The ever-unctuous Jacques Chirac has finally been convicted of corruption. Luckily for him, it is so long since he committed his crimes that he can no longer remember them, allegedly.
But, the French Court, doing little to boost confidence in its reliability for justice, has sentenced 79-year-old Jack to two years in prison – suspended!! Which usually means that the culprit should take care not to repeat his transgressions. As if! Under what conceivable circumstances could he now commit corruption?
Maybe a cherished colleague could unravel this piece of French logic?
Boadicea's Chariot 
Old boys act, or maybe Droit de Garçons Vieux.
The most important thing is that he has been found guilty. One good thing Chirac did was to recognise officially the responsibility of the French state for the atrocities committed by French officials in France during the Vichy régime. In terms of sleaziness, he comes far behind François Mitterrand, who was never charged with any corrupt acts.
Sheona: very true. In many respects Chirac was much like Richard Nixon. He wasn’t actually that corrupt, in fact, he was much less corrupt that his left-wing predecessor. The difference was that Chirac was caught.
Christopher, you are too kind! Chirac brazenly created 20 non-existent jobs which were duly paid to…… guess who? And Tricky Dicky, not corrupt? He sanctioned Watergate, FGS!
Sod “perfidious Albion”, just “Death to the frogs!”
Janus: I didn’t say he was not corrupt, just that he was in relative terms less corrupt than others.
I also didn’t say that Nixon was not corrupt, just that Lyndon B Johnson was a lot, lot, lot worse.
Watergate was nothing compared to LBJ’s policies. Slease all around.