Independent Judiciary My Backside
Reading Rottypup's (www.rottweillerpuppy.blogspot.com) latest rant about Charles Clarke (and who wouldnt) and the supposed determination of Home Secretary Bunter to curb terrorism which is supposedly being watered down entirely because of Government-appointed judges, I was moved to Comment quite extensively. And I liked what I wrote so much that my egomania has forced me to repost it here...
We all know how this goes. The Government tries to look all stern and rightwing and comes up with a new, harsh SOMETHING to deal with SOMEONE who is out of control. Even the Daily Mail applauds, saying that at last Blair and Clarke have got their act together to deal with the terrible problem of SOMEONE.
However the fact that none of these new, harsh SOMETHINGS ever ever make it to legislation unless they actually give Government in and of itself more powers (Civil Contingencies Bill anyone?) is, alas, temporarily forgotten in the orgy of stern, satisfied agreement with the need for SOMETHING to be done. 'Moderate' representatives (who come across suspiciously like extremely NON-moderate examples compared to Joe Public) of SOMEONE protest in the papers and on the television. The Independent runs a headline saying how this measure will victimise SOMEONE and cause them to do the things which SOMETHING must be done about far more often, in fact, so best just let them get on with 'occasionally' doing them.
And then, on behalf of SOMEONE, a man in a very large white wig, appointed by the same Government which is absolutely sure that SOMETHING must be done, says that NOTHING can in fact be done about the antics of SOMEONE and the Government which appointed him and maintains him in his vaunted halls of Justice must drop the idea. The Daily Mail runs a new headline about interfering MEN IN LARGE WHITE WIGS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. And the Government makes a vague attack on the dissappointing record of the men in white wigs whom they appointed in the first place. Once again nothing is done to stop SOMEONE from doing SOMETHING that needs to be stopped immediately.
Isnt it convenient that measures which affect Civil Liberties which, as a general yardstick lets say the Daily Mail would very broadly approve of are the only ones which seem to suffer this grisly fate at the hands of the men in white wigs. But measures such as the Civil Contingencies Bill which, amongst other things, allows the Government to declare Martial Law and suspend all Civil Liberties when the GOVERNMENT decides the situation warrants it, seem to pass right under the radar of the ever-vigilant men in white wigs. Independent Judiciary?
Yeah. Right.
We all know how this goes. The Government tries to look all stern and rightwing and comes up with a new, harsh SOMETHING to deal with SOMEONE who is out of control. Even the Daily Mail applauds, saying that at last Blair and Clarke have got their act together to deal with the terrible problem of SOMEONE.
However the fact that none of these new, harsh SOMETHINGS ever ever make it to legislation unless they actually give Government in and of itself more powers (Civil Contingencies Bill anyone?) is, alas, temporarily forgotten in the orgy of stern, satisfied agreement with the need for SOMETHING to be done. 'Moderate' representatives (who come across suspiciously like extremely NON-moderate examples compared to Joe Public) of SOMEONE protest in the papers and on the television. The Independent runs a headline saying how this measure will victimise SOMEONE and cause them to do the things which SOMETHING must be done about far more often, in fact, so best just let them get on with 'occasionally' doing them.
And then, on behalf of SOMEONE, a man in a very large white wig, appointed by the same Government which is absolutely sure that SOMETHING must be done, says that NOTHING can in fact be done about the antics of SOMEONE and the Government which appointed him and maintains him in his vaunted halls of Justice must drop the idea. The Daily Mail runs a new headline about interfering MEN IN LARGE WHITE WIGS OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. And the Government makes a vague attack on the dissappointing record of the men in white wigs whom they appointed in the first place. Once again nothing is done to stop SOMEONE from doing SOMETHING that needs to be stopped immediately.
Isnt it convenient that measures which affect Civil Liberties which, as a general yardstick lets say the Daily Mail would very broadly approve of are the only ones which seem to suffer this grisly fate at the hands of the men in white wigs. But measures such as the Civil Contingencies Bill which, amongst other things, allows the Government to declare Martial Law and suspend all Civil Liberties when the GOVERNMENT decides the situation warrants it, seem to pass right under the radar of the ever-vigilant men in white wigs. Independent Judiciary?
Yeah. Right.
posted by Dangerouslysubversivedad at 11:37 AM
1 Comments:
One of the things to rememeber (unlike the Daily Mail and the government of the day) is that there is frequently laws and powers already available to deal with the menace.
To pick Dunblaine as an example, the local police knew that the fellow they had given a firearms license was a wacko conspiracy theorist writing crazed letters to the Queen.
Or, to pick another example, that poor Victoria Climbie girl was well known to the Social Services, who were too afraid of violence to do anything to help.
Or, if you prefer, there have been laws against conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to cause explosions, and behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace for at least the last 30 years.
But the call is for politicians to Do Something, and what politicians do is pass more laws -- oh, and award lucrative contracts to build and run 1984-style databases to the people that paid for their last election campaign.
But that's all right: the same people paid for the election campaign of the Blue Party, so whoever wins the Usual Suspects get their PFI contracts -- and you get your Big Brother state.
Post a Comment
<< Home