Belbo, I believe if a client trusts your business with a transaction and pays the agreed fee you have a duty of loyalty and respect not to discuss that transaction in public especially if mocking that person. He didn't name him but he might as well have. I wouldn't do it and would hate it done to me.
There's a flaw in your logic, lads (yep sorry, you too Player).
Not only did McGrath not need to name the person, he did not even need to name the transaction.
Had he simply criticised Keen's argument, wouldn't he have implicitly betrayed Keen's 'client-trust' just as transparently as 'the actual person' was implied? (i.e. would any interested reader have missed that, seriously?)
So, by your logic, McGrath should have forevermore remained silent on Keen's publicity-stunting undermining of confidence in McGrath's own homeground property market?
If so, then please tell me, when does the McGrath duty to Keen stop and his duty to the rest of his clientele recommence, exactly?
According to your line of reasoning, never.
No, you'll have to do a lot better than that, and your appeal to heartstrings in the end -
- shows me that you actually know you do.I wouldn't do it and would hate it done to me
That is, unless you genuinely believe that McGrath should be permanently reduced by having once acted for Keen to the level of 'an anonomous source' commentator on Keen's crypto-Marxist announcements. Then, of course, I'll accept your point of view with the same tolerance I share for any religious defence against the hardships of reality.