Some More Bhat Covering

Dear Readers, it's been a while since we last updated this blog. Is there a better way to restart our posts than one about our old favourite Mr.Bhat? No. We did not think so either. So, here we go.

Just today we read his recent article lamenting that Rajya Sabha becoming the "(Last) Resort" of the industrialists and the rich.

He starts his article with Chaitanya "Chai" Patel. A doctor and businessman of Indian origin in Britain. Dr.Patel is making some news in UK because he gave £1.5m in loan to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party and was later nominated by Mr.Blair for a life peerage. (Peers, barring some restrictions by default are member of the British House of Lords)

Here is what Mr.Bhat writes about Dr.Patel:

...

[ಚೈತನ್ಯ ಪಟೇಲ್ ತನ್ನ] ಸಿಂಪಲ್, ಮುನ್ನುಗ್ಗುವ ಸ್ವಭಾವದಿಂದ ಬಹುಬೇಗ ಬ್ರಿಟನ್ ಪ್ರಧಾನಿ ಟೋನಿ ಬ್ಲೇರ್ ಸಖ್ಯ ಸಂಪಾದಿಸಿದ. ಪ್ರಧಾನಿಯ ಲೇಬರ್ ಪಾರ್ಟಿಗೆ 'ದೊಡ್ಡ ಗಂಟ'ನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಆ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಲ ಕೊಡುವುದು ಅಂತಾರೆ. ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷ ಸಾಲ ತೀರಿಸಬೇಕಿಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದರಿಂದ, ದೇಣಿಗೆಯ ಬದಲು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಲವಾಗಿ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ಚೈ ಪಟೇಲ್ ದೊಡ್ಡ ರಖಮ್ಮು 'ಸಾಲ' ಕೊಟ್ಟ. ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಕುದುರಿತು. ನಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಜ್ಯಸಭಾ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾಗುವಂತೆ, ಆತ ಅಲ್ಲಿನ ಹೌಸ್ ಆಫ್ ಲಾರ್ಡ್ಸ್ (ಮೇಲ್ಮನೆ) ಸದಸ್ಯನಾದ. ರಾತ್ರಿ ಬೆಳಗಾಗುವುದರೊಳಗೆ ಚೈ ಪಟೇಲ್ ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠಿತ ಶಾಸನಸಭೆಯ ಸದಸ್ಯನಾಗಿಬಿಟ್ಟ. ಉದ್ಯಮಪತಿಗಳು ಹಣದ ಥೈಲಿ ಹಿಡಿದು ಮೇಲ್ಮನೆ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದು ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗಳು ಬರೆದವು. ಬರೆದು ಬರೆದು ಸುಮ್ಮನಾದವು.

No. Not TRUE. The simple truth is as we write this post, Chai Patel is still not a member of the House of Lords. This is from The Times:

Despite their being nominated by Blair, the Appointments Commission, an independent body which vets potential peerages, has refused to ratify the honours for Patel, Garrard and Townsley. It has declined to give its reasons.

Mr.Bhat is also wrong when he writes that the political parties in Britain accept money in loans instead of donation because they don't have to repay the loans.("ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷ ಸಾಲ ತೀರಿಸಬೇಕಿಲ್ಲದಿರುವುದರಿಂದ, ದೇಣಿಗೆಯ ಬದಲು ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಲವಾಗಿ ಪಡೆಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ").
So, why did the Labor Party take the money in loans instead of donations?

Quoting the The Times again:

...

If he [Chai Patel] had given the money as a donation, it would have had to be declared to the Electoral Commission and published, so exposing Labour to a potential cash-for-honours controversy.
...
...
[Chai Patel] might have been prepared to convert the loan into a donation at a later date, which means it would not be publicised until long after he had been awarded an honour.

Labour introduced the loans scheme last year amid mounting criticism of party supporters being handed honours, including knighthoods and peerages, after giving donations.

...

Now, why does Mr.Bhat get these basic facts wrong in a column being read by hundreds of thousands of paying readers? Is it because he does not care? Or is it because the rearranged "facts" fit his narration better? Why let uncomfortable facts get in the way of a good story? Right?!

As the saying goes: We report, you decide.