So there you are, planning your royal wedding street party, thinking to yourself, where can I get a Corgi jelly mould or some Wills and Kate bendy straws?' Quick trawl on the internet and, va voom, it's only a hop, skip and curtsey until you land on Party Pieces, the online knick knack business run by the future royal in-laws, Carole and Michael Middleton.
Yet, you'd think that Kate Middleton's parents should be carted off to the Tower (the real one, not the papier mache cake topper variety) for daring to sell coronation-style plastic crockery, and paper hats on their website now that their daughter is set to be our future Queen.
How vulgar, crow the toffs, who have filled countless newspaper columns snootily decrying the Middletons for appearing to cash in on their daughter's royal connections.
Off with their heads for daring, as was revealed this weekend, to launch a pack of Britannia scratch cards on British trivia – with a distinctly regal feel. Players who answer all their questions correctly are given the title 'Queen of England'. Those who are less successful are dismissed as 'The Queen's corgi', or warned, 'Off with your head'. Nice.
Of course, if the soon to be Princess Catherine had hooked up with a plumber's mate, her parents would have been free to pootle along, producing royal merchandise for their successful party wear business without the establishment breathing down their neck (Though I imagine the market for U-bend fairy cake cases is relatively limited). So why shouldn't they do the same now? What are they supposed to do? Starve? Or wait for the new in-laws to make up the loss of earnings (that's if they could drag Prince Charles away from saving red squirrels and other more worthy pursuits).
This is the Middleton's business, one which is tailored around obvious commercial opportunities. They are also self-made workaholics who have created their wealth rather than sponging off the state.
And, oh, the stinking hypocrisy of it all. I wouldn't care but every other Tom, Dick and Harry is cashing in on the forthcoming nuptials. Be it the auctioning of the tea cloth Kate Middleton wore when she first caught William's eye at a university fashion show. Or the top drawer designers showering our future Queen with goodies for her wardrobe.
So please, let's drop the sanctimonious claptrap about the Middletons' business. At least they work for a living. Air Miles Andy is hardly a role model for regal endeavour.
What's more, let's be grateful Kate's parents only run a party goods company. After all, had they been the bosses at Ann Summers, things could have got decidedly sticky.
Happy ending for Howard the double victim
A couple of weeks ago I highlighted the plight of a Salford chap called Howard Gordon who was made to pay 150 to redeem his stolen car from the police. Officers found the vehicle after he reported it missing and took it to the Greater Manchester Police compound. They told Howard they would only release the car if he stumped up the cash.
Understandably, Howard, and many readers, were astonished by the inequity of the victim's position. Here was an honest taxpayer, whose car was nicked, and thankfully recovered by police – as part of their job. And yet though the crime was solved, he then had to pay up for the privilege of getting his motor back.
However, I'm happy to report that yesterday Howard contacted me to say that his money has now been returned. After reading about the debacle in this column, he was contacted by police who decided to look further into the matter. They concluded that there had been some administrative failing – namely not giving Howard the chance to collect the car where it had been found rather than taking it into the compound – and so gave him his money back.
It's gratifying to appreciate, once again, the power of this fine newspaper to highlight injustice and so breach situations where the innocent man may otherwise suffer.
Better still if the Government reviewed the stingy, mean-spirited practice for penalising tax payers and making them cough up more for law enforcement.
没有评论:
发表评论