BEING AN INTERNATIONALLY FAMOUS CELEBRITY, people often come up to me and ask “David. Can I take a photograph of you?” My short and polite response to this solicitation is the same as the one I give to mendicants: No. This, I believe, is the sensible approach that anyone who is less than extremely photogenic should adopt.
NOT SO, APPARENTLY, FOR OUR GOOD LEADER, David “Davy Boy” Cameron, who has been discovered to have a “personal, private, family photographer” (sic) gainfully employed by our happy Prime Minister to take photographs of himself and his close family as a personal record “for posterity”.
LIKE SO MANY PEOPLE, I AM PLEASED to see that Mr Cameron loves his family so much that he wishes to see them captured forever on digital impressions which he no doubt has printed at the local chemists and then puts in albums that no one will ever see except when they are all drunk after dinner.
YET UNLIKE MANY PEOPLE, DAVID, since he became Prime Minister, has decided that his photographers (now plural) should be paid for by the taxpayer. Thus it is that Andrew Parsons, a former Tory party employee who is described as Mr Cameron’s “vanity photographer” became paid by our state. On an equal footing is Nicky Woodhouse, a filmmaker who has made hundreds of the 'web Cameron' films for the Conservative Party.
NONE OF THIS; OF COURSE, IS EXCEPTIONAL. Indeed, one expects politicians to be vain. But what is extraordinary is Cameron’s reaction to this fact when challenged on the issue in parliament by “Mr Ed” Miliband. In stating “ (…) it is not a lot of money. They only earn thirty five thousand pounds”, Davy has shown that he has no idea at all about life in modern Britain. But why should we expect him to be any different to most multi-millionaires?
No comments:
Post a Comment