Where has anyone defended this? You are the one defending Rahman, and people are pointing out that he's corrupt as fuck. Party politics has nothing to do with it.
My response above was only regarding the not wanting corruption in the UK point. Eg highlighting the fact that there already is mass corruption and populism in politics, it's just higher ups doing and getting away with it.
I'm also not convinced on the Rahman thing. I feel like chunks of the media has been unfairly hounding and lambasting him for some time now, on stuff most politicians would be free of, whether it is because of his popularity, the tenacity of his supporters, his religion, race, political ideologies, re-allocation of funds to what others might class as minorities (even though they no longer are in Tower Hamlets), I have no idea. The court decision, and the vague nature of the conclusions, findings and evidence, is also not that surprising.
I look at corruption in politics much the way I do taxes and financing. It's not that the large corporations don't avoid taxes or skimp out on their dues, the same way many small businesses etc do, it's just that they're far more creative, and less blatant in the way they do it, and mostly covered for it when shit hits the fan, unlike the smaller businesses that often get the full brunt of repercussions. In this instance Rahman is the small business or sole trader, and his grass roots, more obvious musings have landed him in the shit, whereas the bigger fish (more prominent politicians or parties) will continue to do worse, and get away with it. But their top down strategy is generally more fool proof.
