[Jochim]

> It existed yesterday, last year. I'm sure Winston Churchill's girlfriend also did well out of the deal. c'est la vie.

It's exactly this type of dismissal that allows this level of corruption to fester. It was unacceptable yesterday and it still is today. The point is to try and do something about it rather than sit back while they make it harder to punish because "it's already a problem".

A research fund where the public will be forbidden from scrutinising the spending of people who are known to be corrupt is not comparable to a public park.

[dalbasal]

I am not dismissing anything. I am saying that corruption is not the only topic at hand. They're also trying to create a government agency. That is also a subject matter.

[Jochim]

> I am not dismissing anything

Then you've totally missed the point. People aren't arguing against the creation of a government research agency, they're arguing against the creation of one which makes it even easier for those in charge to put it to corrupt use. Remove the secrecy clause and the majority of the opposition disappears.

That this inscrutable agency is being set under a government with a record of misappropriating public funds for their personal gain is an aggravating factor and only servers as further proof as to why it's a terrible idea.