security bloody spongers