Most helpful critical review
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful
Tabloid polemic, possibly true, but unsupported by evidence. Disappointing
on 23 June 2011
Heather Brooks has established her reputation by exposing the MP's expenses scandal, and she makes serious and worrying criticisms of the way we are governed, and the way politicians and civil servants misuse and manipulate information. She argues that the public are entitled to transparency and openness about how money is spent, and how decisions are made, and that the growing secrecy of the British political establishment is a major threat to civil liberty and effective governance.
I think I probably agree, but I'd like to judge the evidence for myself, and here is the difficulty, because The Silent State reads like a tabloid, making bold claims, without citing its evidence. She quotes politicians, civil servants, official reports, and statistics, without referencing her sources or providing footnotes, so the reader is in no position to check the facts, weigh the credibility of the evidence, or pursue the arguments she advances.
This is exactly the kind of shoddy use of `evidence' that she repeatedly criticises from government and state agencies. If this were an undergraduate essay it would fail, and I expected better from someone who expects to be taken seriously.