a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
Is there any chance that this whole thing is a 'mild psy-op', involving elements within the security services, Porton Down connections, and the
government - telling us that their hands are bound, at least in part, over the 'Russia Narrative'..?
"Hobson's Choice" is a very British term for a hypothetical scenario in which, of all choices available, each choice is equally terrible, with
absolutely no possibility of any outcome which is not almost equally bad for at least half of those concerned. For example, if closing a factory -
losing 100 jobs - will avoid the closure of two factories elsewhere, each with the loss of 50 jobs. In the event of closing the single, 100 job
factory, it is equally terrible an outcome, but the bet has been made that the two factories which remain open, may in future come to represent two
opportunities to employ more than 100 people at each.
So "Hobson's Choice" is the hard decision with no immediate winner, taken on the gamble that possibly, maybe, at some unknown & unpredictable moment
in the future, the choice taken may have turned out to be the best of a bad bunch, who knows, maybe even a good choice. But there are no guarantees,
and for the moment at least, almost everyone loses. Because of course, the decision-maker gets it in the neck from the people who lose their jobs,
and there's the added political pressure/ bad PR to deal with too. Even the guys who keep their jobs generally feel no sense of satisfaction, because
Damocles' sword hangs above them anyway, and their close call with redundancy probably gave them hypertension, or whatever, to boot.
Are 'the good guys' in our own security services letting us know that there is an agenda which they are powerless to affect? Is 'Sam Hobson' actually
an affiliate of those good guys, getting the message through to the public, encoding the fact that they are in no position to affect the narrative?
Did Sam Hobson disappear straight after giving this quote? And if he reappears, he will doubtless kowtow to the narrative - he may no longer be the
same Sam Hobson who gave the media this quote. Heads will roll at the BBC if they happened to be first with this quote, when it is seen that they
gave airtime to a non-narrative source. They will have been obligated to run with it if that source first spoke to a non-establishment media group.