Conniving gits deny any wrongdoing

Mr. Mandelson denies any wrongdoing, again, and again, and again....

Mr. Mandelson denies any wrongdoing, again, and again, and again....

I hear that a French judge has issued an “international” arrest warrant against Floyd Landis, an American cyclist, for suspected hacking into an anti-doping laboratory computer. Mr. Landis has “denied any wrong doing”. Perhaps Mr. Landis is completely innocent but I thought it worthwhile to provide a translation for those not familiar with the English language.

The phrase “denied any wrongdoing” has a special meaning in English which is in exact opposition to that which might be expected. The phrase is often used by politicians when they are caught committing some crime or misdemeanour. The meaning is this:

“I am a conniving git who is guilty as sin but I have not yet worked out my story. Specifically I have not yet worked out which details of my crime for which the authorities have acquired irrefutable evidence and for which, a specific denial, would catch me out. I am therefore making this bland general denial of everything in the desperate hope that the authorities have not got enough evidence to convict me and to play for time while my expensive legal advisers work out a way for me to bluff this out.”

Mr. Landis is not in good company. Some politicians who have hid behind this bollocks include:

Peter Mandelson denies any wrongdoing
Lord Levy denies any wrongdoing
Hazel Blears denies any wrongdoing
Tony Blair denies any wrongdoing
Harriet Harman denies any wrongdoing

When these people deny any wrong doing they are, of course, TALKING BOLLOCKS!

3 thoughts on “Conniving gits deny any wrongdoing

  1. No beef in this—In fact denies any wrongdoing is an obvious tactic, if you arent going to confess: denying wrongdoing is what the legal profession does. The alternative system is proof by innuendo, or the Guantanmo method. Despite your assertions evidence of wrongdoing is still required: you have fallen into the tabloid trap of guilt by accusation.

  2. No, I don’t agree. If you are accused of fiddling your expenses you should be able to say “I have not fiddled my expenses”. Bu they don’t they just deny any wrongdoing.

    Sure it’s a standard lawyer, don’t say anything tactic but when they trot it out without even meeting the argument it stinks of conniving gitism.

  3. Of course they’ve fiddled their expenses; what they are saying is it’s legal (until you or HMRC prove otherwise), even though most people will think it is morally wrong, which will make look like a conniving git, and hence lose me votes. The thing I hate about this is if you or I try this one, we get hammered. For us, we get jumped on as soon as we try anything, and we have to prove our innocence (the only area of UK law where you are guilty until proved innocent is tax).
    We aren’t protected by a bunch of conniving civil servants. We’re hounded by them.
    I don’t care if they can get away with expenses, just apply the same rules to everybody, you conniving gits; and stop smoking inside, like everybody else, or let us do the same.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s